New MyFootballguys (Top 200 Forward, Primer etc) (1 Viewer)

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Ok; I respectfully disagree here. If it says sit Golladay just look above to where Golladay is listed in the consensus lineup.

And I respectfully think your dismissal of this feedback is indicative of either not really listening/understanding my issue, or not considering the fact that while something in a UI may be intuitive to its creator, the creator still needs to be open that users do not see it that way.

Three things:

1) If this is how I should read this, it's totally not intuitive.

2) If this is how I should read it, it is indeed a different experience than classic, and not an improvement IMHO. Note that in the classic version, Golladay shows up among a list of suggested alternate players in BOTH WR and FLEX line itmes, showing you what staffers think his relative value is against your starters and other potential FAs and players against each position separately (in the MyFBG experience Golladay shows up against other WRs in the consensus lineup, but only shows up as a start/sit once, as a WR in specific staff feedback -- not clear if he's a sit for WR but a start for flex, vice versa, neither, etc.).

3) I can appreciate that you may not have intended your post to come off snarky, but it's the way it landed with me when I'm only trying to provide feedback. I'm done providing it, so good luck, but would ask you to think about tone when someone is just trying to help.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

If this is how I should read it, it is indeed a different experience than classic, and not an improvement IMHO. Note that in the classic version, Golladay shows up among a list of suggested alternate players in BOTH WR and FLEX line itmes, showing you what staffers think his relative value is against your starters and other potential FAs and players against each position separately (in the MyFBG experience Golladay shows up against other WRs in the consensus lineup, but only shows up as a start/sit once, as a WR in specific staff feedback -- not clear if he's a sit for WR but a start for flex, vice versa, neither, etc.).

I think reading tone into messages is a super difficult thing to do on the internet. I try my best there to give others the benefit of the doubt and I'm sorry of course if I wrote something that could have been interpreted that way.

You're right to say it's a different experience. This is indeed different; a lot of stuff is different. For sure we agree there. Let me reassure you I do understand exactly the point you're saying.

The old 10 second primer has all its features on the new system, but it had got quite large for what was supposed to be a 10 second primer. I do think there is a need to split out those use cases into "I don't have time; just tell me at a glance what you guys think I should be doing" and "let me really drill down into detail on this decision"

On the Matchups screen you can hit the Flex (RB/WR/TE) > header above your flex player. You can do the same at any position. That gives you that extra drilldown/full analysis type info there in giving you a full list of all eligible players at that position with full analysis on all of them, including how each staffer has them projected.

We're not going to agree with everything here in this thread, just as you guys don't agree with every decision we've made with this stuff. We truly appreciate the feedback though. We always take the time to read and at least let you guys know if that's something we're going to do or not. I think that's often a better answer - to say, thanks but that's not something we're going to do - than to say, "ok, thanks we're looking into it" then not do it!

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Since this thread turned into more of a thing for MyFootballguys as a whole, I'm going to rename it. I hope that's ok with @Gottabesweet

 

[Simon Shepherd]

More stuff just now:

• projector columns now sortable (e.g. Dodds/Tremblay/Bloom)
  
• bye weeks on Top 200/Waiver Wire lists
  
• Flex listings moved to under tight ends (or under QBs for super flex)
  
• couple minor issues fixed.
  

As always: reload and restart the browser to get the latest (v 1.4.57 - it's listed at the bottom of the left hand menu)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Not to beat a dead horse but I still don't think the "5 second primer" should be recommending/assuming you'll start a free agent.  To use the example I provided earlier:

Falcons (8.73), Cowboys (8.72), Jets (8.31), Titans (8.26), Patriots (8.16)

I do want to say thanks for making it clearer which of my players that I actually own should be started.  The bold black font is a massive improvement over the light gray.  But anyway, if the professed purpose of this page is to help me when I only have 5 seconds, I probably don't have time to go pick up the Falcons.  More importantly, I don't have time to evaluate whether or not I should go pick up the Falcons.  Sure, Dodds may think they're a marginally better start than the Pats this week, but what about the rest of the season?  In fact, if I switch over to the Top 200 page I can see that you're suggesting the Patriots are a better defense the rest of the year than the Falcons, so based on your own advice I'm not going to go pick up the Falcons.  As I said earlier, font/color should convey meaning, and in this context the Falcons and Cowboys are in the same exact category of "players I don't own that would be a better starter than the player I do own this week" - they should be the same normal weight light blue font.

And again, not to belabor the point that you've cut too much context out of a useful tool just for the sake of making it take up less space on the screen, but below the full roster part of the primer, I see:

Maurile Tremblay would:

Start: Cowboys (9.26)

Sit: Falcons (9.02)

I don't own either the Cowboys or the Falcons, so I'm neither starting the Cowboys nor sitting the Falcons this week.  And additionally, I now have no idea whether Maurile thinks I should actually start the Patriots or my other defense (assuming I had one).  The useful context that was present in the classic version has been removed in the new version, and replaced with the absurd advice to sit one player I don't own to start another player I don't own.  

