Does anyone know why footballguys news blogger seems to only post drops, signings and trades etc. We seem not to get the editiorial articles from local beat writers that we have received from years past. Does anyone know why? I'm having more luck on the espn website.......this is surprising becasue this never used to be the case?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Footballguys News? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter umcampb3
- Start date
I'll take a crack at this one, umcampb3, since I am a member of the News Blogger team.
I can't remember when the "shift" occurred, but it's been at least several months now since we were told to basically try and stick to the facts and avoid a lot of the "speculation" that exists out there. If it is beat writers we know aren't just
, we'll often try and post some of their ideas. However, there is a LOT of writers out there that are making up lots of "What if?" or "A little birdie told me" types of articles where the rumors are basically originating with them...and all that stuff does is clutter-up the news and eat a LOT more time/resources than we've had to devote to things.
This time of year, we're also running a skeleton crew (roughly half as many shifts). Guys in the morning and afternoon post whatever they can find in all the newspapers and other media sites, and at night, I come on to clean-up things such as transactions, injury news, etc. We could post 200 summaries/day related to rumors and what-not from all the media sources out there, but well-over half of them are either unsubstantiated or will never become reality...so it seems unnecessary to clutter-up the news and player pages with lots of that kind of stuff. Less fun to read? Probably. However, if I had a dollar for every NFL rumor out there that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in "Miami"
of happening, I could buy Bryant Boats! 
Just my opinions, and not official "company line." We've been covering the Blogger without 100% coverage in all of our shifts for a while now, so those of us who are on do the very-best we can in the 2-3 hours/day we're on the clock. I'm a transactions and depth chart junkie too though...so that probably doesn't help related to seeing a TON of that stuff in the Blogger too. If it's FACT and if it is NEWS though, it generally makes it in there.
Thanks for the feedback!
I can't remember when the "shift" occurred, but it's been at least several months now since we were told to basically try and stick to the facts and avoid a lot of the "speculation" that exists out there. If it is beat writers we know aren't just
, we'll often try and post some of their ideas. However, there is a LOT of writers out there that are making up lots of "What if?" or "A little birdie told me" types of articles where the rumors are basically originating with them...and all that stuff does is clutter-up the news and eat a LOT more time/resources than we've had to devote to things.This time of year, we're also running a skeleton crew (roughly half as many shifts). Guys in the morning and afternoon post whatever they can find in all the newspapers and other media sites, and at night, I come on to clean-up things such as transactions, injury news, etc. We could post 200 summaries/day related to rumors and what-not from all the media sources out there, but well-over half of them are either unsubstantiated or will never become reality...so it seems unnecessary to clutter-up the news and player pages with lots of that kind of stuff. Less fun to read? Probably. However, if I had a dollar for every NFL rumor out there that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in "Miami"
of happening, I could buy Bryant Boats! Just my opinions, and not official "company line." We've been covering the Blogger without 100% coverage in all of our shifts for a while now, so those of us who are on do the very-best we can in the 2-3 hours/day we're on the clock. I'm a transactions and depth chart junkie too though...so that probably doesn't help related to seeing a TON of that stuff in the Blogger too. If it's FACT and if it is NEWS though, it generally makes it in there.
Thanks for the feedback!
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Ashcraft
Footballguy
Ditto on what datonn said. He and I are both in year 3 of working the blogger and I can say unequivocally that my "eye" for fact vs. speculation has become very good. I have grown to loathe beat writers, etc . who spend the vast majority of their articles speculating/editorializing.We all go through some 200-200 RSS feeds each shift. So you could see how posting every rumor out there would bog us down -- in fact it would cripple the quality of what we do. DO I wish our numbers were higher in the offseason? Sure, but the fact remains that outside of signings, drops, trades, there is not much else to "report" on. In fact, I make it my mission to point out when the writer is speculating vs. reporting.Too much of the media in our present time have a desire to be the first one to crack a story. Many times that leads to, as Emmitt Smith would say, "a couple diamonds surrounded by poo-poo." I know for me, it has become much harder to flesh out what is indeed fact in a story and what is the writer trying to speculate in order to prove he or she is right at a later date.I am glad that the OP is reading what we do, and I hope more continue to use our blogger as their first source for news. But it will mostly be just that, news.I'll take a crack at this one, umcampb3, since I am a member of the News Blogger team.I can't remember when the "shift" occurred, but it's been at least several months now since we were told to basically try and stick to the facts and avoid a lot of the "speculation" that exists out there. If it is beat writers we know aren't just, we'll often try and post some of their ideas. However, there is a LOT of writers out there that are making up lots of "What if?" or "A little birdie told me" types of articles where the rumors are basically originating with them...and all that stuff does is clutter-up the news and eat a LOT more time/resources than we've had to devote to things.This time of year, we're also running a skeleton crew (roughly half as many shifts). Guys in the morning and afternoon post whatever they can find in all the newspapers and other media sites, and at night, I come on to clean-up things such as transactions, injury news, etc. We could post 200 summaries/day related to rumors and what-not from all the media sources out there, but well-over half of them are either unsubstantiated or will never become reality...so it seems unnecessary to clutter-up the news and player pages with lots of that kind of stuff. Less fun to read? Probably. However, if I had a dollar for every NFL rumor out there that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in "Miami" <_< of happening, I could buy Bryant Boats!
