Making The Shark Pool More Useful - How To Post & Discuss Breaking News (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

As do I for informed commentary, hilarious zingers and frustrating back-and-forths that more often than not, in my experience, lead to two people coming to a better understanding.

But getting us to follow a specific thread title nomenclature? I don't see it, particularly because I doubt many of us are going to see this thread on the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend.

Frankly doesn't this whole process happen already just without the standardized title nomenclature? Doesn't it always develop the same way?

1) Hunter Henry tears his ACL

2) Maybe a couple dozen of us rush to the boards and either

   A) Start 1-5 new threads on the subject

   B) Go to the official thread and post the link to the story about a dozen times

3) Discussion commences in multiple places

4) Eventually we start to clamor for the threads to be merged because the discussion is being diluted and the front page is being polluted because of too many threads on the subject.

If the moderators aren't going to take the lead by modifying the thread title nomenclature, and pruning the redundant threads that will inevitably pop up (again lots will miss this thread due to the holiday), then I don't think anything significant will change by Labor Day.

I don't think it develops that way at all as you describe above. Our guys are way smarter than that. 

Maybe we relax the nomenclature some. Some things are non negotiable though like providing a link to the story. I'm confident guys can do that well. If you think guys aren't capable of seeing if a Hunter Henry ACL thread is already there, we'll just disagree. 

And for sure, it'll be led by you guys. For sure not the moderators. You guys are smart. You don't need the moderators for something like this.

 

[Joe Bryant]

"Nomenclature"?  This is the shark pool--not dictionary.com.  For real--what does that mean?  I was an English major and I'm not familiar with that term. Help a brotha out. 

Hi @jvdesigns2002  He means how we name the threads that are breaking news. 

 

[Chaka]

"Nomenclature"?  This is the shark pool--not dictionary.com.  For real--what does that mean?  I was an English major and I'm not familiar with that term. Help a brotha out. 

It just refers to how Joe wants to standardize breaking news thread titles.

For example the standard thread title for an injured player should have [date][player name][injury] which in the Hunter Henry case would be something like 052218_Hunter_Henry_ACL or something like that (of course being the dork I am I would prefer 220518_Hunter_Henry_ACL because it makes no sense to go month/day/year instead of day/month/year). 

The point being that with a standard nomenclature all the thread titles would look the same to make them easier to spot.

 

[Biabreakable]

You're assuming everyone else functions like you.  We don't.  For some of us the SP *is* our news aggregator.  I don't use Twitter.  I don't want to Google search a to of guys I am interested in following and I don't want to count on ESPN for timely updates on breaking news.  Breaking news is actionable 365 days a year for dynasty players, no need to limit it to whether or not we've drafted him.

Of course it is actionable 365 days a year IF you read the thread.

When it comes to legal issues or possible suspension that information might take months to actually play out, just look at Elliot last year.

If people want to draft and/or trade for players without keeping up on what has happened with those players I don't think a title of a thread or a separate thread is going to help them.

If someone sends me a trade offer the first thing I am going to do is read up on those players to see if there is some reason why the other owner is trying to move them I do not know about. Maybe other people don't do this. I think they should. I suppose if they don't they can blame it on the information they didn't know not being in the title of a thread?

Oy vey.

 

[Tom Hagen]

Same way with article titles on the site. We want the readers to be able to know what he's getting when he clicks on the link. Exactly the same for the message board thread titles. 

Not to get off topic, but one of my biggest annoyances with the subscriber content is titles that don't explain what the article is about. For The Win, The Profit or Gut Check are not descriptive names.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Of course it is actionable 365 days a year IF you read the thread.

When it comes to legal issues or possible suspension that information might take months to actually play out, just look at Elliot last year.

If people want to draft and/or trade for players without keeping up on what has happened with those players I don't think a title of a thread or a separate thread is going to help them.

If someone sends me a trade offer the first thing I am going to do is read up on those players to see if there is some reason why the other owner is trying to move them I do not know about. Maybe other people don't do this. I think they should. I suppose if they don't they can blame it on the information they didn't know not being in the title of a thread?

Oy vey.

The bottom line still is though the title of the thread needs to match the content of the thread. That's just basic usability. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not to get off topic, but one of my biggest annoyances with the subscriber content is titles that don't explain what the article is about. For The Win, The Profit or Gut Check are not descriptive names.

Absolutley. That's one thing I'm changing this year. For the exact same reasons the thread titles need to reflect what's in the thread. That's entirely on topic with this discussion. 

 

[Biabreakable]

Thanks @Biabreakable  We will just have to disagree here.  On a message board forum, we absolutely want to judge a book by it's cover. Meaning I want thread titles to be hyper accurate reflecting what the the thread is about. We'd never allow thread titles of "you won't believe what just happened to this QB". Because it wastes people's time. Same way with article titles on the site. We want the readers to be able to know what he's getting when he clicks on the link. Exactly the same for the message board thread titles. So actually I guess we do agree - I definitely want the thread titles to be a "judge the book by it's cover".  The other end of the spectrum where thread titles didn't match the content of the thread would be chaos.

It's also good to remember  - tons of people don't have the time to read every single thread. It's not a "chore" to read the content. But people are busy. They are constantly being forced to decide what is worthy of their time. The sites that help them do this get participation. 

This is all about making it more useful. And thread titles that reflect the content of the thread are a big part of that. 

I am not against updating thread titles, I think the way some thread titles are edited is very creative and at times funny as well as informative.

It is impractical however when the thread originator is not available to edit it to match the breaking news. It is also impractical to start a new thread every time something new happens, that would make the index chaos and in need of updating too frequently.

If a moderator can edit the thread titles for this purpose I see that as a win win.

