I'd Love Us To Have More News Driven Threads On Specific Topics - Please Help (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

But *why* would I think that I would be interested in page 25 of a thread with an innocuous title?  I think that is Joe's point.  The generic, and sometimes inaccurate titles don't welcome in new posters/participants. 

You would be interested because you came here to find information on certain players.  You see an all encompassing thread for Darren Waller so you go to see what is being discussed.   If I see 4 Darren Waller threads with catchy titles it's fine but it clutters up the front page pushing down other players I might also want to see about only they aren't readily available.  

There is no right answer because everyone is different.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like the way Rotoworld does it and has one player thread for each player. All the news for that player is limited to that thread. Having dozens of threads about one player makes little sense.

Also, all the RW threads have the same naming convention "2021 Darren Waller Outlook Thread". If someone starts a thread and names it differently the mods correct it but everyone seems to follow the naming convention now.

Thanks. That's better than our giant threads as at least they are all 2021 and have the right teams, but still has the exact problem for the user. You read the list and have no idea what the discussion is about. I think people are way more interested in talking about how much they're worried about a specific injury or situation and not just "outlook". 

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is no right answer because everyone is different.  

That's a fair point too. It becomes like most of life in then trying to find the "most right" answer. I get it. 

And also, I hope it goes without saying, I think everyone here wants what is best. Zero question about that. We just don't all have the same idea of what is best sometimes. That's natural. 

 

[Gally]

Thanks. That's better than our giant threads as at least they are all 2021 and have the right teams, but still has the exact problem for the user. You read the list and have no idea what the discussion is about. I think people are way more interested in talking about how much they're worried about a specific injury or situation and not just "outlook". 

See, I see this and know exactly what the thread is about.  It is about that particular player and will encompass everything surrounding that player which might ebb and flow as various items come up.  It gives a complete picture not just a specific topic.  

To me this way allows for a lot more discussion as things can get pulled and morphed into may different aspects plus you get the benefit of it being all contained in a single thread.  I did mention upthread for my suggestion of having single year player discussions (2021 - Darren Waller).  This would go from February (right after Super Bowl) until the following Super Bowl.  Then a new thread gets started.  This way you have the ability to search a particular year/player minimizing the overall intimidation 500 page thread but still keeping everything contained to the player for the most up to date time frame.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You would be interested because you came here to find information on certain players.  You see an all encompassing thread for Darren Waller so you go to see what is being discussed.   If I see 4 Darren Waller threads with catchy titles it's fine but it clutters up the front page pushing down other players I might also want to see about only they aren't readily available.  

There is no right answer because everyone is different.  

just to add a little bit to this, it also seems like at some point the search feature could become unwieldy and inefficient. if there is one player topic, & you search for that player, you will see a Single result of “official topic for X player“

Under the new system, it might be that when you search search for a player, you’ll find 372 topics with that players name in The topic title.

 yes you can go by the date as long as it’s in the title, but that still returns quite a bit of data instead of one all encompassing post.

I understand the appeal of both sides of this… Just an observation. 
 

we will see how it goes.

 

[Joe Bryant]

See, I see this and know exactly what the thread is about.  It is about that particular player and will encompass everything surrounding that player which might ebb and flow as various items come up.  It gives a complete picture not just a specific topic.  

Thanks. That's what I'm saying. I think most discussion is often around a specific topic. Which I think brings out much more discussion. I hear and understand exactly what you're saying though. We'll take a look. 

That super formulaic format with the heavy moderation feels pretty sterile to me. 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

See, I see this and know exactly what the thread is about.  It is about that particular player and will encompass everything surrounding that player...

Right, but is the latest news that the player adopted a puppy from a rescue shelter, got married, or donated money to some charity? For 90% of players in the NFL I wouldn't care about those things, but for 10% I would like to read about it. I would rather not have to click into the last page of a 50 page thread and scroll back, skimming/reading posts just to figure out if I might be interested in reading whatever is new in this thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Right, but is the latest news that the player adopted a puppy from a rescue shelter, got married, or donated money to some charity? For 90% of players in the NFL I wouldn't care about those things, but for 10% I would like to read about it. I would rather not have to click into the last page of a 50 page thread and scroll back, skimming/reading posts just to figure out if I might be interested in reading whatever is new in this thread.

Agreed. 

It's the "social contract" however small that the reader wants to know what they're getting into.

It's why everyone hates click bait titles.

And it's why good, clear and accurate titles for articles are so important.

If I call out a site feature in the email update called "5 WRs who can win your league for you" and you click on the link and the article is about Aaron Rodgers, you're rightfully disappointed. Even if the Rodgers article was good. 

It comes down to helping the reader. And good and descriptive titles giving the reader a headsup as they do the now nonstop task of scanning for information, are a big help. And I firmly believe when you help the reader like this and give them more insight into the topic on the front end, you'll get better and more actionable discussion. 

That's the whole thing. People have asked me why I'm seeing the need to adjust. That's it. 

Let me keep working on this. I think I have some other possible things that can be good.

This has been good discussion and helpful.

 

[jobarules]

Thanks. That's better than our giant threads as at least they are all 2021 and have the right teams, but still has the exact problem for the user. You read the list and have no idea what the discussion is about. I think people are way more interested in talking about how much they're worried about a specific injury or situation and not just "outlook". 

People dont come to these forums for breaking news. They get breaking news elsewhere (usually app notifications on their phone) and come here to discuss the breaking news. They'll know exactly where the discussion is located.

I think you are way off.

 

[jobarules]

Plus another thing. People tend to click on the threads of players they own. So you see a Darren Waller thread on the top of the page and you own him, curiosity will get that person to click on the thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

People dont come to these forums for breaking news. They get breaking news elsewhere (usually app notifications on their phone) and come here to discuss the breaking news.

We agree for sure on that. Nothing breaks here anymore. The goal here is discussion and I think helping the readers with more descriptive thread titles encourages better discussion. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

We agree for sure on that. Nothing breaks here anymore. The goal here is discussion and I think helping the readers with more descriptive thread titles encourages better discussion. 

You seem to be saying two different things here. You started all of this off by saying that you "don't know of a smarter group than the Shark Pool"

But then you seem to sell them short by suggesting they need more descriptive thread titles to figure out where to go to talk about breaking news.

"I read that Joe Burrow is struggling. I see a Joe Burrow thread, but I'm not sure if that's the right place to discuss what's going on. If only there were a thread that specifically said 'Joe Burrow was seen struggling with accuracy and mobility issues on 8/8/2021'. Then I'd know what to do."

Your solution is chasing a problem you don't have. Or at least one that members of the Shark Pool don't have.

 

[humpback]

Thanks. That's better than our giant threads as at least they are all 2021 and have the right teams, but still has the exact problem for the user. You read the list and have no idea what the discussion is about. I think people are way more interested in talking about how much they're worried about a specific injury or situation and not just "outlook". 

This isn't rocket surgery, the discussion is about the player in the title, anything that posters deem is relevant. If you're still unsure, all you have to do is click on it and read a bit. Each of these sub-topics impacts the "outlook", and most of the new threads quickly deviate from the title anyway so you're not really solving any problem (which I'm not convinced exists in the first place).

Take a look at the Barkley thread, which you said is exactly what you want- how many posts in there have to do with him coming off the PUP list (the title)? Almost none, it's about their team, QB, O-line, how many RBs should be drafted in round 1, handcuff strategy, adp, etc. Sure, it triggered more discussion about Barkley (and other stuff), and some of it is valuable, but is there any reason it couldn't have been in the main Barkley thread?

Now if someone is looking for current viewpoints on Barkley (or the Giants, or RB adp, etc.), they have to go into the new thread instead of the main one, and some may skip over it since it's supposed to be about him coming of the PUP list. IMO that isn't exactly earth-shattering news by itself, and I already saw it elsewhere, so why would I click on that if I'm looking for opinions on Barkley (or any of the other topics being discussed in there, like how many RBs do you expect to be drafted in round 1)?

By the way, I may have missed it but are all of these sub-threads going to be merged into the main ones at some point when the discussion drops off? I think they should, otherwise the main threads will be missing a lot of the discussion. Or is the point to get rid of the master threads entirely and use sub-threads for everything?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Here's the next problem. How long does a thread last?

Rashod Bateman pulls a groin muscle on 8/10. Do we continue talking about it until in that thread until he's healthy? Until he returns to practice? Until the next medical update?

Do we start another thread on 8/11 that says "MRIs reveal that he'll be out 6 weeks".