Just my opinions, and not official "company line." We've been covering the Blogger without 100% coverage in all of our shifts for a while now, so those of us who are on do the very-best we can in the 2-3 hours/day we're on the clock. I'm a transactions and depth chart junkie too though...so that probably doesn't help related to seeing a TON of that stuff in the Blogger too. If it's FACT and if it is NEWS though, it generally makes it in there.Thanks for the feedback!
Andy Herron
Footballguy
As the third blogger to chime in on this topic, following datonn and Kevin, they've pretty well summed it up.
We have guidelines to follow. For example, as Kevin pointed out, if a story seems to have substance but at the same time is speculative, we need to point it out. Per the Guidelines:
What articles should be considered for the Blogger?
Any blurb(s) found within an article that has relevance to a fantasy football owner should be posted to the Blogger. That would include fantasy blurbs for redraft leagues, dynasty leagues and IDP leagues. If it is a meaningful opinion piece not based on fact but speculation, we still post it but let our viewers know that it is the opinion of the author. Do that by adding a question mark to the end of your title.
i.e.- QB Couch Headed To The Packers?
In addition, what we post needs to have "some" relevance to fantasy football, as mentioned, all in an effort to bring solid material and information to FF owners.
We are a fantasy football news source, not a rumor mill. We leave the rumors to other sites and here in The Shark Pool.
More from the guidelines:
What articles should NOT be considered for the Blogger?
There are a number of different articles that we do not want to post to our Blogger page.
1. Collegiate news. The only exception to this rule is if the news relates to a player coming out in the current year's draft
2. Fluff articles. We consider fluff articles those that have no use whatsoever to a fantasy owner. Examples of this type of article include
* New stadium in Dallas
* Colts moving to Los Angeles
* Houston awarded the 2012 Super Bowl
*** We used to say if it is extremely slow during your shift then go ahead and post 'fluff' pieces. However all that does is help to bury the news that will be of interest to our readers looking for fantasy football information. From this point on, do not post anything to the Blogger that doesn't have some fantasy football relevance. ***
Simply put, those viewing our news page can be assured that news they find at Footballguys is nothing less than solid, substantiated material. We won't post anything that doesn't provide a link for the source, other than in-game news during the season provided by the network carrying the game itself.
Fantasy footballers need and want reliable, informative sources. That's what we strive for every day.
We have guidelines to follow. For example, as Kevin pointed out, if a story seems to have substance but at the same time is speculative, we need to point it out. Per the Guidelines:
What articles should be considered for the Blogger?
Any blurb(s) found within an article that has relevance to a fantasy football owner should be posted to the Blogger. That would include fantasy blurbs for redraft leagues, dynasty leagues and IDP leagues. If it is a meaningful opinion piece not based on fact but speculation, we still post it but let our viewers know that it is the opinion of the author. Do that by adding a question mark to the end of your title.
i.e.- QB Couch Headed To The Packers?
In addition, what we post needs to have "some" relevance to fantasy football, as mentioned, all in an effort to bring solid material and information to FF owners.
We are a fantasy football news source, not a rumor mill. We leave the rumors to other sites and here in The Shark Pool.
More from the guidelines:
What articles should NOT be considered for the Blogger?
There are a number of different articles that we do not want to post to our Blogger page.
1. Collegiate news. The only exception to this rule is if the news relates to a player coming out in the current year's draft
2. Fluff articles. We consider fluff articles those that have no use whatsoever to a fantasy owner. Examples of this type of article include
* New stadium in Dallas
* Colts moving to Los Angeles
* Houston awarded the 2012 Super Bowl
*** We used to say if it is extremely slow during your shift then go ahead and post 'fluff' pieces. However all that does is help to bury the news that will be of interest to our readers looking for fantasy football information. From this point on, do not post anything to the Blogger that doesn't have some fantasy football relevance. ***
Simply put, those viewing our news page can be assured that news they find at Footballguys is nothing less than solid, substantiated material. We won't post anything that doesn't provide a link for the source, other than in-game news during the season provided by the network carrying the game itself.
Fantasy footballers need and want reliable, informative sources. That's what we strive for every day.
Thanks so much for the replies. One can understand how much time and effort it takes to keep the blogger up and running.
Please accept this feedback on the blogger.
