Links And How To Make This Board As Good As It Can Be (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

We recently had an issue come up where we asked a good poster nicely to please in the future add a link to a news story he mentioned. It was about another Titan player testing positive last week and we wanted to be clear he was talking about a new positive and not the story of the players testing positive earlier.

The names of the posters aren't important here. 

The moderator replied to the poster and said:

In future, please add links. Here is the one for this story. https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1312719754130530315?s=20

The poster quickly replied he would. They're a long time solid poster. All good. 

For some reason this raised a question about links. 

Another poster replied:

gee why don't you criticize Schefter for not providing a link to his reporting? 

My reaction was  

Are they saying asking an anonymous poster on a free forum to add a link so we can see the source and more information on a story is "criticizing"?

It's definitely not criticizing. It's asking posters to add links to the story. Pretty basic.

But it brings up a pretty big and important point. Especially for message boards. And that's "Add some backup". Specifically, it's "Let us know why you think what you think". 

When an Adam Schefter or Ian Rapoport post a story, they are the source. They've built a public reputation over the years that when they report it, it's news. But even with them, I'd prefer they give as much backup as possible. I'd rather Schefter say, "Andy Reid said..." but when he says, "My source at the Chiefs said..." that's important too. And as someone reading the story, his source is a factor in how one values the story. 

We'll always ask for links. I ask our Footballguys staff to add a link when we talk about a story when we discuss something as a staff. It's basic.  It's how we'll always try to operate here and as you can see scrolling through the Shark Pool, most people seem good with it. Certainly makes for a more informative board so we'll continue to try and do that. Thanks for helping there.

It's also a pretty good topic to discuss more broadly. Always give a source is important. Even when there isn't a real source. This is a message board and we share info AND opinions here. If I believe on my own with no input from anyone Carson Wentz is actually injured (I don't), it's ok to say that. Just also add the super important part that it's something I'm speculating. That way a reader can have all the info on the table as they make decisions. 

Bottom line, always please add backup to a story that gives the reader some insight into why you think what you wrote. A link is obviously best and super easy if there is one. If you don't have a link, that's ok too, just let that be known as well. It makes the board much more informative. 

Thanks everyone. 

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I would add that when I post a link I quote a few critical pieces of info and then finish with three .... and then say read the rest at the link so the source gets credit/clicks as an award so the board can help useful sources.

If the info turns out sour then LINKing sources can be a way to suss-out bad info/sources.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I would add that when I post a link I quote a few critical pieces of info and then finish with three .... and then say read the rest at the link so the source gets credit/clicks as an award so the board can help useful sources.

If the info turns out sour then LINKing sources can be a way to suss-out bad info/sources.

It's a great practice to get into. 

And just basic journalism. 

 

[wgoldsph]

It's a great practice to get into. 

And just basic journalism. 

Have we reached the point in idiocracy where the bar for basic journalism matters more for fantasy football forums than actual news?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Have we reached the point in idiocracy where the bar for basic journalism matters more for fantasy football forums than actual news?

That's a WHOLE 'nother topic and a bigger issue. It's all I can do to hold down our tiny little sliver of the forum world over here.  

 

[The Frankman]

That brings a question that might be off-topic... I started posting Rotoworld blurbs here back on my own players I owned in fantasy in 2016 (2017?), and eventually started assisting Faust (who I thought was a newsbot for years) every now and then. Due to the pushback on Rotoworld last years I started including the site in the blurb so people know it's Roto and can read or dismiss it:
 

49ers released WR Mohamed Sanu. 

With Deebo Samuel avoiding setbacks in his 2020 debut on Sunday, Sanu was no longer needed. Sanu made it three weeks in San Francisco, catching one pass in three games. It has been a stunning fall for 31-year-old Sanu following his Patriots acquisition for a second-round pick last October. It would seem his 2019 ankle injury cut the heart out of his game.

