Should "blog" and "discussion" content types be merged?

Can you explain a bit more what the difference is between a "blog" and a "discussion"? To me a blog is something posted by a limited group of people as the main article and a lot of more random people can comment. A discussion seems more like something anyone can create, not just the site owners / content creators.

If folks REALLY wanted a blog type, would you expect that they'd just create their own content type for that activity?

How does a discussion differ from a forum topic?

@crimsondryad: Also I would like to add, in Drupal Commons (6.x-2.x) blog is exactly what you described as discussion: blog is type of content that anyone can create in every group where Blog content type (feature) is enabled. :)

+1 for removing blog content type in 7.x-3.x.

having both blog and discussion is good for three reasons 1. I can allow my users to have their own blog (my niche is use to creating blogs) 2. when adding new content, there will be less choices and therefore a narrowing of options for users 3. those with already established blogs on commons will lose their blogs

I find the talk in here about how discussions/blogs are the same thing a bit confusing. Unless I'm missing something, surely they're not... even if both are based on ideas and comments, those ideas and comments may be displayed differently based on the type. For example, blog posts create an individual blog per user (which would be pointless for discussion posts), which is quite nice I think and a cheap feature for Commons, on discussions there's an emphasis on threaded display and the comments made on a discussion starter post have an equal importance as the original post, so discussions can be divergent, they can branch off tangentially, but comments on blog posts generally won't, comments on a blog post will generally always be directly targeted at that original post.

Just because they're essentially the same content type in Drupal doesn't make them the same thing to the end user. I've found the distinction between 'Blog' / 'Discussion' quite readily understood - that in a blog a user makes a speech, allowing comment, and in a discussion they raise a question, inviting comment.

@lightsurge Yep...that is where I was going with my question. Well said.

Ok, I'm mulling over this a bit more. And I kinda see ezra-g's point. Fundamentally, they are the same thing. Whether it's a question or a forum topic / discussion, one person makes a statement and others are invited to comment.

I think where I'm getting hung up is that to me, blog = site owner. discussion = registered users ( not affiliated directly with site building ). So the functionality is essentially the same, the difference lies in how the content is administered. Having them split out would make it much easier for a site builder to manage permissions for different roles ( like a blogger vs registered user role ). So to me, if anything discussion and forum would be merged, not discussion and blog.

For example, say you had 2 sections of beauty.com. One blog section had a panel of 5 beauty experts affiliated with the site who made authoritative posts as subject matter experts but registered users could comment on the post. The other "discussion" section I see working more like a forum topic where a registered user ( like a 13 yr old with acne or a 40 year old asking about eye shadow color ) can ask the other members of the community ( ie, other registered users ) what their thoughts are.

I changed the issue title to more accurately reflect the actual question ( from "Migrate content types and content field data" to "Should blog and discussion content types be merged"

A root cause of the problem is that Drupal has often used the same content types for both blogs and discussions (for instance, in the core forum). That is, node + comments: the first post is the node and the second and following posts are comments to the node.

In most other software this structure (a main post and comments) is used for blogs and articles. On the other hand, for discussions/forums, the most popular applications (vBulletin, phpBB, SMF, IP.Board, etc.) use a different structure where all posts in the discussion/thread -including the first one- are equal. This allows advanced post administration, splitting or merging discussions while keeping chronological order, moving posts around, etc.

It has been discussed already on g.d.o. And for example Drupal's Artesian Forum (not yet released) is a very interesting development to have a standard forum for Drupal, with entities for forums, threads, and posts (all posts equal). As said, vBulletin, phpBB, SMF, IP.Board, and most discussion software, have a similar architecture.

On the other hand, for discussions/forums, the most popular applications (vBulletin, phpBB, SMF, IP.Board, etc.) use a different structure where all posts in the discussion/thread -including the first one- are equal.

Yep...this was the distinction I was trying to make, where the first post is equal to the other replies.

I agree with ezra-g about having either Blog or Discussion content type, but not both. It's easy enough for a site maintainer to add an additional content type if they want, but out of the box, I think we should reduce complexity, and focus on a good user experience with the more sophisticated content types (wiki, Q&As, Events, etc etc)

In Commons 3.x designs, we have called this a Post, just your basic node with comments.