And then on 8/12 we start another one that says "Nope. New MRI says only four weeks."?

"Well, no, you keep talking about it in the 8/10 thread." Then how is that any different than just having a "Rashod Bateman" thread?

And 'round it goes.

I don't get it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You seem to be saying two different things here. You started all of this off by saying that you "don't know of a smarter group than the Shark Pool"

But then you seem to sell them short by suggesting they need more descriptive thread titles to figure out where to go to talk about breaking news.

"I read that Joe Burrow is struggling. I see a Joe Burrow thread, but I'm not sure if that's the right place to discuss what's going on. If only there were a thread that specifically said 'Joe Burrow was seen struggling with accuracy and mobility issues on 8/8/2021'. Then I'd know what to do."

Your solution is chasing a problem you don't have. Or at least one that members of the Shark Pool don't have.

That's a fair point. What I'm saying is systems self select. We've narrowed our forum down to a small group of folks who are super sharp. It's a way smaller group than it used to be. Unless they're just trying to punish themselves, they all are ok with the current mega thread format with no titles. That's just the reality of self selecting systems.

I'm saying we can do better than that for encouraging discussion. For both the current people here. And also attract more new folks who are looking for the super reasonable help of a descriptive title. It's just general user interface stuff. A good title massively helps anything. Regardless of the user base.

Thanks for the feedback on it. I think we're on the right track. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

That's a fair point. What I'm saying is systems self select. We've narrowed our forum down to a small group of folks who are super sharp. It's a way smaller group than it used to be. Unless they're just trying to punish themselves, they all are ok with the current mega thread format with no titles. That's just the reality of self selecting systems.

I'm saying we can do better than that for encouraging discussion. For both the current people here. And also attract more new folks who are looking for the super reasonable help of a descriptive title. It's just general user interface stuff. A good title massively helps anything. Regardless of the user base.

Thanks for the feedback on it. I think we're on the right track. 

I get that this is really the crux of the matter. But here's what happens then...

"I'm a n00b here and don't want to make a fool of myself. I see a Joe Burrow thread that pretty much just says 'Joe Burrow - QB Cincinnati' but then there's this other one that says 'Joe Burrow has a terrible practice on Day X'. Which one am I supposed to join in on?"

The user experience isn't improved, it's fragmented. 

I really don't want to be a trouble maker but I just don't get it. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I get that this is really the crux of the matter. But here's what happens then...

"I'm a n00b here and don't want to make a fool of myself. I see a Joe Burrow thread that pretty much just says 'Joe Burrow - QB Cincinnati' but then there's this other one that says 'Joe Burrow has a terrible practice on Day X'. Which one am I supposed to join in on?"

The user experience isn't improved, it's fragmented. 

I really don't want to be a trouble maker but I just don't get it. 

No worries. You're not making any trouble. I don't think that at all.

If the new visitor (and to be clear, they're probably not a beginner, just new to the forum) visited and saw two threads, my guess is they'd click on the one with the description that interested them the most. 

Assuming they were interested in Saquon Barkley, they'd have the choice of:

Saquon Barkley

or

Saquon Barkley off PUP - How concerned are you?

My guess (and it's purely a guess, but I do have a lot of experience with this) is they'll choose the more descriptive thread first. 

I do fully get the other side of the argument though. Contrary to the PMs folks are sending that I don't care what anyone but me thinks, I hear what you're saying. I get it. I'm trying to make it the best for the forum. Both for the folks here and also to make it more appealing to more people. (I also fully get in most every case, the folks here are often not too interested in new people coming in. In that sense, I have a very different motivation as I want a bigger more vibrant community.)

I'm working on some things I think will help. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I also fully get in most every case, the folks here are often not too interested in new people coming in. In that sense, I have a very different motivation as I want a bigger more vibrant community.

I don't think that's true.

In fact, if we could swap some people out for some new blood, I can give you a list.

I kid! I kid!

 

[Gally]

Assuming they were interested in Saquon Barkley, they'd have the choice of:

Saquon Barkley

or

Saquon Barkley off PUP - How concerned are you?

My guess (and it's purely a guess, but I do have a lot of experience with this) is they'll choose the more descriptive thread first. 

I agree that the first click is likely the second title.  It is the clearer thread title and likely has less pages so it is less intimidating (or quicker to consume) so that is where they go.  That's not a bad thing.  