- Rotoworld

Now sometimes you really want source confirmation, so for some blurbs I list the source with it:
 

49ers released WR Mohamed Sanu. 

With Deebo Samuel avoiding setbacks in his 2020 debut on Sunday, Sanu was no longer needed. Sanu made it three weeks in San Francisco, catching one pass in three games. It has been a stunning fall for 31-year-old Sanu following his Patriots acquisition for a second-round pick last October. It would seem his 2019 ankle injury cut the heart out of his game.

- Ian Rapoport via Twitter, Rotoworld

If I am understanding correctly you'd prefer the second post over the first for those blurbs? I ask because it tends to be a bit more work in the grand scheme.

 

[Insein]

If it's an official tweet or article, makes sense to post the link. If it's just hearsay, don't need it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If it's an official tweet or article, makes sense to post the link. If it's just hearsay, don't need it.

I will add though @Insein I'm sometimes ok with hearsay as long as it's completely clear that's what it is. In a group this big, we often come across people that know things that aren't yet official.

I'm ok with "I heard from my friend who has a friend at the facility that player X is out today" as long as it's super clear you're getting this from your friend who has a friend. That let's people judge it for themselves. And let's be honest, an anonymous message board poster claiming a friend of a friend isn't going to have much credibility. 

But I'm ok to talk about it as long as we're hyper clear on the source. 

On the other side, a sure way to be suspended is start abusing this with dumb my girlfriends, brother's friend's cousin's roommate stuff. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

That brings a question that might be off-topic... I started posting Rotoworld blurbs here back on my own players I owned in fantasy in 2016 (2017?), and eventually started assisting Faust (who I thought was a newsbot for years) every now and then. Due to the pushback on Rotoworld last years I started including the site in the blurb so people know it's Roto and can read or dismiss it:
 

Now sometimes you really want source confirmation, so for some blurbs I list the source with it:
 

If I am understanding correctly you'd prefer the second post over the first for those blurbs? I ask because it tends to be a bit more work in the grand scheme.

Thanks. I'd much prefer to have the Rapoport tweet and link than the rotoworld story. 

 

[Deamon]

If it's an official tweet or article, makes sense to post the link. If it's just hearsay, don't need it.

Milkman's run of "I heard" is gonna be an end if this becomes law in here.

 

[Insein]

Milkman's run of "I heard" is gonna be an end if this becomes law in here.

Some posters are more reliable than others.

 

[Deamon]

Thanks. I'd much prefer to have the Rapoport tweet and link than the rotoworld story. 

Agreed.  While I know many appreciate @Faust and @The Frankman's links, and they both seem like great guys, I avoid all topics where they last posted.  I'd much rather reed a tweet then some rotoworld blurb that not only we have all likely heard already, but their "my take" on it has become unreadable.  There's a good section of FBG that is free and includes all this stuff anyways.  I want to hear other people's opinions and thoughts in here, not a recap of how many yards Aaron Jones rushed for this week.

 

[rockaction]

Some posters are more reliable than others.

Milkman tha man when it comes to Pittsburgh

 

[rockaction]

Agreed.  While I know many appreciate @Faust and @The Frankman's links, and they both seem like great guys, I avoid all topics where they last posted.  I'd much rather reed a tweet then some rotoworld blurb that not only we have all likely heard already, but their "my take" on it has become unreadable.  There's a good section of FBG that is free and includes all this stuff anyways.  I want to hear other people's opinions and thoughts in here, not a recap of how many yards Aaron Jones rushed for this week.

Deamon, you're coming across constantly as always critical of content. Can you not sort through noise or do you need everything cultivated for you? I'd rather have some static and gather all the information than rely on industry standards and journalistic standards, frankly. This is where I disagree with Joe. I can take my sources and rank order them; I'd rather have what people on the street are saying so long as it has validity than that which has already been scrubbed. You can't gain advantages from scrubbed knowledge that's vetted. It's like perfect information in the stock market at that point. I want the tip, the opinion, the hearsay. 