I still don't think its hard to read the most recent posts of a thread. There is even a tool that allows the reader to go to the last unread post.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am not against updating thread titles, I think the way some thread titles are edited is very creative and at times funny as well as informative.

It is impractical however when the thread originator is not available to edit it to match the breaking news. It is also impractical to start a new thread every time something new happens, that would make the index chaos and in need of updating too frequently.

If a moderator can edit the thread titles for this purpose I see that as a win win.

I still don't think its hard to read the most recent posts of a thread. There is even a tool that allows the reader to go to the last unread post.

Cool. Mods may be able to edit but by far the responsibility will be on the people creating posts to have accurate titles. I have tons of faith you guys are smart enough to do that and do it well.

 

[Biabreakable]

Where did I say THAT was the reason? The first thing I mentioned was "sleep deprived"... I also mentioned "slow internet" connection (I live on the Haiti border).  Both pertain to *my* needs to pass thru the forums (when I am able to visit), in as effecient a manner as possible. Certainly it is clear *your* needs and desires are different. No problem with me. No need to lower a conversation into something personal with a snarky comment.

I am entitled to an opinion equal to you and my life situation is not the same as yours. If most folks agree with me, great. If not, as is often the case, no problem. 

I agree 100%

If something in my post seemed snarky to you that wasn't my intent. I see people blaming their smart phones (which I do not even own except for work) for all kinds of things that I think they could take responsibility for.

FWIW I have always liked you and I realize you are busy (as are many of us) and only have so much time to dedicate to hobbies such as this. I still don't think it is hard to read the last posts of a thread if the information is valuable to you.

 

[northern exposure]

I am not certain refining the handling of Breaking News is really that big of an issue for the boards.  Maybe I am in the minority but I don't come here for breaking news, I come here for player/coach/team discussions.  I use the boards to inform my opinions about players not to find out if Hunter Henry tore his ACL.

Breaking News is well covered by a hundred other sources and they probably do it much better than FBGs could (or should) hope to. Personally I use Sleeperbot and, to a lesser extent Florio for my breaking news. That's where they make their hay, but as soon as I find out the news I come here to find out about the impact of said news.  The comments sections in Sleeperbot and PFT are worthless cesspools of human misery and entirely useless for figuring out what to do with the information they provided.  FBGs dominates the landscape in that department and I think that is where the focus should remain.

I agree with Chaka. For Breaking News I rely on Rotoworld and they also have Forums there where the latest news can be discussed. It seems like Joe wants to create a modified version of the model where the paying customers/patrons provide the content (breaking news) that initiates the discussion and drives the traffic to his message boards. 

As others have said earlier in this thread, perhaps it is up to FBG personnel to provide the Breaking News and then the members can discuss it in the threads.

 

[Chaka]

Of course it is actionable 365 days a year IF you read the thread.

When it comes to legal issues or possible suspension that information might take months to actually play out, just look at Elliot last year.

If people want to draft and/or trade for players without keeping up on what has happened with those players I don't think a title of a thread or a separate thread is going to help them.

If someone sends me a trade offer the first thing I am going to do is read up on those players to see if there is some reason why the other owner is trying to move them I do not know about. Maybe other people don't do this. I think they should. I suppose if they don't they can blame it on the information they didn't know not being in the title of a thread?

Oy vey.

Yes and no for me. Everything is actionable on some level, and depending on what type of owner you are, but I simply think the vast, vast majority of players get their breaking news from somewhere else. If FBGs is your resource for what is happening when it happens then I can absolutely see more value in having some kind of Breaking News standardization around here.  I am not sure what that amounts to beyond more clarity in thread titles, which I doubt will happen with any sort of consistency without a large input from moderators either a) simply changing thread titles themselves (which JB seems to feel is a non-starter) b) inputting large amounts of time educating us and reminding us of the proper way to title breaking news threads.  It seems very simple on the surface but I anticipate a frustrating amount of non compliance on the thread title front.

 

[Joe Bryant]

 It seems like Joe wants to create a modified version of the model where the paying customers/patrons provide the content (breaking news) that initiates the discussion and drives the traffic to his message boards. 

Hi @northern exposure not at all. This board is free. What we'll do is what we've always done and board posters will post a things when they happen. All we're trying to do here is give some guidance there as to what would work best and most importantly how users of this forum can get the most value from it. 

I think we can be the next step from Twitter or other places that break a story and allow the knowledgeable posters here (of which we have  a ton) to work through and discuss the news. The primary thing needed for that to happen is an easy to view structure and smart people to comment. The structure will be easy and we're loaded with smart people here. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

My only hope is people put half as much energy into discussing player news and situations as they happen as they have this thread.

 

[Biabreakable]

Yes and no for me. Everything is actionable on some level, and depending on what type of owner you are, but I simply think the vast, vast majority of players get their breaking news from somewhere else. If FBGs is your resource for what is happening when it happens then I can absolutely see more value in having some kind of Breaking News standardization around here.  I am not sure what that amounts to beyond more clarity in thread titles, which I doubt will happen with any sort of consistency without a large input from moderators either a) simply changing thread titles themselves (which JB seems to feel is a non-starter) b) inputting large amounts of time educating us and reminding us of the proper way to title breaking news threads.  It seems very simple on the surface but I anticipate a frustrating amount of non compliance on the thread title front.

The thread titles was something that was focused on and attempted a few years back when similar discussion occurred at that time. It was quickly abandoned once it was realized that it wasn't working.

The index thread is something that worked and improved things, not changing thread titles.

Maybe Joe has a better idea in regards to the titles this time. I have doubts about that based on the previous experience of it not working and because it wasn't working it wasn't maintained.

For stuff like injuries and suspension, legal issues ect. that information gets covered in the emails, if its big news it will be on NFL.com and everywhere else. If someone isn't checking in on this stuff and doesn't read it when it breaks, then maybe they wouldn't know what happened. This is actually where reading a player thread can help people who are behind.

All of these things require that the person read the information however.

 

[Biabreakable]

My only hope is people put half as much energy into discussing player news and situations as they happen as they have this thread.

We do Joe. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them read the threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We do Joe. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them read the threads.

We'll be good. You hit on exactly the point I'm making. We have great content and because a lot of them are not accurately named, people skip over. 

You keep bringing the NFL knowledge on stuff and we'll be good. Thanks Buddy.

 

[Borden]

My only hope is people put half as much energy into discussing player news and situations as they happen as they have this thread.

Maybe but imagine are the thread titles you could’ve changed in the time you’ve put into this thread.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

For stuff like injuries and suspension, legal issues ect. that information gets covered in the emails, if its big news it will be on NFL.com and everywhere else. If someone isn't checking in on this stuff and doesn't read it when it breaks, then maybe they wouldn't know what happened. This is actually where reading a player thread can help people who are behind.




2

Here's the disconnect I think.

I write about the news that night in the email. Or if it's something big, I'll send a special email out. But you guys are giving me too much credit. My take on it isn't the last word. There likely will be TONS of good comments here from the board that I haven't thought of. Between the guys who are locals and the guys who follow things super closely, this board has the potential to be a wealth of info. Way better than something I cover in the email or what NFL.com writes about. That's what I want to dig into. 

Now maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm way overestimating what you guys can bring to the discussion. But I don't think I am. We'll see. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe but imagine are the thread titles you could’ve changed in the time you’ve put into this thread.  

For real Buddy.

 

[PhantomJB]

Frankly doesn't this whole process happen already just without the standardized title nomenclature? Doesn't it always develop the same way?

1) Hunter Henry tears his ACL

2) Maybe a couple dozen of us rush to the boards and either

   A) Start 1-5 new threads on the subject

   B) Go to the official thread and post the link to the story about a dozen times

3) Discussion commences in multiple places

4) Eventually we start to clamor for the threads to be merged because the discussion is being diluted and the front page is being polluted because of too many threads on the subject.

If the moderators aren't going to take the lead by modifying the thread title nomenclature, and pruning the redundant threads that will inevitably pop up (again lots will miss this thread due to the holiday), then I don't think anything significant will change by Labor Day.

This pretty much nails it.

With all due respect to Mr. Bryant, IMHO you may be underestimating how the SP dynamics change:

1) When the hordes of FF redrafters descend in late summer (not so inclined to follow structure as dynasty members in May)

2) The derivative impacts of Breaking News on one player affecting discussion on multiple other players...e.g. if there is Breaking News on Ezekiel Elliot's 2017 suspension you now have at least 5 arguably relevant threads: 1) Official EZE, 2) Breaking News EZE, 3) Official McFadden, 4) Official Alfred Morris and 5) Official Rod Smith.

3) The time sensitivity of decision making for waiver wire purposes...by far most Breaking News will be occurring early in the week when FF'ers are faced with a deadline...so the time where there is most importance to decision-making is often exactly the time when there is most SP thread proliferation.

I get the economics of allocating more moderator time to the SP...but IMHO effectively saying the SP is a bunch of smart guys that will figure out on their own how to maintain thread organizational structure in the heat of mid-season is maybe a little optimistic.

A type of chaos theory, really. Once the initial conditions break down, structure is very difficult to maintain without concerted effort (e.g. moderator involvement)...until a new equilibrium emerges.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This pretty much nails it.

With all due respect to Mr. Bryant, IMHO you may be underestimating how the SP dynamics change:

1) When the hordes of FF redrafters descend in late summer (not so inclined to follow structure as dynasty members in May)

2) The derivative impacts of Breaking News on one player affecting discussion on multiple other players...e.g. if there is Breaking News on Ezekiel Elliot's 2017 suspension you now have at least 5 arguably relevant threads: 1) Official EZE, 2) Breaking News EZE, 3) Official McFadden, 4) Official Alfred Morris and 5) Official Rod Smith.

3) The time sensitivity of decision making for waiver wire purposes...by far most Breaking News will be occurring early in the week when FF'ers are faced with a deadline...so the time where there is most importance to decision-making is often exactly the time when there is most SP thread proliferation.

I get the economics of allocating more moderator time to the SP...but IMHO effectively saying the SP is a bunch of smart guys that will figure out on their own how to maintain thread organizational structure in the heat of mid-season is maybe a little optimistic.

A type of chaos theory, really. Once the initial conditions break down, structure is very difficult to maintain without concerted effort (e.g. moderator involvement)...until a new equilibrium emerges.

So exactly what would you suggest? 

Hunter Henry tears his ACL. Exactly how would you prefer to handle it for the boards?

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's probably time to say exactly what I'm thinking too. The boards aren't as useful as they once were. There's a reason none of the staffers contribute much here anymore. It's because the boards in their current form aren't very useful. I used to use the boards a lot for helping craft my thoughts on players and the "our view" for breaking news and such. I haven't done that in years mostly because I don't find them nearly as useful as I once did. And that's mainly because of the structure and people name threads so poorly. 

It's no secret message boards are fading. In it's current form, the Shark Pool is less useful than it was. 

As I said way earlier, we have an internal discussion platform for FBG staff. Where we do exactly what I'm hoping to do here. News happens, it gets posted with the link, and discussion goes hot and heavy about what the story means. It's great.

I'd like to see that here as I think we have a ton of smart people who can do the same.

But the feeling I get is you guys would rather just keep it exactly as it is and not do anything to improve the boards and make them more useful. 