Where I think many of the concerns are coming from is that it will now clutter the first page with tons of mini threads with no repository so now things are really fragmented to find a comprehensive view/discussion on a player.  

I suggest combining them.  Once the discussion dies down in the well titled mini thread it gets merged into the comprehensive player page.  You can have it be something like no new discussion in 24 hrs or something like that and a mod merges it.  

That way you get your initial new easier to digest discussion for new readers but then all that good discussion gets merged into the comprehensive player page for those that want to review a time line of information all in one place.  This also helps keep the front page clean.

Also having a naming convention for the player comprehensive pages would help for search.  It can be as simple (and I think simple is better) as "Saquan Barkley - Comprehensive Discussion"

I think this gives you what you are looking for (initial quick discussion on a certain topic) but then gives us old folks the comprehensive place that houses all the discussion eventually.  

 

[Army Eye]

Despite being a fantasy football diehard, and a huge user of Internet forums in general, I haven't used this forum that much in recent years, and I think that's because.. yeah, this forum is just not good right now.   There are smart people here, and when I do read what they're saying, it's usually good!   But I'm rarely doing that.

I miss being able to log into The Shark Pool and see what fantasy football players are talking about.   Now I know what's going to greet me.  A wall of random player names.  I might scan if there are any interesting looking topics but it's a needle in a haystack.

I think some folks here have too much of a utilitarian view of how to use a forum.  Believe it or not, not everyone visits a forum just to get information on Player A and Player B and then peace out.  While of course I get the impulse of wanting information this way, sometimes I do too, this is not leveraging the forum platform.  It is applying a web search mentality to a forum.  If this is what FBG wanted, they would be well-served to just build a comment section into every player page on their website and ditch the forum.  But I don't think that's what FBG wants, and for good reason.    With a good community behind it, a forum can deliver much more than a series of comment sections.

I see a lot of pushback, which makes some sense, as you are the people that are still here, so you're satisfied with the status quo.  But Joe is flat-out saying that people are leaving the forums.  Joe is not OK with that, and if you want Joe to be a good steward of FBG, then you shouldn't be OK with a hypothetical Joe that is OK with that.   But I will also try to argue that Joe's initiative is better for the hardcores too.

Among other things, like how incredibly unwelcoming the forum is, a big problem with the current system is that it puts people into bubbles.  You interact with the same handful of people who are farming the Waller topic.  And there are tons of little bubbles like this.  But we're all walled off with little reason to interact with each other.

Whatever compels you to post in the Waller topic  (assuming it's not a reply to someone else), that should be a topic.  That's how forums work.  You have thoughts on how the injury to Jacobs will affect Waller's and Brown's numbers.  Great, new topic.   You're tossing and turning at night, trying to decide if Waller is a top 3 NFL TE.   Boom, that's a topic.

Compare to how the forum works now.   Everything about Waller is stuffed into one topic.  Now, what about me, a random forum user who doesn't own Waller.   Of course I'm a football fan, a fantasy player, Waller is not completely irrelevant to me.   But am I really going to go into a 100-page generic Darren Waller topic?  Probably not, right?   But one of the more specific topics given above?  Sometimes that will get my attention, I think 'ah that sounds interesting' or I have a take on it, and I'll get involved.  

It is perfectly OK that over time, there will be many topics with Waller's name in it.  That's working as intended, it's how forums have worked since dinosaurs roamed the earth.  It is still easier to parse these topics, and find what you're looking for, rather than one giant mess of a topic that has EVERYTHING with no signposts whatsoever.
 
A well-functioning forum can also have built-in indicators of how topics are trending.  If I see a new topic that has 73 posts already, I know something is really hopping in there and will likely check it out.  Conversely, maybe the Darren Waller topic has some really great discussion, it has 73 posts since yesterday, but there's no way to know that. It's on page 105, what page was it on yesterday? Hell if I know.

What I'm trying to say is that having more specific topics is not just good for more casual visitors, it's good for the hardcores too.  If everyone buys in, there will be more engagement across the board.  More engagement is good for everyone.  Right now, there is a decreasing amount of people in the forums (according to Joe) and they are mostly all in bubbles.

It will be tough to make real change, because again, the people who are still here are happy with how it works.   As a long time FBG subscriber who rarely visits the forum, I think Joe is 100% on the money.  A couple things I would suggest for FBG to help such a transition, on the off chance that it does take hold:

1) FBG player pages list all forum threads that involve that player
2) Shark Pool topics are tagged with the relevant players, people can 'subscribe' to those player tags and get notifications on new topics

 

[barackdhouse]

A well-functioning forum can also have built-in indicators of how topics are trending.  If I see a new topic that has 73 posts already, I know something is really hopping in there and will likely check it out.  Conversely, maybe the Darren Waller topic has some really great discussion, it has 73 posts since yesterday, but there's no way to know that. It's on page 105, what page was it on yesterday? Hell if I know.

Excellent post above. This board does have the ability to show a topic as trending and often does show them as "hot" topics. This happens quite a bit inseason and when news is really flying around. But that doesn't diminish any of the points you made. I think despite the push back we're all going to give it the old college try as it were. Maybe some of us sharks haven't talked about it enough but I would appreciate some new blood in here for sure.

Because you know, sharks and blood. JK but thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is a very strong argument.

 

[Hankmoody]

I think some folks here have too much of a utilitarian view of how to use a forum.  Believe it or not, not everyone visits a forum just to get information on Player A and Player B and then peace out.  While of course I get the impulse of wanting information this way, sometimes I do too, this is not leveraging the forum platform.  It is applying a web search mentality to a forum.  If this is what FBG wanted, they would be well-served to just build a comment section into every player page on their website and ditch the forum.  But I don't think that's what FBG wants, and for good reason.    With a good community behind it, a forum can deliver much more than a series of comment sections.

I see a lot of pushback,

No one is pushing back on more descriptive thread titles.  We're all for that.  The objections are to starting new threads to do it.  This makes the forums more fragmented.  When news hits of a player you'll have the player thread discussion, you'll have a hot take new thread, and maybe even the team thread if it pertains to how the team will deal with it.  You do that 10 times and you're pushing other original content off into page 2 or 3 (or 10 if everything gets 3-4 threads).

Joe said he's looking into alternatives, let's see what he's got.  Hopefully we can accomplish both goals.

 

[zamboni]

But Joe is flat-out saying that people are leaving the forums. 

I hadn’t realized until fairly recently how much less active the SP has become. It’s to be expected in the off-season, but we are only 3-4 weeks from the start of the season and as I write this during the heart of the day, only 18 users are online. In past years, I’m guessing that number would be well over 100 at this stage at any given point.  Hope it picks up soon as we get closer to week 1.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I hadn’t realized until fairly recently how much less active the SP has become. It’s to be expected in the off-season, but we are only 3-4 weeks from the start of the season and as I write this during the heart of the day, only 18 users are online. In past years, I’m guessing that number would be well over 100 at this stage at any given point.  Hope it picks up soon as we get closer to week 1.

100% @zamboni  This should be peak time with threads flying everywhere. 

Part of it's the frog in the water that slowly heats thing as it hasn't been a sharp change. But there's a lot less activity here than used to be. Not all of that of course is the format problem. The reality is there are lots more options for people to discuss fantasy football online today than in the past. 

But what that means is the competition is for attention is stronger. And we have to have a compelling reason for people to contribute here. And I firmly believe our current format hurts us there. That's all this has been about. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Despite being a fantasy football diehard, and a huge user of Internet forums in general, I haven't used this forum that much in recent years, and I think that's because.. yeah, this forum is just not good right now.   There are smart people here, and when I do read what they're saying, it's usually good!   But I'm rarely doing that.

I miss being able to log into The Shark Pool and see what fantasy football players are talking about.   Now I know what's going to greet me.  A wall of random player names.  I might scan if there are any interesting looking topics but it's a needle in a haystack.

I think some folks here have too much of a utilitarian view of how to use a forum.  Believe it or not, not everyone visits a forum just to get information on Player A and Player B and then peace out.  While of course I get the impulse of wanting information this way, sometimes I do too, this is not leveraging the forum platform.  It is applying a web search mentality to a forum.  If this is what FBG wanted, they would be well-served to just build a comment section into every player page on their website and ditch the forum.  But I don't think that's what FBG wants, and for good reason.    With a good community behind it, a forum can deliver much more than a series of comment sections.

I see a lot of pushback, which makes some sense, as you are the people that are still here, so you're satisfied with the status quo.  But Joe is flat-out saying that people are leaving the forums.  Joe is not OK with that, and if you want Joe to be a good steward of FBG, then you shouldn't be OK with a hypothetical Joe that is OK with that.   But I will also try to argue that Joe's initiative is better for the hardcores too.

Among other things, like how incredibly unwelcoming the forum is, a big problem with the current system is that it puts people into bubbles.  You interact with the same handful of people who are farming the Waller topic.  And there are tons of little bubbles like this.  But we're all walled off with little reason to interact with each other.

Whatever compels you to post in the Waller topic  (assuming it's not a reply to someone else), that should be a topic.  That's how forums work.  You have thoughts on how the injury to Jacobs will affect Waller's and Brown's numbers.  Great, new topic.   You're tossing and turning at night, trying to decide if Waller is a top 3 NFL TE.   Boom, that's a topic.

Compare to how the forum works now.   Everything about Waller is stuffed into one topic.  Now, what about me, a random forum user who doesn't own Waller.   Of course I'm a football fan, a fantasy player, Waller is not completely irrelevant to me.   But am I really going to go into a 100-page generic Darren Waller topic?  Probably not, right?   But one of the more specific topics given above?  Sometimes that will get my attention, I think 'ah that sounds interesting' or I have a take on it, and I'll get involved.  

It is perfectly OK that over time, there will be many topics with Waller's name in it.  That's working as intended, it's how forums have worked since dinosaurs roamed the earth.  It is still easier to parse these topics, and find what you're looking for, rather than one giant mess of a topic that has EVERYTHING with no signposts whatsoever.
 
A well-functioning forum can also have built-in indicators of how topics are trending.  If I see a new topic that has 73 posts already, I know something is really hopping in there and will likely check it out.  Conversely, maybe the Darren Waller topic has some really great discussion, it has 73 posts since yesterday, but there's no way to know that. It's on page 105, what page was it on yesterday? Hell if I know.

What I'm trying to say is that having more specific topics is not just good for more casual visitors, it's good for the hardcores too.  If everyone buys in, there will be more engagement across the board.  More engagement is good for everyone.  Right now, there is a decreasing amount of people in the forums (according to Joe) and they are mostly all in bubbles.

It will be tough to make real change, because again, the people who are still here are happy with how it works.   As a long time FBG subscriber who rarely visits the forum, I think Joe is 100% on the money.  A couple things I would suggest for FBG to help such a transition, on the off chance that it does take hold:

1) FBG player pages list all forum threads that involve that player
2) Shark Pool topics are tagged with the relevant players, people can 'subscribe' to those player tags and get notifications on new topics

Nailed it. Thank you GB. 

 

[Army Eye]

No one is pushing back on more descriptive thread titles.  We're all for that.  The objections are to starting new threads to do it.  This makes the forums more fragmented.  When news hits of a player you'll have the player thread discussion, you'll have a hot take new thread, and maybe even the team thread if it pertains to how the team will deal with it.  You do that 10 times and you're pushing other original content off into page 2 or 3 (or 10 if everything gets 3-4 threads).

I think new threads are kind of a key component to the whole thing.  A mega thread that has everything in it, by definition, is not going to have a very accurate title.

When there is an issue  that is stirring up discussion, I think the conversation would organically centralize in one place.  That's one thing forums do pretty well. The occasions where three threads would be battling each other to discuss it; probably a rare case.  Just my two cents, no way to prove it I suppose.     If people are too attached to the idea of these legacy threads, then it's going to be tough to get everyone on  board.

 

[renesauz]

Exactly. That's exactly what I'm trying to address with this. 

This is where I think some of the folks here have a blindspot. They don't realize how much smarter they are than the average fantasy player. Tons of people here knew he came off PUP. That's what you do. But there are also a LOT of people playing fantasy football that did not know he's of PUP. So now without ever spending 1 second clicking on anything to load or reveal, they get:

1. News that Barkley is off PUP

2. A prompt for discussion as to how much you trust him this year.

BOTH of this things increase the the quality of conversation and discussion in my opinion. 

Joe....isn't most key info like Barkley off PUP included in daily emails? The less informed fantasy players ARE getting the heads up with those emails. I mean, I get what you're driving at here, but like many others I think it will cost some of what makes the SP so great to begin with.