 

[Deamon]

Deamon, you're coming across constantly as always critical of content. Can you not sort through noise or do you need everything cultivated for you? I'd rather have some static and gather all the information than rely on industry standards and journalistic standards, frankly. This is where I disagree with Joe. I can take my sources and rank order them; I'd rather have what people on the street are saying so long as it has validity than that which has already been scrubbed. You can't gain advantages from scrubbed knowledge that's vetted. It's like perfect information in the stock market at that point. I want the tip, the opinion, the hearsay. 

How am I constantly critical of content?  If you look in the other 'thank you faust' thread, there are many posters who are bothered by the roto copy and pastes.

 

[rockaction]

How am I constantly critical of content?  If you look in the other 'thank you faust' thread, there are many posters who are bothered by the roto copy and pastes.

You are. Just an observation. You've already criticized Milkman and Faust and Frankman in this very thread. And it doesn't usually just end there...

 

[Deamon]

You are.

I'm not.  I'm pointing out that constant rotoworld posts are a bit much and many posters avoid forums with them as the most recent poster.  I also agree with Joe that there should be links if people are making "I heard" claims.  Some may be false info that a rookie to the boards may take as gospel.  Takes 2 seconds to link a post if it's something that others cant find.

As for inside info that some have, I agree it's useful to post it.  I have some connections in the nfl and have posted a few things that no one believed in the past (calvin's retirement for example) and did not want to reveal a source.  So yes those should be in there and readers can proceed with caution as they see fit.

 

[Deamon]

You've already criticized Milkman and Faust and Frankman in this very thread. And it doesn't usually just end there...

Milkman is known for trolling and many many times has been asked for sources without their being any actually out there.  He likes to get reactions and clicks, which I object to.

Faust and Frankman I think are great people.  They put in a ton of work, they both seem like nice guys.  I, along with many others, just feel that the board would be better without rotoworld blurbs about stats of players.  I know I'm in the minority and have posted many times that while I don't like it, I know many do.  I just agree with Joe that insider tweets would be better than roto stats.

 

[Anarchy99]

OK, I will ask but I am not sure I will like the answers. There are times when IMO the national guys that report on things (ie, tweets or stories where links are available) don't always get the story right, don't know the complete rules or ramifications of things, or many times conclude things that just aren't really the right perspective. It could be a rules thing, a contract that is cited wrong, a player status update or a depth chart situation, etc. How does one approach that? Should we post link to contracts, NFL rules, depth charts, box scores, etc.?

There are other times where I have seen or heard things that may indicate the exact opposite of what is being reported. That could be from a combination of sources that may not have links (talk radio, tv sports shows, print articles not on line, etc.) How does one approach that? Say I heard it on radio or saw on TV or read a local article? Say there are a number of articles that refute the national reports? Link them all? How about if FBG already send out a blurb and there is info available that doesn't support what was sent in the blurb?

And there are times where I get direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation (in my case the Patriots) where I reached out to people I know that cover the team and it comes from a personal conversation. There is no way for me to link that (and I would not feel comfortable even saying who said it or where it comes from anyway). Should I just keep that type of information to myself?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Deamon, you're coming across constantly as always critical of content. Can you not sort through noise or do you need everything cultivated for you? I'd rather have some static and gather all the information than rely on industry standards and journalistic standards, frankly. This is where I disagree with Joe. I can take my sources and rank order them; I'd rather have what people on the street are saying so long as it has validity than that which has already been scrubbed. You can't gain advantages from scrubbed knowledge that's vetted. It's like perfect information in the stock market at that point. I want the tip, the opinion, the hearsay. 

Where do you disagree?

I'm saying I'm ok with talking about unverified stuff but only as long as it's clear where you're hearing it and that it's unverified. Are you saying something different?

 

[Joe Bryant]

OK, I will ask but I am not sure I will like the answers. There are times when IMO the national guys that report on things (ie, tweets or stories where links are available) don't always get the story right, don't know the complete rules or ramifications of things, or many times conclude things that just aren't really the right perspective. It could be a rules thing, a contract that is cited wrong, a player status update or a depth chart situation, etc. How does one approach that? Should we post link to contracts, NFL rules, depth charts, box scores, etc.?

There are other times where I have seen or heard things that may indicate the exact opposite of what is being reported. That could be from a combination of sources that may not have links (talk radio, tv sports shows, print articles not on line, etc.) How does one approach that? Say I heard it on radio or saw on TV or read a local article? Say there are a number of articles that refute the national reports? Link them all? How about if FBG already send out a blurb and there is info available that doesn't support what was sent in the blurb?

And there are times where I get direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation (in my case the Patriots) where I reached out to people I know that cover the team and it comes from a personal conversation. There is no way for me to link that (and I would not feel comfortable even saying who said it or where it comes from anyway). Should I just keep that type of information to myself?

I don't know why you wouldn't like the answers. 

If you're saying you see the national guys and think something is wrong, report what they said, what you think is wrong and why you think it. 

If you see something and you're hearing the exact opposite from a known reliable reporter on 98.5 in Boston, say you're hearing the exact opposite from a known reliable reporter on 98.5 in Boston. If you're hearing the exact opposite from a random caller on 98.5 in Boston, say that. 

If you're hearing something that direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation, say your source is direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation. 

You guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Make a post and give your sources on why you think it. Those sources can range from a link to a Ian Rapoport tweet to your bookie told you to a pure gut feel on your part. All are ok, AS LONG AS you let us know why you think it. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Milkman is known for trolling and many many times has been asked for sources without their being any actually out there.  He likes to get reactions and clicks, which I object to.

 

Same point as the links. Drop the accusations unless you want to point to real facts of this. If you don't have real facts of this, drop it. Full stop. 

 

[Deamon]

Same point as the links. Drop the accusations unless you want to point to real facts of this. If you don't have real facts of this, drop it. Full stop. 

There's real facts but I won't get into that here.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Some posters are more reliable than others.

It once occurred to me that it would be an amazing feature to have everyone who registered for this forum to have a form to fill out every season listing every player on their various FF teams. 

Then when they replied to a topic about those specific players, there could be a little indicator to show if the player they were discussing was on their roster(s) to lend insight about their bias. 

I got the idea from a topic where most users outed themselves as an owner of X player or not as they posted, something I often do myself - like, "disclaimer, I own Ronald Jones, and I think he's a great Flex start with RB2 upside this week". 

Probably not worth investing the time in developing the technology to do it, but I can't shake the idea that this would be a good feature, even if just for the comedy it could provide from time to time. 

Another idea I had once was a "track record" feature - that would be pretty awesome too. If a member makes a bold call for the week or for a sleeper they could enter it into a database. And week to week and/or year over year we'd get a score to show how often we'd been right or wrong. Again, probably nothing worthy of the investment, but it would be cool, nonetheless.  

Mentioned above, one member here would get very high scores for his PIT insight, possibly. Or possibly not. But a rolling track record would aid those reading.  

 

[Anarchy99]

I don't know why you wouldn't like the answers. 

If you're saying you see the national guys and think something is wrong, report what they said, what you think is wrong and why you think it. 

If you see something and you're hearing the exact opposite from a known reliable reporter on 98.5 in Boston, say you're hearing the exact opposite from a known reliable reporter on 98.5 in Boston. If you're hearing the exact opposite from a random caller on 98.5 in Boston, say that. 

If you're hearing something that direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation, say your source is direct, first hand information from people that are close to a situation. 

You guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Make a post and give your sources on why you think it. Those sources can range from a link to a Ian Rapoport tweet to your bookie told you to a pure gut feel on your part. All are ok, AS LONG AS you let us know why you think it. 