I think this needs to be cleared up that this thread is about merging blog/discussion for upgrade path purposes, because given that there wasn't any particularly discussion-like functionality that differentiated from blog, the discussion type is likely to be abandoned unless #1629890: Discussion forums has any affect.

The problem with just merging is that semantically people end up with content on their sites with different meanings fused together, which is not good - people won't want blog posts lumped together with discussion posts if anybody actually took the meaning behind the two seriously (as they have on my sites).

My preference would be to kept an inactive legacy discussion type (not blog) content type, so they can be kept separate, and blogs to be merged (in name) with 'posts', and there'd obviously be no capacity for future discussions to be created (without #1629890: Discussion forums).

That way, we can easily create a view of say user/%/blog that lists a user view of blog/post entries, without also including the discussions.

My niche also needs blogs but....

Correct me if I am wrong because i am new to both Drupal and Commons but, I am under the impression that to enable user blogs site administrators needs only to enable blog feature in Drupal core....... So, unless I am wrong I'd rather see commons developer team focus on other things which are more sophisticated like lisarex mentioned in #10

I'm not sure I follow, the proposal isn't any more sophisticated, as per ezra-g:

It seems we could either change the 'blog' nodes to discussion nodes, or provide a legacy Blog module for upgrading sites.

from #10:

In Commons 3.x designs, we have called this a Post, just your basic node with comments.

So discussions under the current proposal would become posts, and blog nodes would either become posts or remain a separate legacy content type.

For me, my current discussions wouldn't fit well as 'posts', that sounds like blog posts to me, and if they were imported as such, any new posts that users created would get bundled in with the discussions which would be messy (i.e. I wouldn't easily be able to do anything special with the discussions in future). If blog nodes were changed to discussion nodes that would be messier still.

That's why I think it would be less messy to keep a legacy discussion content type and change blog nodes to posts (rather than the other way round as currently).

And I'm not sure it would be as simple as enabling core blog module to create a blog per user anyway, not as it works right now anyway. Unless you did something special you'd just end up with both 'blog post' content type and 'post' content type which sounds duplication to me, and you'd have to add a blog post feature for users to be able to create any through the Commons UI. It's probably actually easier to create a view that lists a user's 'posts'.

This has been fixed, as we're using a simple 'post' CT, and this does work okay for discussions as well.. it really depends on the content of a post if its a discussion or something informational.

I'd say a blog post, for the most part, is an invitation to become a discussion through comments that follow it.

I disagree, as I said in #5, in a blog a user makes a speech, possibly allowing comment, in a discussion a user raises a question, appealing for discussion. Very different, thus IMO deserving separate presentation/interface, just as specifically as all the other content types in Commons 7.x already separated from 'posts'. Therefore, only offering the option to 'post' doesn't really seem to be a solution, indeed I think most people would interpret 'post' as blogging. But, I give up ;-)

Closing #1629890: Discussion forums as duplicate.

There are many ways to try and see it. A forum can be like a public container for specific topics to be discussed. Pretty much anybody post about those specific topics and it's generally understood to stay on topic with actual real data.

Blogs on the other hand are like personal containers where one persons topic could be anything. It will probably also be less active as it might would be if it were posted in a discussion forum. The type of information from blog post and any comments if allowed are quite a different nature.

Then why have a Wiki content type and a Post content type? To me what is slightly off is that one would normally think to post a blog, post a comment, or to post an ad. "Post" should have referred to all of the content and not to a type of content.

When it comes down to the separation and presentation of that data it makes a big difference in the long run. Perhaps try to call it Blog post or something that gives a bit more clue as to what's being posted. Thanks.

not sure this is actually "fixed," but since I can't change it to won't fix I'll change it and chime in again. As per #14.

I'd say a blog post, for the most part, is an invitation to become a discussion through comments that follow it.

That distinction is pretty arbitrary in the context of something common, so yes that may be true.

...... But generally(Commonly) speaking I'm not sure the inverse of that would be true? Sure one can discuss and comment about a blog, but I'd like to see you try and post a "blog" type post here. There is a time and place for everything including blog content type

I'm not really sure that you want to try and merge the two. Seems a blog type would contain more information and a discussion type would contain less and point to other blogs/articles for more information?

I'm just trying to provide some feedback, so I hope it's useful to you. Thanks again for the outstanding work!