I don't want to push a ball uphill. If you guys are that adamantly opposed to change that I feel certain will improve the boards, it's may not be worth doing. 

 

[PhantomJB]

So exactly what would you suggest? 

Hunter Henry tears his ACL. Exactly how would you prefer to handle it for the boards?

So do you actually want me to invest another 20 minutes answering this like I did my original post? Given your most recent post about pushing balls uphill it appears not.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So do you actually want me to invest another 20 minutes answering this like I did my original post? Given your most recent post about pushing balls uphill it appears not.

I don't see what you're proposing to do exactly. What is that and how exactly would you like to see it handled?

 

[joey]

It's probably time to say exactly what I'm thinking too. The boards aren't as useful as they once were. There's a reason none of the staffers contribute much here anymore. It's because the boards in their current form aren't very useful. I used to use the boards a lot for helping craft my thoughts on players and the "our view" for breaking news and such. I haven't done that in years mostly because I don't find them nearly as useful as I once did. And that's mainly because of the structure and people name threads so poorly. 

It's no secret message boards are fading. In it's current form, the Shark Pool is less useful than it was. 

As I said way earlier, we have an internal discussion platform for FBG staff. Where we do exactly what I'm hoping to do here. News happens, it gets posted with the link, and discussion goes hot and heavy about what the story means. It's great.

I'd like to see that here as I think we have a ton of smart people who can do the same.

But the feeling I get is you guys would rather just keep it exactly as it is and not do anything to improve the boards and make them more useful. 

I don't want to push a ball uphill. If you guys are that adamantly opposed to change that I feel certain will improve the boards, it's may not be worth doing. 

How about this idea:

- have only BREAKING NEWS thread. 

- when someone posts in that (pinned?) Breaking News thread, the user includes both the news (obviously) but then links to the "official" player thread if one exists, hopefully guiding subsequent discussions to the main player thread. 

I like that idea in theory, but in practice, not sure it would actually work. 

Side question for Joe: how many "active users" are their currently in the SP? Are we talking about just 50 of us at this point? Feels like that sometimes. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

How about this idea:

- have only BREAKING NEWS thread. 

- when someone posts in that (pinned?) Breaking News thread, the user includes both the news (obviously) but then links to the "official" player thread if one exists, hopefully guiding subsequent discussions to the main player thread. 

I like that idea in theory, but in practice, not sure it would actually work. 

Side question for Joe: how many "active users" are their currently in the SP? Are we talking about just 50 of us at this point? Feels like that sometimes. 

Thanks @joey

Thanks but the problem with a breaking news only thread is it requires another click to see what the story is. I've seen what I'm suggesting work fantastic and I know it'll work here. 

And I'm with you, the number of contributors is shrinking. My entire focus with this has been trying to change that. 

 

[Chaka]

It's probably time to say exactly what I'm thinking too. The boards aren't as useful as they once were. There's a reason none of the staffers contribute much here anymore. It's because the boards in their current form aren't very useful. I used to use the boards a lot for helping craft my thoughts on players and the "our view" for breaking news and such. I haven't done that in years mostly because I don't find them nearly as useful as I once did. And that's mainly because of the structure and people name threads so poorly. 

It's no secret message boards are fading. In it's current form, the Shark Pool is less useful than it was. 

As I said way earlier, we have an internal discussion platform for FBG staff. Where we do exactly what I'm hoping to do here. News happens, it gets posted with the link, and discussion goes hot and heavy about what the story means. It's great.

I'd like to see that here as I think we have a ton of smart people who can do the same.

But the feeling I get is you guys would rather just keep it exactly as it is and not do anything to improve the boards and make them more useful. 

I don't want to push a ball uphill. If you guys are that adamantly opposed to change that I feel certain will improve the boards, it's may not be worth doing. 

It's not a matter of keeping it the same, I have no problem with changes but I am still unclear as to the nature of your original proposition. Is it simply a matter of tighter thread titles?

I absolutely agree that would be a big benefit to the board but, as I have stated multiple times I think the barrier to entry is much bigger than you do. The people who are here today, limited by the whole Memorial Day thing do not represent accurately the people who will be here when training camp opens. You staff, who apparently can't be bothered to spend more time here (more on that below), will absolutely need to be highly active in educating and editing otherwise it will simply fall by the wayside. Yes, I will be an early adopter of whatever nomenclature we finally land on, as will probably everyone else in this thread but that simply won't be enough without a committed and concentrated effort from the FBG staff to advance the agenda.

Regarding the declining utility of the board perhaps having the staff recommit to participating actively would help kill both these birds with one stone.  The SP definitely has the feel of an increasingly insular community and when new people show up and, heaven forbid, don't immediately get how we do things around here we can be very rough on them.  For example when @the lone star showed up recently many of us felt he was simply using the forum as a means to gripe about how unfair his league was being to him. We were all over him for that, blood in the water if you will and I was as guilty as the rest.  Now @the lone star clearly has thick skin and has quickly become a solid contributor but I imagine a lot of other people would simply say "Screw this place." I get that I need to be better about these situations, and typically I am much better, but having more staff presence would also help facilitate that spirit of general understanding from all of us. 

If it's not worth it for the staff to help out around here why would it be worth it to a new potential member and why should it be worth it for us long timers? And, frankly, hearing the owner of any company comment about how their staff cannot be bothered to use one of their main drivers of business (although I get the feeling that has changed) does not inspire much confidence. I know you didn't mean it this way but it kind of felt like you came in here simply told us "You guys are super smart so go do what you normally do but do it better because we're too busy. Peace, out!" It's gonna take a lot more than just this small group of super-smart, incredibly talented and devilishly handsome posters to make this happen.

