Asking about relevance raises the question of "to whom?" Or "to what?" (Relevance is always relative, i.e., related to something or someone.) Is RFF relevant to global photographic sales? Photography on global social media? Photographic technology development? Perhaps not. Is it relevant to those individuals who post questions, commentary, and yes, even photos on RFF? Yes, most assuredly it is. (As an aside: I am frequently struck by the number of dedicated photo threads on RFF -- sure, many of those are gear-centric (photos with such-and-such lens), but as a community RFF is pretty active in shooting images and posting them. We don't always discuss image content that much, perhaps because we find candid critique abrasive and corrosive of civility, but that's okay as there are other venues for people to seek out that sort of exchange.) Is RFF relevant to people searching for answers to questions about rangefinders (new and old)? Yep, I am sure it serves as a repository and interactive resource of knowledge and answers to a whole host of questions and concerns.
IMO, there's no need to wring our hands or even feel twinges of angst that somehow we're "not relevant" to a wider body of photographers. Since early days, there have always been multiple venues for photographic knowledge, each catering to sub-groups within the larger community of the photography obsessed. That hasn't changed and RFF serves its fairly small community well. In other words, RFF remains relevant to the people who make up the RFF community, as well as to some number of lurkers who pass through without leaving any trace, except in traffic stats and bandwidth usage. That's good enough, I reckon.