I guess my question to you would be . . . what degree of reliability or accuracy should be attributed to any piece of information? Just because there is a link from a national source doesn't make something accurate. Similarly, if people post information that they saw or heard (even if they cite the source), it doesn't make that right, wrong, or unconfirmed. I don't even know if this citing sources thing has been an ongoing problem, a new problem, or not really a problem at all. It sort of popped up recently and I was not really aware that it was that big of a concern (and I am on the boards all day long).

So sure, I can take the time to better explain how I got information or how I reached a conclusion, but does that really change much in the grand scheme of things? Does that change the perception of the information being provided and whether it is accurate or inaccurate? It's not like we are going to get in touch with Rapoport to tell him he got it wrong, and he's not going to change his story based on something posted on a fantasy message board.

I will give you an example. There have been times when local beat reporters provided information in an article, on air, on a podcast, wherever. I then contacted that person with an arsenal of links, other sources, quotes from coaches or players, statistics, etc. that clearly showed what was reported was not correct. I wasn't nasty or argumentative, I just pointed out that I had researched things and was just wondering if that person had access to the information, researched the situation at all, or would have a different perspective after seeing the new information. Sometimes those reporters were polite and happy that I reached out, other times some reporters were basically nasty and told me to go jump in a lake. Bottom line in those situations, the people didn't update what they reported, so it was mostly an exercise in futility.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I will add though @Insein I'm sometimes ok with hearsay as long as it's completely clear that's what it is. In a group this big, we often come across people that know things that aren't yet official.

Comes up in the in-game topics all the time. We all see a player leave with injury - there's rampant speculation on what the injury is, all before anything official. 

I'm assuming this sort of speculation is ok, given the context? 

 

[rockaction]

Where do you disagree?

I'm saying I'm ok with talking about unverified stuff but only as long as it's clear where you're hearing it and that it's unverified. Are you saying something different?

Ah, okay. I may have spoken too soon or without a full understanding of what you're after. I think that's my complaint with the PSF brought into the Shark Pool. I have an aversion to everyone asking to link everything, especially when there's moderator power to consider. I would rather have people saying something than not. That's my big takeaway. I understand why you'd want sourcing or a link to make the boards better. I also understand, like in one particular case, where the person didn't want to reveal a source and get that source in trouble. He couldn't have said "friend of a friend" in that instance because the information was so specific and is on a message board a lot of football people read. I had to PM him to get the info. and it was good info. as it turns out. That's what I'd like, as a reader, to protect. It takes a lot to sift through the noise and opinion, but sometimes when inside information comes up gold from even an anonymous source, one reaps the benefits. 

Also, sometimes all it takes is a little human interaction and you'll find out the source or something like it.

But maybe we agree more than I think. I'm just thinking of the link standard cross-forum, I guess. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I will give you an example. There have been times when local beat reporters provided information in an article, on air, on a podcast, wherever. I then contacted that person with an arsenal of links, other sources, quotes from coaches or players, statistics, etc. that clearly showed what was reported was not correct. I wasn't nasty or argumentative, I just pointed out that I had researched things and was just wondering if that person had access to the information, researched the situation at all, or would have a different perspective after seeing the new information. Sometimes those reporters were polite and happy that I reached out, other times some reporters were basically nasty and told me to go jump in a lake. Bottom line in those situations, the people didn't update what they reported, so it was mostly an exercise in futility.

Another example might be what came up with the NEP/KC game where I heard on the radio from the Pats beat writer who'd called in to FOX Sports saying he'd called a player and the inside buzz was that they didn't want to fly or play. 

Now, the NEP/KC game ended up getting played, but the beat writer was no less accurate in what he was reporting - and I posted what I'd heard, but had no way of posting a link to it because it was something I'd heard on the radio. 

I was careful to add those disclaimers to my post, but stuff like that happens often. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Where do you disagree?

I'm saying I'm ok with talking about unverified stuff but only as long as it's clear where you're hearing it and that it's unverified. Are you saying something different?

Ah - this addresses my last post. Cool, thank you. 

 

[Deamon]

Ah, okay. I may have spoken too soon or without a full understanding of what you're after. I think that's my complaint with the PSF brought into the Shark Pool. I have an aversion to everyone asking to link everything, especially when there's moderator power to consider. I would rather have people saying something than not. That's my big takeaway. I understand why you'd want sourcing or a link to make the boards better. I also understand, like in one particular case, where the person didn't want to reveal a source and get that source in trouble. He couldn't have said "friend of a friend" in that instance because the information was so specific and is on a message board a lot of football people read. I had to PM him to get the info. and it was good info. as it turns out. That's what I'd like, as a reader, to protect. It takes a lot to sift through the noise and opinion, but sometimes when inside information comes up gold from even an anonymous source, one reaps the benefits. 

Also, sometimes all it takes is a little human interaction and you'll find out the source or something like it.

But maybe we agree more than I think. I'm just thinking of the link standard cross-forum, I guess. 

I think "secret" sources are fine.  I know there's a number of people on these boards with actual connections that may not want to mention where they heard it from.  They should be able to just say "I heard from an actual inside source" and not get tar and feathered.  I took a beating for this and didn't want to out my source as he could get in trouble if they found out he let it out.  Many others on these boards have similar ins and have helped out a lot.

However if you say "I read about it", show us where you read about it if it's not very common knowledge. 

 

[GroveDiesel]

Thanks. I'd much prefer to have the Rapoport tweet and link than the rotoworld story. 

Agreed. Too many times I’ve recognized that Rotoworld’s blurbs significantly distorted the actual reporting to the point where I don’t consider reading the Rotoworld blurbs worth my time. But a link to the original source is valuable enough for me to give it a click. And this is exactly why providing links and making the source obvious is important. I actually appreciate when someone makes it obvious it is a Rotoworld link because I at least know to avoid it. 

Having said that, I realize that I sometimes post links to sources without making it clear who/what the source is in my post. Going forward, I think it makes sense and respects people’s time more to describe the source in my posting so they know whether the click is worth their time or not.

 

[Biabreakable]

From my perspective this has always been the courtesy of sharing information on the board. Links used to be of very high importance early on here. There is even a emotocon for asking for a link.  Now that news feeds and so on are more ubiquitous to users, perhaps that practice has become less common than it used to be?

That seems to be the intent of this topic. To encourage and reinforce this practice.  I am on board with that.

As far as the heresay where some folks who do have connections inside certain teams, I have seen this occur here several times already. IIRC Demon had some unique information about something a few years back that ended up being true. Sorry I forget the specifics of this now. David sharing things about the Patriots is another example of this I have appreciated in the past. There are likely a few other instances of this I missed or am not remembering at this moment.

I think all of that is good and I appreciate you all.

 

[spodog]

Have we reached the point in idiocracy where the bar for basic journalism matters more for fantasy football forums than actual news?

Pretty sure Luke Wilson is a member here.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

As far as the heresay where some folks who do have connections inside certain teams, I have seen this occur here several times already.

Excellent. I shall continue to use my ouija board to contact the spirit world to both great effect and limited accuracy. 

(ETA: it’ll be at least 73% as accurate as Rotoworld on a given story) 

 

[I-ROK]

I think "secret" sources are fine.  I know there's a number of people on these boards with actual connections that may not want to mention where they heard it from.  They should be able to just say "I heard from an actual inside source" and not get tar and feathered.  I took a beating for this and didn't want to out my source as he could get in trouble if they found out he let it out.  Many others on these boards have similar ins and have helped out a lot.

However if you say "I read about it", show us where you read about it if it's not very common knowledge. 

It’s because of examples like this I won’t post my connections within the NFL (2 teams and an NFL “executive”). People are too quick to pass judgement 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I guess my question to you would be . . . what degree of reliability or accuracy should be attributed to any piece of information?

That's for the reader to determine.

I read Cam Newton signs with the Patriots according to Adam Schefter. Link to Schefter Tweet.

I heard Cam Newton may sign with the Patriots per the Bartender at Smith's Pub. Tell us that.

You guys are making this a zillion times more complicated than needed. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

From my perspective this has always been the courtesy of sharing information on the board. Links used to be of very high importance early on here. There is even a emotocon for asking for a link.  Now that news feeds and so on are more ubiquitous to users, perhaps that practice has become less common than it used to be?

That seems to be the intent of this topic. To encourage and reinforce this practice.  I am on board with that.

As far as the heresay where some folks who do have connections inside certain teams, I have seen this occur here several times already. IIRC Demon had some unique information about something a few years back that ended up being true. Sorry I forget the specifics of this now. David sharing things about the Patriots is another example of this I have appreciated in the past. There are likely a few other instances of this I missed or am not remembering at this moment.

I think all of that is good and I appreciate you all.

Thank you. Now that you mention it, we have become way more lax in asking for a link. You're right. Let's get back to that. 

And if we don't have a link, we say where we're hearing it. Easy. Thanks. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, I have zero problem with Rotoworld. 

I'm saying almost all their stories have links.

I'd just rather us here start with the source story as best we can. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ah, okay. I may have spoken too soon or without a full understanding of what you're after. I think that's my complaint with the PSF brought into the Shark Pool. I have an aversion to everyone asking to link everything, especially when there's moderator power to consider. I would rather have people saying something than not. That's my big takeaway. I understand why you'd want sourcing or a link to make the boards better. I also understand, like in one particular case, where the person didn't want to reveal a source and get that source in trouble. He couldn't have said "friend of a friend" in that instance because the information was so specific and is on a message board a lot of football people read. I had to PM him to get the info. and it was good info. as it turns out. That's what I'd like, as a reader, to protect. It takes a lot to sift through the noise and opinion, but sometimes when inside information comes up gold from even an anonymous source, one reaps the benefits. 

Also, sometimes all it takes is a little human interaction and you'll find out the source or something like it.

But maybe we agree more than I think. I'm just thinking of the link standard cross-forum, I guess. 

I'm not seeing anything we disagree on. 

If you have the link to the story post it.

If it's from a source you can't reveal, say that. 

Now granted, if it becomes a constant brothers, girlfriends, friend's cousins bookie type source thing, that wont work. But I don't see that happening. 

What I'm asking for is super simple. 

 

[Man In The Box]

I’m the dummy who posted the link-free news about the Titans. It’s probably the first (and last  ) time I’ve done that here. As I said in the thread, I just happened to be watching NFL Network when it broke. I should have at least cited the source. Usually I would be on the phone or laptop, get the alert, read the alert, and copy/paste it here. I understood the rationale of being called on it, apologized and moved on. No big deal. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I’m the dummy who posted the link-free news about the Titans. It’s probably the first (and last  ) time I’ve done that here. As I said in the thread, I just happened to be watching NFL Network when it broke. I should have at least cited the source. Usually I would be on the phone or laptop, get the alert, read the alert, and copy/paste it here. I understood the rationale of being called on it, apologized and moved on. No big deal. 

Dude. No big deal at all. And not a dummy at all. After you posted, I asked you to please post links and you said you would.  

Zero worries. 

I'm way more interested in getting things the way we want going forward and I know you're on board. 

 

[ratbast]

Thanks guys. Keep on trucking! 

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This is a great topic and I'll expand beyond just the social media and Twitter Linking of stories etc...

-When it comes time to debate "Bring Backup" and I love to debate true numbers, a prime example is the QB debate I have had endless discussions with folks on. I am a firm believer that while you can find QBs at lots of points in September Drafts, once the games start to roll, the point spread between the QB who lands at #3 that week and the QB you played that only made it to #12 is a lot more than the 2 point per week schtick that so many folks use as a crutch to justify taking a QB in the 13th Round or whatever...