 

[Chaka]

My suggestion for a starting point would be for you to simply pick your preferred title nomenclature and things you want addressed in the thread (you should have enough framework to do that now), ask those of us in this thread to start deploying it now and strongly encourage your staff to do the same and do it regularly. We have a couple weeks before TC starts to at least get those thread titles and formats out there and maybe pick up enough early adopters to make the transition easier.

 

[Chaka]

Thanks @joey

Thanks but the problem with a breaking news only thread is it requires another click to see what the story is. I've seen what I'm suggesting work fantastic and I know it'll work here. 

And I'm with you, the number of contributors is shrinking. My entire focus with this has been trying to change that. 

It sucks that we have become so spoiled that the extra clicks are a PITA to us, but it is our new normal.

Sorry JB, obviously I missed the post with what you are suggesting. Would you provide a link  I swear I'll click it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's not a matter of keeping it the same, I have no problem with changes but I am still unclear as to the nature of your original proposition. Is it simply a matter of tighter thread titles?

I absolutely agree that would be a big benefit to the board but, as I have stated multiple times I think the barrier to entry is much bigger than you do. The people who are here today, limited by the whole Memorial Day thing do not represent accurately the people who will be here when training camp opens. You staff, who apparently can't be bothered to spend more time here (more on that below), will absolutely need to be highly active in educating and editing otherwise it will simply fall by the wayside. Yes, I will be an early adopter of whatever nomenclature we finally land on, as will probably everyone else in this thread but that simply won't be enough without a committed and concentrated effort from the FBG staff to advance the agenda.

Regarding the declining utility of the board perhaps having the staff recommit to participating actively would help kill both these birds with one stone.  The SP definitely has the feel of an increasingly insular community and when new people show up and, heaven forbid, don't immediately get how we do things around here we can be very rough on them.  For example when @the lone star showed up recently many of us felt he was simply using the forum as a means to gripe about how unfair his league was being to him. We were all over him for that, blood in the water if you will and I was as guilty as the rest.  Now @the lone star clearly has thick skin and has quickly become a solid contributor but I imagine a lot of other people would simply say "Screw this place." I get that I need to be better about these situations, and typically I am much better, but having more staff presence would also help facilitate that spirit of general understanding from all of us. 

If it's not worth it for the staff to help out around here why would it be worth it to a new potential member and why should it be worth it for us long timers? And, frankly, hearing the owner of any company comment about how their staff cannot be bothered to use one of their main drivers of business (although I get the feeling that has changed) does not inspire much confidence. I know you didn't mean it this way but it kind of felt like you came in here simply told us "You guys are super smart so go do what you normally do but do it better because we're too busy. Peace, out!" It's gonna take a lot more than just this small group of super-smart, incredibly talented and devilishly handsome posters to make this happen.

Sorry I wasn’t clear. The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful. I think I have a way I can change that which is mostly tightening up how we title threads. Especially breaking news threads.

Most of the staff think I’m wasting my time with this in trying to improve things. I pointed them to the thread and most :eyeroll: asking me what I’m doing as clearly nobody is interested in change or improving.  They think you’re exactly right and that the forum is so insular and unwelcoming of new people.

Not sure how you got the “you’re smart but we’re too busy so peace out” from all that. This board has always been you guys. You are the board. I was hoping to improve the structure a bit and encourage more people to participate. But if you got “peace out” from that, maybe this isn’t the best idea.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My suggestion for a starting point would be for you to simply pick your preferred title nomenclature and things you want addressed in the thread (you should have enough framework to do that now), ask those of us in this thread to start deploying it now and strongly encourage your staff to do the same and do it regularly. We have a couple weeks before TC starts to at least get those thread titles and formats out there and maybe pick up enough early adopters to make the transition easier.

Thanks. Let me take a look at things and see if it’s worthwhile trying to do. 

 

[Chaka]

Don't give up after less than 3 full pages @Joe Bryant, you gotta put into perspective the fact that the only guys here on Sunday of Memorial Day weekend are the most cynical and insular of the bunch. On the flip side we are the people most likely to help you implement whatever strategy you decide upon because we love this place and want to see it work.

It can work but it's gonna take work.

Step 2 IMO would be to tell your darn staff to get their butts in the SP and help make it better.  If you're not part of the solution...and-so-on-and-so-forth.

 

[northern exposure]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful. I think I have a way I can change that which is mostly tightening up how we title threads. Especially breaking news threads.

Most of the staff think I’m wasting my time with this in trying to improve things. I pointed them to the thread and most :eyeroll: asking me what I’m doing as clearly nobody is interested in change or improving.  They think you’re exactly right and that the forum is so insular and unwelcoming of new people.

Not sure how you got the “you’re smart but we’re too busy so peace out” from all that. This board has always been you guys. You are the board. I was hoping to improve the structure a bit and encourage more people to participate. But if you got “peace out” from that, maybe this isn’t the best idea.

So to boil it down to your main goal, you are saying by instituting a change to the way we title threads (especially breaking new threads) the content of these threads will improve and become more useful?

When you state "The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful." I have to think they don't find it useful due to the content in these threads, not the titles of the threads. 

How do you improve the content in the threads? I would say the staff have to lead by example to show us the way and new(er) users have to be encouraged to provide new, fresh content. If people don't find the current content useful, changing how it is named won't change that. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

So to boil it down to your main goal, you are saying by instituting a change to the way we title threads (especially breaking new threads) the content of these threads will improve and become more useful?

When you state "The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful." I have to think they don't find it useful due to the content in these threads, not the titles of the threads. 

How do you improve the content in the threads? I would say the staff have to lead by example to show us the way and new(er) users have to be encouraged to provide new, fresh content. If people don't find the current content useful, changing how it is named won't change that. 

