Board Thought - New Threads Vs "Official" Threads On Players (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

This thread reminded me of something I've thought of before. A poster started a thread on Tajae Sharpe and he was directed to the "official" Sharpe thread. 

I know that's how we've done things here for a while. But I wonder if that's the best thing. 

Upsides to our current way:

Less threads. The boards are busy. That can be a good thing.

All the info in one place. That's good too.

Downsides:

Very often the original title of the thread doesn't reflect the current point or question. If a customer wants to know how Kirk Cousins will do with the MIN recievers, the 3 year old Cousins thread is full of info that's not particularly relevant. 

I'm not sure a giant catch all thread is the best thing when one wants to discuss a more detailed point. 

People are often kind of mean about yelling at the poster to go find the official thread.

The search function for the board software is clunky and ungood.

Wondering what you guys thought?

 

[Faust]

It will come as no surprise that I am in favor of keeping the status quo or something very close to the status quo.

My thoughts intended with a very respectful view:

Upsides to our current way:

Less threads. The boards are busy. That can be a good thing.

All the info in one place. That's good too.

These reasons are why I like posting in the Shark Pool versus other boards where creating as many new threads on the same topic are encouraged.

I view the message boards here essentially as a functional database, and each player thread is it’s own record. An essential principle of good database management is eliminating ‘data redundancy.’

Very often the original title of the thread doesn't reflect the current point or question. If a customer wants to know how Kirk Cousins will do with the MIN recievers, the 3 year old Cousins thread is full of info that's not particularly relevant.

Titles can be edited and many of the tenured members of the Shark Pool make regular edits to the thread titles. 

The most recent page of the thread almost always has current information where active discussion is taking place on the players and the impact those players will have on the rest of the team. I have actively posted new articles in the Kirk Cousins thread that provide a wealth of information on what will happen in the upcoming season as an example.

In cases where the threads become truly useless, the moderators could elect to step in.

A thread that discusses a very specific aspect of a dynamic between multiple players would be its own unique thread. As an example, if someone created a thread designed to talk specifically about Kirk Cousins and the likely distribution and number of passing attempts he will be making in the upcoming season with his pass-catching weapons would not be discouraged or frowned upon from my perspective.

People are often kind of mean about yelling at the poster to go find the official thread.

One of the foundation rules about this place was something along the lines of being cool to one another.

Keeping this place vibrant and thriving means that we need to encourage new members instead of being mean - especially when they don’t understand the unofficial board etiquette that exists here versus other places where the etiquette is different. I often find that bumping the long running threads with new information will provide a hint without making a blunt statement telling the individual who made the post that they have committed a major error in creating a new thread.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think for a new development a new thread is fine or as you said to "discuss a more detailed point" is also fine.

The issue will be once re-draft season opens up in full - every person that wants to know about "where to draft Mark Ingram" will start a new thread on him.

There shouldn't even be one thread on TajaeSharpe let alone two on page one,

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think for a new development a new thread is fine or as you said to "discuss a more detailed point" is also fine.

The issue will be once re-draft season opens up in full - every person that wants to know about "where to draft Mark Ingram" will start a new thread on him.

There shouldn't even be one thread on TajaeSharpe let alone two on page one,

Agreed. We can't turn these into the preseason version of "who do it start?" threads. 

And there should be some discretion as you say on what players are talked about. But that's tricky too. We've found on the things like Faceoff articles, the top players get little attention. But the articles talking about the more fringe players are way more read. I can see that side too.

 

[Gawain]

The official threads on the board are awesome and one of the best things on the board.
Discussion is centralized. History is easy to find. Faust (and others) do a great job of providing updates to a specific thread where interested parties can find info easily.

There's a pinned thread where each player's thread is tracked. 

The only folks who might struggle would be newcomers to the board who haven't sehorned the threads yet. Generally the board corrects without condemnation.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I think board users need to develop a bit more tolerance and find a way to deal with specific player related items that may merit its own thread, especially if the “official” thread has turned into a pissing contest (check the last couple of pages of the Goedert thread).

I do agree that if the same subject has been addressed directly before that a link to it is appropriate, as well as some slight admonishment for the rate my team/WDIS threads that clearly belong elsewhere.  But otherwise, hell just don’t click on it if that specific item thread is just too offensive to tolerate.  C’mon guys, we can do it. 

