Groceteria.com

Hi all.

I'm thinking of changing the format of the message board so that it's regionally-based. in other words, I'd divide the forums into categories like "Northeastern USA" and "Southern California", etc. rather than using the current categories such as "Specific Locations", etc. There would, of course, also be a catch-all category for posts that might apply to more than one region.

Keep in mind, the focus of all these new forums would still be on history, and not current events, although I would probably keep the separate current events forum that's here now. I'd probably also keep non-grocery retail in a separate forum.

I think this change would make it easier and less confusing for most users.

I'm open to feedback on whether you think the change is a good idea and also to suggestions about what the actual regions should be. Feel free to reply here.

I think it would get more of us involved because while I enjoy reading about the California grocery store landscape of the past and present, I can't really relate to it because it's not what I know from first hand experience. Sounds like a great idea-count me as a yes vote.

i dont think it would make anything better because if you still click on view new posts since you last visited, it wouldn't separate or do anything about that...

I like the regional topics David.

I usually dont read many of the articles about east coast grocers.

Maybe something like:

SOUTHWEST (Excluding California)
- Locations
- General Info on Specific chains (native to region only)

Do that for West Coast (Including California and Northwest) , Midwest, Southeast/Mid Atlantic and North East.

Then a final forum for News Events and Non Grocery.

David, I think going regional is a good idea because it allows the readers to home in on posts that are of prime interest. If regions ARE designated, it becomes an issue of balancing logical grouping along with the desire to create just the right number of regions, i.e., not too many and not too few. To that end, it would seem logical to separate California from (almost) everything else since this board is so heavilly weighted by folks with interests in that area. Whether to split the state into Southern and Northern regions is another issue, so assuming that California itself is not split, I would suggest the following regions:

1. California PLUS Nevada (since it seems like Las Vegas marketing directions tend to move in concert with the goings-on in California)
2. Pacific Northwest (including Idaho and Alaska)
3. Rocky Mountain (Montana down through Arizona and New Mexico)
4. South Central (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana)
5. Mid Continent and Northern Plains (Missouri up through the Dakotas and Minnesota)
6. Great Lakes (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio)
7. Northeast (New England states down to and including Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia)
8. Southeast (Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, down to Florida and over to Mississippi)
9. All extra-continental U.S. territory (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.)
10. Canada
11. All others

If this seems like too many regions, South Central and Mid Continent and Northern Plains could be put together into a single Central States region; other logical realignments could also be made.

Just a few ideas to consider...

buckhead wrote:David, I think going regional is a good idea because it allows the readers to home in on posts that are of prime interest. If regions ARE designated, it becomes an issue of balancing logical grouping along with the desire to create just the right number of regions, i.e., not too many and not too few. To that end, it would seem logical to separate California from (almost) everything else since this board is so heavilly weighted by folks with interests in that area. Whether to split the state into Southern and Northern regions is another issue, so assuming that California itself is not split, I would suggest the following regions:

1. California PLUS Nevada (since it seems like Las Vegas marketing directions tend to move in concert with the goings-on in California)
2. Pacific Northwest (including Idaho and Alaska)
3. Rocky Mountain (Montana down through Arizona and New Mexico)
4. South Central (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana)
5. Mid Continent and Northern Plains (Missouri up through the Dakotas and Minnesota)
6. Great Lakes (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio)
7. Northeast (New England states down to and including Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia)
8. Southeast (Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, down to Florida and over to Mississippi)
9. All extra-continental U.S. territory (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.)
10. Canada
11. All others

If this seems like too many regions, South Central and Mid Continent and Northern Plains could be put together into a single Central States region; other logical realignments could also be made.

Just a few ideas to consider...

I'd probably keep the number of regions down to a minimum because otherwise you create too many "on the border" situations. For example, there are instances where Virginia's supermarket history has a southeastern focus, and some where it followed northeastern influences. West Virginia can be more influenced by Ohio and Pennsylvania than the southeast.

I'd probably make the divisions more broad.

My current working model for the US is as follows:

Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN
Mid-Atlantic: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT
Midwest: IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI
Southwest: AZ, HI, NV, NM, OK, TX
California
Northwest: AK, CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY

It's subject to change, though.