I've been trying to hammer this point to Joe in each forum where he's asking what can be done to improve the boards.  From the beginning--I've mentioned that greater staff involvement and a greater staff presense in the forums will have a profound effect on things.  While he says that he agrees--he also continues to throw in the fact that "they are too busy" to implement that--which is something that I do not understand. 

If the quality of these threads is important to the FBG--the only way to maintain quality is through quality control.  More staff involvement means a greater connection with your customer base, less snarkiness and "toolishness" in the threads, and more control over the content and how it's organized.  Most businesses pay lots of money to survey and get to know their customers---and we have an owner basically saying "well--I'm too busy to spend time learning about mine".   

Joe--it's as easy as this--when you and your staff are active members of the community here in these forums--the forums prosper all of the way around.   You have better content, happier members, an environment that invites dialogue and sharing of thoughts.  When you and the staff pretty much abandon the threads and leave things to ourselves to "self police" and "self propel"--the boards suffer.  If your own staff doesn't participate in the Shark Pool because they no longer find it helpful--that's telling.  I assure you that in regards to the Shark Pool--when this place is running optimally--and you have a pool of fantasy football minds and football fans sharing their knowledge and opinions--the results will be very beneficial to you and your staff.

The modern day consumer is looking for more than just content when they put their money out on things--they are looking for an experience.  A fantasy football forum where we can have active interaction and exchange thoughts with 'fantasy football experts" is truly something that you can offer that no other site really does or can.  You should really try a one week experience where you have each of your staff members spend 30 minutes to one hour participating in the forums.  This would mean 5-10 minutes per day--which any of them should be capable of doing.  In one week--my guess is that you would see a noticeable improvement on the boards.  

 

[Biabreakable]

I've been trying to hammer this point to Joe in each forum where he's asking what can be done to improve the boards.  From the beginning--I've mentioned that greater staff involvement and a greater staff presense in the forums will have a profound effect on things.  While he says that he agrees--he also continues to throw in the fact that "they are too busy" to implement that--which is something that I do not understand. 

Here is my speculation about why the staff do not find the message boards to be useful.

First of all they do not want to have their opinions challenged, and they most certainly will be if they post them here in the SP.  It is not good for their reputation. If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen. So they do.

They rationalize this by thinking that people who post here in the SP are all a bunch of trolls. I have heard Bloom make jokes to this effect multiple times on his podcasts and that is just stuff that leaks out, I think their opinion of us is much worse than what slips through the cracks. So why would they want to engage with a community that they have no respect for?

They don't get the benefit of followers from this forum the way they do on twitter. They want to be where the fish are not swim with the sharks.

There are likely other reasons as well that I haven't thought of.

It is not because there are not good thoughts and ideas about football here though, because there are and I find the content here to be much better than anything I can find on twitter which is a total nightmare of drek by comparison. Twitter is a bunch of hot takes with little substance. I don't have time for that, but this is what they would rather focus their time and energy on it seems. This is entirely related to followers, retweets and how those things are (maybe?) actionable to revenue streams.

 

[Deamon]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful. I think I have a way I can change that which is mostly tightening up how we title threads. Especially breaking news threads.

Most of the staff think I’m wasting my time with this in trying to improve things. I pointed them to the thread and most :eyeroll: asking me what I’m doing as clearly nobody is interested in change or improving.  They think you’re exactly right and that the forum is so insular and unwelcoming of new people.

Not sure how you got the “you’re smart but we’re too busy so peace out” from all that. This board has always been you guys. You are the board. I was hoping to improve the structure a bit and encourage more people to participate. But if you got “peace out” from that, maybe this isn’t the best idea.

Agree with the others that posted above.  If your staff are rolling their eyes at you for spending time trying to improve these forums, that is an issue.  That is an issue that shouldn't be ignored.  And that is an issue that needs to start from the top and trickle down... not have a negative opinion about your customers who are in here, and just think "that's the way it is, it's not worth trying to improve" (which is what you admitted was most of the FBG's take on things).

That is a little insulting and demeaning that a business has that viewpoint of its (mostly paying) customers.  Love you guys and what you do, but maybe your first thought when your staff members think that way about a part of your business (and yes, this is a part of your business, it is not just 'this is you guys, not us", it should be a reality check that something (besides changing title names) should be done.  I agree that more interaction and posts from your staff is the clear solution.  Not policing necessarily, but involvement.  It personally adds a lot to the forums when I see you, or other well known staffers' names in one of the threads posting something of substance about a player.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think the real problem with the "staff presence" in the forums is probably that they just don't really have as much time as they used to. Most were probably young and single when they first started, and fantasy football was a top priority. Now they've grown older, had families, and found a need to concentrate on their real jobs all while trying to find time to write their articles/content. Spending time on the boards is an additional burden they don't have time for and frankly they are likely only paid for their articles/content and not time spent responding on the message board.

I do not want to spend you money Joe, but perhaps you can hire new and/or reassign current staff members and make it part of their contract to post and respond to message board topics? This seems to be important to people.

I also think initially in this thread most people were ok with "breaking news" topics being ok - as long as they were merged into the existing topics later - but then a few "loud" voices shot them down (just because they seem resident to change) and now you seem to think everyone wants things to remain the same and you're giving up. Frankly it's going to happen anyway - people have always started breaking news topics outside of the main player topics - so we may as well try and make it work the best way possible.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the real problem with the "staff presence" in the forums is probably that they just don't really have as much time as they used to. Most were probably young and single when they first started, and fantasy football was a top priority. Now they've grown older, had families, and found a need to concentrate on their real jobs all while trying to find time to write their articles/content. Spending time on the boards is an additional burden they don't have time for and frankly they are likely only paid for their articles/content and not time spent responding on the message board.