 

[Borden]

The official threads on the board are awesome and one of the best things on the board.
Discussion is centralized. History is easy to find. Faust (and others) do a great job of providing updates to a specific thread where interested parties can find info easily.

There's a pinned thread where each player's thread is tracked. 

The only folks who might struggle would be newcomers to the board who haven't sehorned the threads yet. Generally the board corrects without condemnation.

Nailed it. 

Everyone is smart enough to figure out that the posts are in chronological order (each post is time stamped) and go to the last page for the most recent posts.

 

[the lone star]

I'll use the search option more fasho. Past boards I've been on, and the one I mod we basically provide a link to the existing thread, and lock up the new one. Sometimes we do the opposite if the existing thread is too old, has digressed, the OP is no long active, etc..

 

[Bronco Billy]

I'll use the search option more fasho. Past boards I've been on, and the one I mod we basically provide a link to the existing thread, and lock up the new one. Sometimes we do the opposite if the existing thread is too old, has digressed, the OP is no long active, etc..

Wait.  You mod at a different board and you don’t know better than loading up the front page with your multiple hypotheticals from 14 year old things that offended you?

:shame:

 

[Gawain]

Wait.  You mod at a different board and you don’t know better than loading up the front page with your multiple hypotheticals from 14 year old things that offended you?

:shame:

Maybe he's trying to drive traffic to his site by stinking up this one? 
 

 

[the lone star]

Wait.  You mod at a different board and you don’t know better than loading up the front page with your multiple hypotheticals from 14 year old things that offended you?

:shame:

Technically not against the rules. But nice try, and nice spin. 

 

[Chaka]

Fix the search engine.

 

[Arodin]

I like the current method.  I read the board regularly, so clicking the side dot takes me right to where I left off.  And if I recall reading something interesting about a player and want to find it again, I don't have to pick through lots of different threads with a minimally functional search engine that throttles my searches if I happen to type something wrong.  (It did take a bit of effort to ramp up when first coming in though.  One has to spend a few weeks going to the last page and skipping over older posts.)

As important, it is the way we have done things for a long time, and change should be motivated by strong advantages to changing, not just change for cosmetic preference.  I am not seeing any compelling advantage to changing our long-standing custom.

 

[wakelawyer]

One thought, and I'm not sure if the forum lets us do this, but it would be helpful if you could jump to something like the 3rd to last page from the current page.  

Here's what I'm talking about.  If a thread has 40 pages, you can jump to pages 1, 2, 3, 4, or 40 with one click.  But I don't care about the first 35 or so pages unless I'm looking for historical data.  So it would be a lot more helpful to allow us to jump to pages 36, 37, 38, and 39 as well or instead of 2, 3, and 4.  Not a huge issue but would make things a lot more helpful if we keep the "official" threads -- something that I'm in favor of.

 

[Gally]

Put me down as another that likes the current thread system.  The player thread is good for historical overall comment etc and if there is something specific (like the Cousins with Vikings WR situation) a break out thread is fine and can be done if it seems necessary to focus on that finite situation.

I like the suggestion of being able to jump to a specific page easier.  Maybe have a first page, last page, and ? page where you can click and put in the page number you want to go to.

 

[Dezbelief]

I love the long official threads. They are the 2nd biggest reason I frequent this board. Posters #1. I see nothing wrong with spinoff threads. Have a designated mod patrol page 3 of the shark pool and merge spinoff threads when they get there.

PS can we take away Lone Star's ability to create new threads in the Shark Pool?

 

[Slapdash]

The official threads on the board are awesome and one of the best things on the board.
Discussion is centralized. History is easy to find. Faust (and others) do a great job of providing updates to a specific thread where interested parties can find info easily.

There's a pinned thread where each player's thread is tracked. 

The only folks who might struggle would be newcomers to the board who haven't sehorned the threads yet. Generally the board corrects without condemnation.

Agree 100%.  The pinned thread could be updated better, but that is about it.  Yet another shoutout for @Faust

 

[-OZ-]

Keep the official threads. Limit discussion about the specific player to that thread.

While you're limiting players to one thread, limit lonely star's ability to start threads.