I've been an advid user of the blogger for many years. It is a very useful tool and will continue to be so. What I like most about editorial or opinion based articles is they normally contain quotes from coaches, players and management. I find these quotes to (depending on who is being quoted) to be quite useful to understand a teams plans for a player next season, how somebody is coming back from re-hab, what other players think of their new rookies etc. This is obviously not true when a player is talking about himself, especially in the third person!! (when players do this I just shake my head) This as/is one of the main reasons why I'm a huge fan of the blogger. I normally don't make posts to this Forum but I thought I'd ask the question.
Again, thanks for the response, it is logical and makes perfect sense.
Regards,
Robert
Please accept this feedback on the blogger.
I've been an advid user of the blogger for many years. It is a very useful tool and will continue to be so. What I like most about editorial or opinion based articles is they normally contain quotes from coaches, players and management. I find these quotes to (depending on who is being quoted) to be quite useful to understand a teams plans for a player next season, how somebody is coming back from re-hab, what other players think of their new rookies etc. This is obviously not true when a player is talking about himself, especially in the third person!! (when players do this I just shake my head) This as/is one of the main reasons why I'm a huge fan of the blogger. I normally don't make posts to this Forum but I thought I'd ask the question.
Again, thanks for the response, it is logical and makes perfect sense.
Regards,
Robert
Hey Robert,
4th Blogger's a charm, although some of this may read redundant after the first three replies. Nevertheless, here's an added perspective on the issue, more or less coming back to the point of why we do what we do:
Anyone could just say, "Couch Headed To Packers?" and turn that into a woulda-shoulda-coulda scenario, but that doesn't really help you the reader. What we would likely do now (as we've since shied away from question mark pieces) is to simply say "Couch visits Packers", and let you know that the Packers are at least interested in Couch, no more, no less.
In addition, my point of view on an article could be different from every other blogger's view and vice-versa. Example: Say we post an article with our opinion woven into it. "X player could play Sunday". That slanted headline obviously means I read an article to mean a certain thing. I'm hinting optimism that a player might suit up. But X player could play, also means x player could not play. The word "could" might give fantasy owners a false impression of a player's injury status based on how one person took the article.
So in sticking with just the facts, ie. "x player questionable for Sunday" or "x player limited in practice", or "x player to test toe injury Friday" we are letting you know the information only, and not leading you on as to whether or not a player could or could not play. - unless of course the article itself leans in a particular direction. Afterwards, our fantasy experts will take that information and give you their opinion (based on facts) in other areas of the site. After all, they can't give you their takes without having the facts first, which of course is where we come in.
And besides, if we all gave our individual opinions on what an article meant, the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen" comes to mind. And then you have a situation where someone says, "Well Adam said he was looking good, but Andy said he wouldn't risk it, but Derek said wait until noon Sunday", and so on.
Not to say we would disagree all that often because like Kevin said, we're all pretty well versed as to what is speculation and what is fact, and what it all likely means. So if in the article "x player questionable" reads one way or another about his status for Sunday, we'll certainly point that out in the posted blurb.
Speaking of too many cooks, lol. Hope that helps and thanks much for your feedback.
Adam
4th Blogger's a charm, although some of this may read redundant after the first three replies. Nevertheless, here's an added perspective on the issue, more or less coming back to the point of why we do what we do:
Anyone could just say, "Couch Headed To Packers?" and turn that into a woulda-shoulda-coulda scenario, but that doesn't really help you the reader. What we would likely do now (as we've since shied away from question mark pieces) is to simply say "Couch visits Packers", and let you know that the Packers are at least interested in Couch, no more, no less.
In addition, my point of view on an article could be different from every other blogger's view and vice-versa. Example: Say we post an article with our opinion woven into it. "X player could play Sunday". That slanted headline obviously means I read an article to mean a certain thing. I'm hinting optimism that a player might suit up. But X player could play, also means x player could not play. The word "could" might give fantasy owners a false impression of a player's injury status based on how one person took the article.
So in sticking with just the facts, ie. "x player questionable for Sunday" or "x player limited in practice", or "x player to test toe injury Friday" we are letting you know the information only, and not leading you on as to whether or not a player could or could not play. - unless of course the article itself leans in a particular direction. Afterwards, our fantasy experts will take that information and give you their opinion (based on facts) in other areas of the site. After all, they can't give you their takes without having the facts first, which of course is where we come in.
And besides, if we all gave our individual opinions on what an article meant, the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen" comes to mind. And then you have a situation where someone says, "Well Adam said he was looking good, but Andy said he wouldn't risk it, but Derek said wait until noon Sunday", and so on.
Not to say we would disagree all that often because like Kevin said, we're all pretty well versed as to what is speculation and what is fact, and what it all likely means. So if in the article "x player questionable" reads one way or another about his status for Sunday, we'll certainly point that out in the posted blurb.
Speaking of too many cooks, lol. Hope that helps and thanks much for your feedback.
Adam
Last edited by a moderator:
