Megathread discussion, revisited

This conversation came up again as a result of the giant Geometry Nodes thread where there was a request to keep the discussion there about the development of Geometry Nodes and all other posts of examples, tests, assets, or support questions be made in their own threads in the relevant category, tagged with the #geometry-nodes tag.

Some snippets from the end of that conversation:

In response to the last comment, it’s not an assumption. It’s observed behavior and something that people have explicitly said that they do. They also do it because it’s slightly easier to hit Reply than to start a new thread.

But things do get lost, or at least more difficult to find. Sifting through thousands of posts, even with the benefit of search, is not a great experience. Ultimately, you can get the same utility with added benefit of context (from category names and thread titles) by visiting the #geometry-nodes tag just like you visit this thread.


I can understand this, and recognize that it is part of a transition. We have these subforums as carryover from the vbulletin days, but now we are trying to take advantage of the new hotness available with modern forums.

It is still a little perplexing that we can have a subforum for a feature that hasn’t been in blender for over 4 years, but we cannot have one that is in active development and making some some big waves for blender’s profile.


This is certainly something I’d like to remedy. It’s really about finding the time to do it. We’ve already discussed merging the #game-engine categories back into the rest of our categories here at BA. It takes time, though. But maybe it’s time for us to just bite the bullet and do that.


Does this mean the #game-engine category will disappear as well by chance?
Since the game-engine was removed officially over 4 years ago from Blender source.

1 Like

When it comes to the case of finding things in long threads, I wonder if the Discourse guys ever considered allowing mods or users to set breakpoints in the thread navigator and call them ‘chapters’. It might be something to ask them if the staff remains dead set on avoiding the reintroduction of thread pages.

A lot of Youtube videos that are long use chapters now and it really helps with navigation.


Hey !
I also agree that even if that mega-thread is awesome, full of energy, with great ideas, problems solved etc… Many useful information is kind of lost here. I answered different people having some issue by pointing to great solutions find in this thread, but it’s always complicated to recover them.
And furthermost, they may have find it by themselves if that was easier to access, but I don’t blame them for not taking the time to read everything this thread as to offer.

I think this thread could be split in different subjects, is that something possible ? and do you think it will break the good energy of what’s happening here ?

Here is how I would have spit it into different subjects :
1/ some development related information, new features, general discussion, the story of geo-nodes.
2/ some personal experiments, people showing what they do with it. / Tutorials.
3/ some great answer to a particular issue, a kind of FAQ / cookbook ( using the current field system)
4/ some snippets, utility node groups meant for reuse. ( using the current field system)
5/ Someone looking for specific feedback on a specific project. (less general than the 3) May be split in their own thread.
What do you think ?

I think every new geo-node users may find interest in all these subject separately, and having them in separated thread could help a lot IMO to make that knowledge more useful by being more accessible.

This thread is a goldmine of information/tips and tricks, but very hard to access unless you take the time to read everything… And that could only get worse, leading to some point were people will start to ask and answer things multiple time.

What do you think ?

Another solution, could be to leave that thread as it is, and cherry pick some informational posts and copy-paste it in other dedicated thread, is that something possible ?

Bear with me and I apologize in advance if some things that I propose doesn’t fit the general usage of a forum.

Anyway, I’m willing to help do some triage, fell free to ask me if that’s needed !


Not really disappear, so much as be integrated back into the rest of the forum. There’s an outline for what the future state should look like, but I don’t have the time at the moment to track down the link to it.

I’m not inclined to break up that thread… quite frankly, that’s more effort that I’d want to put in. I’d rather keep the thread in its current state focused on development stuff, but perhaps create new threads with the focus you’ve mentioned.

I don’t necessarily mind a giant “GN experiments” thread in #artwork:blender-tests, but if that starts delving into support questions, then those bits would need to be split out.


Ok I see !
Indeed maybe splitting that actual thread is a bit too much work, and if things starts to get better organized people will find their way into that !

On the subject of categories vs tags, do you intend to just keep tags by any chance ? It seems they overlap quite a bit in the end. The homepage could show a selection of most frequently used tags, or tags corresponding to the current list of categories (the typical lighting, modeling, etc).

1 Like

I like your idea of splitting the discussion by “aspect”, but then I’m not sure it’s possible to respect those boundaries without some tremendous effort. To me, a conversation is a living thing that frequently goes from “see what Hans impemented today” (development news) to “here’s how it can be used” (tutorial) to “here’s how I abused it to make an alien city planner” (personal experiment) and finally “why doesn’t it work in this case?” (support). These are all tied together and that’s why I am not completely sold on the idea. But I say let’s try it and see?

I like that, and we’d save you as much splitting work as possible by starting new threads when it makes sense to do so

Ultimately, what’s needed is an extensive user manual for geometry nodes. I don’t mean just a list of nodes and their description, but a manual akin to the 3dsmax one, back in the day, when it had example scenes and explanations as to what’s going on. That would be a big documentation effort.

Yes indeed it’s part of the DNA of a forum to have things slide out of topic.
The giant conversation with all subject mixed together is interesting and makes sense, as you said everything is connected, but quite hard to refer to later. Kind of like a chat. Who goes into Discord to read all what as been said on a particular channel. But maybe that’s where chat and forums ends and we shouldn’t force them too much into something else.
I think it’s worth trying to split things a bit and see how that goes… even if that won’t be perfect either.

Similarly to code, a good documentation is helpful but limited. Cookbooks, snippets, or something like stackexange is where you should look when working on a particular piece of code.
Something along the line of NukePedia would be awesome to have too, where people share node groups for latter reuse.
But indeed these are more specific than a forum.


Might be best to rename current “Geometry Nodes” thread to “Geometry Nodes Open Exploration” or something like that and start a new thread for “Geometry Nodes Development News & Feedback ONLY”

What if the support question is directly related to the experiment/discoveries discussed in the previous 20 posts in the thread?

1 Like