A point you seem to keep making is that the classic version "had got quite large for what was supposed to be a 10 second primer."  I honestly don't remember, how much has it grown since its first iteration a couple years ago?  As far as I remember it's always basically been the same, and it was a hit from the start because it struck the right balance between being concise and providing a lot of useful info.  You're now saying if we want less info, go to the 5 second primer; if we want more info, go to the Matchup.  Personally, I want exactly the same amount of info that it used to provide, it was just right.  

On another note, I have to say I rolled my eyes a bit at the change to the "pills" on the Top 200 page.  I'd argued that the two-tone pills for teams was uselessly distracting from the actually useful color-coded position pills.  So instead of just getting rid of the team ones, you got rid of both, but still have color-coded team abbreviations right next to the color-coded positions.  So we still basically have the same problem, just in text form instead of pills.  So I just wanted to reiterate my points around that to make sure they're clear: 1) using easily-distinguishable colors for the positions is awesome, it's very useful to be able to glance at the page and easily see where the TEs are among a sea of WRs or whatever; 2) using color-coded team abbreviations serves no useful purpose for anyone; 3) putting colored team abbreviations immediately alongside the colored position abbreviations is distracting and detracts from the usefulness of the position colors.  The change that was made to replace the pills with plain colored text seems to have missed the point.  

 

[Simon Shepherd]

@Ignoratio Elenchi let’s do this. Why don’t you say what you want the format of the primer to be instead of saying what you don’t like about the current format? “Exactly as it used to be” probably isn’t an answer we’re going to go with due to changes we’ve made.

on the old primer, free agents better than your rostered players are dark blue, not light blue (looking at team defenses)

so it seems your main criticism here is also a problem with the original? Just we added bold to dark blue and black text. 

have you tried using the Matchup screen to explore the options there? 

I’ll confess to being a little frustrated on your feedback on the player boxes. The positions are always vertically aligned and in bold. It’s easy for eyes to parse positions for each row. We won’t be making further changes there.

 

[ZWK]

The 5 second primer is recommending that I bench Alex Collins when he is already locked into my lineup. Seems more useful to have it reflect my actual lineup for players that are locked.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

The 5 second primer is recommending that I bench Alex Collins when he is already locked into my lineup. Seems more useful to have it reflect my actual lineup for players that are locked.

Can you send your username and a screenshot to my email? shepherd at our domain name

 

[brun]

Great job! It takes a little time, but I'm getting used to it.

One thing that would be nice, is a further refinement to the weighting of the staff in the consensus projections, at least as it applies to the specific offensive positions (QB, RB, WR, TE). For example, if you had significantly more faith in Dodds' TE projections, you could change the setting for TE consensus projections to 70% Dodds, 15% each Bloom & Tremblay.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Great job! It takes a little time, but I'm getting used to it.

One thing that would be nice, is a further refinement to the weighting of the staff in the consensus projections, at least as it applies to the specific offensive positions (QB, RB, WR, TE). For example, if you had significantly more faith in Dodds' TE projections, you could change the setting for TE consensus projections to 70% Dodds, 15% each Bloom & Tremblay.

Thanks! We have that: hit Settings then above where you select projections used there’s a button called “edit consensus”

 

[Joe Bryant]

We're not going to agree with everything here in this thread, just as you guys don't agree with every decision we've made with this stuff. We truly appreciate the feedback though. We always take the time to read and at least let you guys know if that's something we're going to do or not. I think that's often a better answer - to say, thanks but that's not something we're going to do - than to say, "ok, thanks we're looking into it" then not do it!




1

What Simon said. 

Engagement is always a complicated and two-edged proposition. 

Many companies avoid it as it often just ends poorly. And oftentimes the reason I see it end badly is people misunderstand what it is. When people ask for feedback, they usually mean exactly that. They're asking for people to give them opinions and input on their idea or product. What they are absolutely not asking for is: "give us your wishlist and we'll create exactly the product you'd like that looks and works exactly the way you'd like it to". That's where most of the trouble comes in.

Whenever feedback is requested, the input received will result in a wide spectrum of answers from the person asking for the feedback.

From:

"That's amazing and I'm so glad I asked. We need to make this change right now"

"That's interesting, I never thought of that and that could be helpful"

"Yeah, I was thinking that too and here's a few people voicing the concern I thought they might"

"Maybe that could work but that's likely something consider for the future".

"Thanks but probably not something we'd change"

"Thanks but definitely not something we'd change"

When you ask a big question to a large group of people, it's only natural to get a ton of different responses. 

The trouble is sometimes, any response from the person asking for feedback other than "That's amazing and I'm so glad I asked. We need to make this change right now" winds up in a bad experience for the person offering the opinion. 

Usually because they did not feel listened to. What's important to know is there's a giant difference between "I'm not listening to your idea" and "I understand your idea but disagree it's something we should do". 