I do not want to spend you money Joe, but perhaps you can hire new and/or reassign current staff members and make it part of their contract to post and respond to message board topics? This seems to be important to people.

I also think initially in this thread most people were ok with "breaking news" topics being ok - as long as they were merged into the existing topics later - but then a few "loud" voices shot them down (just because they seem resident to change) and now you seem to think everyone wants things to remain the same and you're giving up. Frankly it's going to happen anyway - people have always started breaking news topics outside of the main player topics - so we may as well try and make it work the best way possible.

Thanks @Dr. Octopus   and @Deamon   and @jvdesigns2002 I have to admit I'm surprised and encouraged at how much it seems people want FBG staff involvement.

The Shark Pool has always been 100% independent of the Footballguys Subscription. It's free and available to everyone.

I have no idea what percentage of Shark Pool members are FBG Premium Subscribers as they have completely separate log ins and registration. I will do a poll here to see though. It'll give a little bit of a snap shot.

We have talked here quite a bit over the years about having a forum that would be for Premium FBG subscribers only. If we did something like that, of course the staff would be heavily involved as it would be part of the FBG subscription. I've always resisted that though as I didn't want to separate the people who bought a subscription from those that did not.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll process and see what we can come up with. 

 

[PhantomJB]

Therein lies the conundrum.

FBG is a subscription-based revenue model. Improving the structure, searchability and content of the Shark Pool would require an investment of resources that would then require additional revenue for an adequate return on that investment.

Chaka's and other posts proved that a (noble) attempt at a simple thread title change would not take root without follow-up resources (e.g. increased moderator involvement) to sustain it. 

Dynasty and other avid redraft members would gladly pay a little bit extra to improve their experience...however the exodus of key contributors from the Shark Pool would then have a snowball effect...eventually leaving just the unwashed redraft masses and non-premium members in the existing Shark Pool.

As the content of the existing Pool then rapidly declined (80/20 rule...20% of the members provide 80% of the content worth any value)...it would risk non-premium membership revenue loss of an amount that might even be greater than what was gained by any new premium members added. In an industry that has arguably peaked and begun declining, those losses could not be recouped as easily as when the market was growing ten years ago.

So the likely scenario is the Shark Pool will remain as it is...which is actually pretty good for something that is almost completely self-regulated.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Slapdash]

Personally, I always enjoyed the player spotlight threads in here and thought those brought good engagement between staff and board.  Of course, the limit of threads on a page from invision hurts us there too.

 

[northern exposure]

I've been trying to hammer this point to Joe in each forum where he's asking what can be done to improve the boards.  From the beginning--I've mentioned that greater staff involvement and a greater staff presense in the forums will have a profound effect on things.  While he says that he agrees--he also continues to throw in the fact that "they are too busy" to implement that--which is something that I do not understand. 

If the quality of these threads is important to the FBG--the only way to maintain quality is through quality control.  More staff involvement means a greater connection with your customer base, less snarkiness and "toolishness" in the threads, and more control over the content and how it's organized.  Most businesses pay lots of money to survey and get to know their customers---and we have an owner basically saying "well--I'm too busy to spend time learning about mine".   

Joe--it's as easy as this--when you and your staff are active members of the community here in these forums--the forums prosper all of the way around.   You have better content, happier members, an environment that invites dialogue and sharing of thoughts.  When you and the staff pretty much abandon the threads and leave things to ourselves to "self police" and "self propel"--the boards suffer.  If your own staff doesn't participate in the Shark Pool because they no longer find it helpful--that's telling.  I assure you that in regards to the Shark Pool--when this place is running optimally--and you have a pool of fantasy football minds and football fans sharing their knowledge and opinions--the results will be very beneficial to you and your staff.

The modern day consumer is looking for more than just content when they put their money out on things--they are looking for an experience.  A fantasy football forum where we can have active interaction and exchange thoughts with 'fantasy football experts" is truly something that you can offer that no other site really does or can.  You should really try a one week experience where you have each of your staff members spend 30 minutes to one hour participating in the forums.  This would mean 5-10 minutes per day--which any of them should be capable of doing.  In one week--my guess is that you would see a noticeable improvement on the boards.  

The situation is no different than a business owner who doesn't spend much time at one of his companies. He decides to drop by one day and is shocked by what he sees. The company has been left to its own devices, so things aren't being run the way the business owner wants them to be. In the case of the FFA, Joe has "cracked down" on some of the content in there and laid out what is no longer allowed.  In the SP, Joe seems more willing to have a dialogue with the posters to achieve his vision of what the SP should/could be.

In my opinion having a staffer start a Breaking News thread with:

Hunter Henry, TE Chargers - It has been confirmed that Hunter Henry tore his ACL and is out for the season. In my opinion the Chargers have to bring back Antonio Gates to help replace the loss of Henry. Discuss.

Would result in the response from me:

I disagree that Gates has to be and is the only answer to Henry's injury for the Chargers. While it would be a Hollywood ending to have Gates return and prosper again, based on his play last year I can't see it happening. The Chargers added Virgil Green to their roster to fill the blocking and occasional pass catcher role of the TE in their offense. So, with Henry now done for the season, they may very well shift the pass catching role Henry had to another position/player in the offense, Mike Williams. I heard Matt "Money" Smith (radio broadcaster of the Chargers) suggest on the NFL channel on Sirius this would probably be the way the Chargers will go and they will then add another TE they are familiar with like Jeff Cumberland. Cumberland and Green will fill the more traditional role of a TE and Henry's targets will now go to Williams if he continues to impress in OTAs and TC.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The situation is no different than a business owner who doesn't spend much time at one of his companies. He decides to drop by one day and is shocked by what he sees. The company has been left to its own devices, so things aren't being run the way the business owner wants them to be. In the case of the FFA, Joe has "cracked down" on some of the content in there and laid out what is no longer allowed.  In the SP, Joe seems more willing to have a dialogue with the posters to achieve his vision of what the SP should/could be.