 

[Faust]

I have edited my placeholder posting that was the first post after Joe started this topic to summarize my thoughts on this subject.

 

[Pwingles]

Can we create a
"Commish's Corner" sub where lone star can post all his hypothetical stuff and not clog up the SP with it?

 

[Tau837]

The official threads on the board are awesome and one of the best things on the board.
Discussion is centralized. History is easy to find. Faust (and others) do a great job of providing updates to a specific thread where interested parties can find info easily.

There's a pinned thread where each player's thread is tracked. 

The only folks who might struggle would be newcomers to the board who haven't sehorned the threads yet. Generally the board corrects without condemnation.

/thread

 

[PhantomJB]

I'm happy with whatever keeps Faust happy.

 

[TakiToki]

If single threads per player are used, I think it would be good if the outer thread links featured the most recent pages.

For example, instead of

• Dynasty & Redraft: RB Jerick McKinnon, 49ers 1  2  3  4  20
  

I think it would be more convenient if it were presented as

• Dynasty & Redraft: RB Jerick McKinnon, 49ers 1  17  18  19  20
  

If the board so allows.

Edited to add that this idea was literally a handful of posts above mine. Shame on me for not reading first.

 

[Andrew74]

One thought, and I'm not sure if the forum lets us do this, but it would be helpful if you could jump to something like the 3rd to last page from the current page.  

Here's what I'm talking about.  If a thread has 40 pages, you can jump to pages 1, 2, 3, 4, or 40 with one click.  But I don't care about the first 35 or so pages unless I'm looking for historical data.  So it would be a lot more helpful to allow us to jump to pages 36, 37, 38, and 39 as well or instead of 2, 3, and 4.  Not a huge issue but would make things a lot more helpful if we keep the "official" threads -- something that I'm in favor of.

Can’t you do this already?  I’m on my phone and when I click the “Page 1 of 20” at the top of the thread, a dialog box appears when I can enter the page.  Or am I misunderstanding what you are asking?

 

[TakiToki]

Can’t you do this already?  I’m on my phone and when I click the “Page 1 of 20” at the top of the thread, a dialog box appears when I can enter the page.  Or am I misunderstanding what you are asking?

I believe he is talking about the main page, not jumping to a page when already in the thread.

 

[Andrew74]

I believe he is talking about the main page, not jumping to a page when already in the thread.

There is a “Page 1 of 3,XXX” at the top of the main page, too, that allows you to input a page number. 

 

[Chaka]

Fix the search engine.

I'm serious about this one @Joe Bryant, is this really the best search function FBGs can deploy?

IMO it's been a liability since I got here a decade (or more? Darn I'm old) ago.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

It's important to dunk on people who were wrong 5 years ago.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The reliance of single threads is one of the things that originally drew me to this forum and eventually the product. I love looking at the historical knowledge, it’s very helpful. And it’s really frustrating to see the same argument pop up all over again in a new thread when members just spent a couple days arguing about just that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm serious about this one @Joe Bryant, is this really the best search function FBGs can deploy?

IMO it's been a liability since I got here a decade (or more? Darn I'm old) ago.

Sorry but we don't have control over it. It's part of the message board software. I do wish it were less clunky. 

 

[Biabreakable]

It has been mentioned a couple times already but I wanted to point out what a nightmare it would be to update the player index thread if there are multiple threads for each player running around. 

The index thread is a more functional version of the search tool although I do wonder about how much people actually use the index thread to find the threads they want to read or contribute to? Maybe most do not use it as often as I do. I am not sure.

It was a very good suggestion made by a new poster to create the index thread in the first place. and that suggestion came about for the very same reason that Joe is asking about. The redundancy of topics. I really like the index thread and I want to thank Hankmoody and GregR for the great work they have done there. I bet it saves Faust a lot of time as well.

Last time there was some sort of thing put into the title of the threads to differentiate them. I forget exactly what that was when it happened. It didn't work though and was pretty quickly abandoned once this became obvious. No need to go down that road again.

Everyone is interested in the most recent information regarding a player. Making new threads for this actually makes it more difficult to figure out what information is new or not. As one of the long winded posters here, some of those posts can take me 30 minutes to write or more. I certainly am not going to repeat all that every time a new thread about the topic is made. A lot of people won't read back far enough to see what I wrote about the topic a month or so ago, but that being there does make it pretty easy for me to just link the previous post of the thread if it comes up again. Saves me time. 

 

[Chaka]

Sorry but we don't have control over it. It's part of the message board software. I do wish it were less clunky. 

Fair enough. This is the only MB I frequent on a regular basis so I have nothing to compare it to but it seems that many commerce sites I visit have much more robust search features. Plenty of them suck too, but FBGs stands out for its search deficiencies.

 

[Dismattle]

There have been a few times where I kinda believed an original post wasn't really the best place to see additional info  Think there's a chance I might enjoy a "new" Capt. Kirk post just so long as the OP includes a courtesy link to the original thread for the player

Just trying to brainstorm how it might work would be Admin would need to consider closing the original thread to posts while also making a post linking to the new thread  It really should have a requirement like having already posted 1K times or something in hopes to avoid multiple re-threads

 

[Joe Bryant]

Fair enough. This is the only MB I frequent on a regular basis so I have nothing to compare it to but it seems that many commerce sites I visit have much more robust search features. Plenty of them suck too, but FBGs stands out for its search deficiencies.

Thanks.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks for the feedback folks. Looks like most prefer to keep it how it has been. That's cool. 

I do think there's a real value on the separate thread thing when the point is big enough.  I think the right answer is to keep it that way and to also keep it to where there needs to be a loosely agreed upon threshold for what is worth of a new thread. That, like most of what we do here, is more of a "I know it when I see it" thing. 

Continue as we were. And thanks for being a part of the boards. 

 

[Bronco Billy]

Thanks for the feedback folks. Looks like most prefer to keep it how it has been. That's cool. 

I do think there's a real value on the separate thread thing when the point is big enough.  I think the right answer is to keep it that way and to also keep it to where there needs to be a loosely agreed upon threshold for what is worth of a new thread. That, like most of what we do here, is more of a "I know it when I see it" thing. 

Continue as we were. And thanks for being a part of the boards. 

Bonus points for channeling Justice Potter Stewart.

 

[wakelawyer]

There is a “Page 1 of 3,XXX” at the top of the main page, too, that allows you to input a page number. 

I never noticed that before but it wasn't where I was going.  My thought is more like what @TakiToki laid out.  If you have a player thread with 20 pages, I'd like to go to page 18 to start reading and catch up rather than click on page 20 to find out that there are only 2 posts on that page.  It would seem that the functionality is there because, when I click on page 20, I see an option to go to page 1, 16, 17, 18, 19.  But it would be more helpful on the first page.

But, overall, not a huge issue.  It would just save a few clicks.

 

[the lone star]

If single threads per player are used, I think it would be good if the outer thread links featured the most recent pages.

For example, instead of

• Dynasty & Redraft: RB Jerick McKinnon, 49ers 1  2  3  4  20
  

I think it would be more convenient if it were presented as

• Dynasty & Redraft: RB Jerick McKinnon, 49ers 1  17  18  19  20
  

If the board so allows.

Edited to add that this idea was literally a handful of posts above mine. Shame on me for not reading first.

I like it. Good idea.

 

[Hankmoody]

I never noticed that before but it wasn't where I was going.  My thought is more like what @TakiToki laid out.  If you have a player thread with 20 pages, I'd like to go to page 18 to start reading and catch up rather than click on page 20 to find out that there are only 2 posts on that page.  It would seem that the functionality is there because, when I click on page 20, I see an option to go to page 1, 16, 17, 18, 19.  But it would be more helpful on the first page.

But, overall, not a huge issue.  It would just save a few clicks.

Well it's only one more click - click page 20 on the home page and then when you get there click page 18 at the top there. 

You can also click on the dot to the left of the thread title.  That takes you to the first post in the thread you haven't read so you can pick up right where you left off. 

 

[wakelawyer]

Well it's only one more click - click page 20 on the home page and then when you get there click page 18 at the top there. 

You can also click on the dot to the left of the thread title.  That takes you to the first post in the thread you haven't read so you can pick up right where you left off. 




1

Thanks.  I had no idea that you could do that.   And it absolutely addresses the "issue" I noted above.

 

[Bojang0301]

Would discouraging threads based on hearsay, bias and conjecture be a tolerable suggestion? As of right now there is a thread on the first page being propped up by an OP who refuses to offer any data to any of his arguments yet is still allowed to come here and troll and troll and troll and no one cares. Stuff used to be put to bed around here. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Would discouraging threads based on hearsay, bias and conjecture be a tolerable suggestion? As of right now there is a thread on the first page being propped up by an OP who refuses to offer any data to any of his arguments yet is still allowed to come here and troll and troll and troll and no one cares. Stuff used to be put to bed around here. 

For sure. I always say most sources are ok to discuss but you have to name the source. Obviously a real link to a real organization is best. But sometimes you hear something from someone. If that's the case, say it clearly and people can make their decision. But also know those kinds of things are pretty rare. 

If someone is clearly trolling, please report it with exactly why you think it's over the line. 

 

[Sweet Love]

Sorry but we don't have control over it. It's part of the message board software. I do wish it were less clunky. 

@Joe Bryant, are there "best practices" we can follow to better get the results we are looking for.  Maybe a couple of simple tips/tricks and pin it?

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Joe Bryant, are there "best practices" we can follow to better get the results we are looking for.  Maybe a couple of simple tips/tricks and pin it?

Hi @Sweet Love   I don't know that there are any real "best practices". @Aaron Rudnicki and I have talked about it - it's pretty straightforward. 

Click on "search" and you can decide whether you want to search this topic or this forum. Obviously, if you search for Trump in the FFA, you're going to get a million returns. I find it's best if you can use a unique search term you remember from the thread. That usually does it for me. 

 

[Chaka]

@Joe Bryant, are there "best practices" we can follow to better get the results we are looking for.  Maybe a couple of simple tips/tricks and pin it?

I always go straight to the advanced search features and search by forum and title.  If you include thread body in your search you are going to end up with far more noise than signal.

 

[Hankmoody]

Ok now color me confused.  We now have threads on page 1 about Carson Wentz's starting chances (his official thread is on page 2) and Drew Brees' "lack of recognition" whatever that means.  Are these breaking news threads?  Why do those need their own threads rather than being discussed in the player's thread?  Isn't this the exact kind of thing that was discussed here in this thread?  Are we going to see people start new threads on all new topics for each QB out there?  Are we supposed to report these for merging?  When?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ok now color me confused.  We now have threads on page 1 about Carson Wentz's starting chances (his official thread is on page 2) and Drew Brees' "lack of recognition" whatever that means.  Are these breaking news threads?  Why do those need their own threads rather than being discussed in the player's thread?  Isn't this the exact kind of thing that was discussed here in this thread?  Are we going to see people start new threads on all new topics for each QB out there?  Are we supposed to report these for merging?  When?

No. I don't think those need to be any master thread at all. They're just football discussion. Brees thread has turned into who's better thread which has turned into discussion about how other players affect QB. That should never be only in a Drew Brees master thread at all. I think it should be just like it is and on the board as football discussion. Never merged into anything. It stands on it's own. Same for Carson Wentz recovery. That's a good topic that can stand on it's own and not be buried into a master thread. Right now in May, Wentz' recovery is a hot topic. 

 

[shadyridr]

I said it in the other thread. Rotoworld style of one OFFICIAL thread per player is the way to go. I frequent those boards for fantasy advice way more than these now because these boards are a jumbled mess now with info about the same player posted in multiple threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I said it in the other thread. Rotoworld style of one OFFICIAL thread per player is the way to go. I frequent those boards for fantasy advice way more than these now because these boards are a jumbled mess now with info about the same player posted in multiple threads.

I think maybe this should be a discussion about what the board should be. The Shark Pool has always been kind of the "barbershop" type forum where all kinds of things are discussed. Drew Brees underrated thread is a great example. Starts off with that and turns into general NFL talk and how teammates effect and discussion about rings. 

Rotoworld is strictly a 2018 Brees Outlook. There's no room for talking about underrated QBs there. I'm not saying their way is wrong. I'm saying it's super limiting. 

I guess it comes down to what kind of board and focus you guys want. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

These boards are way more active than Rotoworld's. But I can see how maybe less posts is better if that's what you're looking for.