In my opinion having a staffer start a Breaking News thread with:

Hunter Henry, TE Chargers - It has been confirmed that Hunter Henry tore his ACL and is out for the season. In my opinion the Chargers have to bring back Antonio Gates to help replace the loss of Henry. Discuss.

Would result in the response from me:

I disagree that Gates has to be and is the only answer to Henry's injury for the Chargers. While it would be a Hollywood ending to have Gates return and prosper again, based on his play last year I can't see it happening. The Chargers added Virgil Green to their roster to fill the blocking and occasional pass catcher role of the TE in their offense. So, with Henry now done for the season, they may very well shift the pass catching role Henry had to another position/player in the offense, Mike Williams. I heard Matt "Money" Smith (radio broadcaster of the Chargers) suggest on the NFL channel on Sirius this would probably be the way the Chargers will go and they will then add another TE they are familiar with like Jeff Cumberland. Cumberland and Green will fill the more traditional role of a TE and Henry's targets will now go to Williams if he continues to impress in OTAs and TC.

Hi @northern exposure  Thanks for the insight. It’s different. And it’s far from “shocked”. I’m in both the SP and FFA pretty much daily and have been since they started. I think there’s some sort of perception that not posting means not there. But that’s not really relevant here. I have become more involved lately in trying to guide the forums back to where I think they should be. The FFA has very different challenges than the Shark Pool. 

For the Shark Pool, the primary problem is waning interest and therefore participation. That’s mainly what I’m trying to address here. 

I think what you described with Henry above is exactly the kind of content needed to bring it back. With one exception. It should be a poster here, not a staffer that posts the original thread. Because it’s simply a numbers game. One of you guys is always more likely to see something first before a staffer. Simply because there’s so many of you guys.

I’d like to see the Henry news have played out exactly the way you described with the exception it would be a Shark Pool member posting: “Hunter Henry, TE Chargers - It has been confirmed that Hunter Henry tore his ACL and is out for the season. In my opinion the Chargers have to bring back Antonio Gates to help replace the loss of Henry. Discuss.” And then you and others go at it. That makes great content. After we establish that’s the kind of content you can read here, I think you’ll see even more people contributing. It’s a virtuous circle. Good content attracts good contributors who generate good content and so on.

This is exactly what I’m hoping to encourage here. And I’d love for you to be a part of it. 

 

[Chaka]

Chaka's and other posts proved that a (noble) attempt at a simple thread title change would not take root without follow-up resources (e.g. increased moderator involvement) to sustain it. 

I don't think my post proved anything, and I worry that people are misconstruing my point as being entirely against the change (even though I thought I had been perfectly clear about my position).

I merely pointed out that IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, it would take a lot more than just saying "This is how we want do things going forward" and then hoping it would take effect. It's going to require people like us to buy in now and be consistent about it going forward. Then we are going to have to educate the people who only show up around here in August/September and, in an excellent manner keep reminding those who are not compliant.  And even if we can make it so the moderators/FBG Staff don't have to participate in the education process, although it would help a lot more if they did, we are still going to probably need them to prune the multiple "Breaking News" threads that will inevitably show up for each significant bit of news.

I'm for it and am willing to help. I have never been much of a thread starter, and I rarely have the compulsion to be "FIRST!" but I will gladly be more active in implementing the Breaking News change.

Now we just need to get Joe to decide on the title format so we can start rolling it out.

 

[Chaka]

Would it be possible to add a "Start BREAKING NEWS topic" button next to the "Start New Topic" button and then have it auto-populate some of the options we want for consistency?

Probably not but I thought I would ask.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

Ok, first we need some breaking news.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Would it be possible to add a "Start BREAKING NEWS topic" button next to the "Start New Topic" button and then have it auto-populate some of the options we want for consistency?

Probably not but I thought I would ask.

Thanks but I don't think the board software allows for that. I think just trying to keep it simple will be best. You're right in that if it's too complicated or cumbersome, it's less likely to be done.

I think going forward just some simple stuff:

BREAKING (date) (Player Name) (Issue)

Then most important of all - in the body of the text, the link to the story. If you heard it on the radio, or somewhere else, please state that. 

Optional, if you've got an opinion on what it means, please add. 

Then for us, the focus needs to be on what the story means and how it affects other players. 

While twitter and other places are  at the fans of the team with the injured player or talking smack, this board has the ability to provide good and insightful comments.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

Here's a problem I see. When there is actual breaking news on a player, and it's posted in the player's thread, you'll see multiple people post the same thing at the same time. Won't this create a bunch of threads on the same topic?

 

[Chaka]

Here's a problem I see. When there is actual breaking news on a player, and it's posted in the player's thread, you'll see multiple people post the same thing at the same time. Won't this create a bunch of threads on the same topic?

That happens already. It will require some more active thread pruning by the mods to keep the first page clean on big news days.

 

[Hankmoody]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. The staff, and other people I know don’t post here because they don’t find it useful. I think I have a way I can change that which is mostly tightening up how we title threads. Especially breaking news threads.

Most of the staff think I’m wasting my time with this in trying to improve things. I pointed them to the thread and most :eyeroll: asking me what I’m doing as clearly nobody is interested in change or improving.  They think you’re exactly right and that the forum is so insular and unwelcoming of new people.

Not sure how you got the “you’re smart but we’re too busy so peace out” from all that. This board has always been you guys. You are the board. I was hoping to improve the structure a bit and encourage more people to participate. But if you got “peace out” from that, maybe this isn’t the best idea.

That's pretty freaking priceless right there.