Simon is one of the kindest people I know. 

At some point, the only honest answer is "Thank you. I hear you. I think I understand you. But we respectfully disagree". Anything other than that is disrespectful to the person offering their opinion.

Thanks for the feedback on all this. It's been immensely helpful. Listening to you folks resulted in us changing the way we do the colors and teams and I think that's a huge improvement. We'll continue to ask for opinions on stuff like this. Thanks. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ok all.

There's a new version today.

A ton of changes.

• more compact view for player lists so more fit on the screen at a time
  
• the "pill boxes" are dead and gone
  
• there is now a button called "Teams" next to settings that allows you to highlight teams
  
• free agents are now blue text across their whole row, not just their name
  
• 10 second primer renamed to 5 second primer (more on that in the article linked at the bottom of this post)
  
• more compact navigation menu so it should fit on everyone's screen vertically without a nasty scrollbar
  
• Altering consensus projection balances not immediately saving
  
• column spacing increased for some columns that needed it
  
• a lot of people misunderstood that "considerable upgrade" on the waiver wire screen does not mean a considerable upgrade to their roster but to the stock of the specific player. I changed the wording.
  
• although we don't support multi-player pool leagues, I can set the user's team ownership last, which at least means their own roster displays correctly. That'll now happen.
  

And here's the promised article on moving from Classic to MyFootballguys: https://sportsguys.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009344133

And the link to try it out: https://my.footballguys.com 

If you don't see the changes listed above, please refresh the page, close and re-open your browser, and try again. The current version number is 1.4.X.

LOVE this. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. You guys are a huge help and we'll continue to ask in spots like this where we look to see what some of our most hardcore customers like in a product. It's an interesting exercise when we do this as you guys here are very different from our average users who are mostly way less serious. But as the "power users" you're obviously some of our most valued voices. Thanks for sharing. 

Thanks @Simon Shepherd  for all the work on this. Great job. 

 

[candian fantasy guy]

I'm finding this a completely frustrating experience. The recommendation that I pick up T Ginn in every league is ridiculous and he is in all my "starting" lineups ignoring good players that actually get 6+ targets a game. I have players still on my roster or not on my roster after this weeks waivers as it hasn't updated. It wants me to pick DST's that aren't available or never mind locked until next Wednesday. Why aren't recommended FA pick ups on the side or on a different row? One of my leagues has 6 starters on D, but this thing reads it as 3 and a superflex (it's not a SF). 

I play in 15 leagues and I would find such a tool useful, but not in its current condition. 

my 2 cents. 

 

[KingPrawn]

Ok all.

There's a new version today.

A ton of changes.

• more compact view for player lists so more fit on the screen at a time
  
• the "pill boxes" are dead and gone
  
• there is now a button called "Teams" next to settings that allows you to highlight teams
  
• free agents are now blue text across their whole row, not just their name
  
• 10 second primer renamed to 5 second primer (more on that in the article linked at the bottom of this post)
  
• more compact navigation menu so it should fit on everyone's screen vertically without a nasty scrollbar
  
• Altering consensus projection balances not immediately saving
  
• column spacing increased for some columns that needed it
  
• a lot of people misunderstood that "considerable upgrade" on the waiver wire screen does not mean a considerable upgrade to their roster but to the stock of the specific player. I changed the wording.
  
• although we don't support multi-player pool leagues, I can set the user's team ownership last, which at least means their own roster displays correctly. That'll now happen.
  

And here's the promised article on moving from Classic to MyFootballguys: https://sportsguys.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009344133

And the link to try it out: https://my.footballguys.com 

If you don't see the changes listed above, please refresh the page, close and re-open your browser, and try again. The current version number is 1.4.X.

Thank you for the improvements. Much easier to read, especially with the wider column spacing.

Free agents in the Weekly Rankings and Top 200 still seem to be a little bit hard to find with just the blue text and the slanted line highlight. Is it possible to highlight free agents similar to players on my roster, just in a different color? Seems like it would be much quicker for me to identify free agents with a quick glance.

Otherwise, looking much better. Thanks for listening to everyone here.

 

[acme]

Thanks, yes you're right there in the last paragraph. The reason I've been apprehensive there is that it's more than 200 players that it lists. But I'll change this because I agree it's more important people can find stuff. Thank you!

The Waivers/FA screen is actually 1) Sigmund's stock up free agents in your league and 2) all the free agents listed to how well they help your team. So we go through all the free agents and every remaining week of the NFL season, and calculate if they'd ever start for you, and if so how many points they'd add, and the same for your bench. This is a nice shiny new feature that I think is quite useful! As it works in your positional weaknesses of your current roster.

Speaking of the "Stock Up report"...   it is interesting, but I have a question:  each player is ranked with an "upgrade" (huge, considerable, reasonable, minimal) but if (and I am assuming it is) the report is suggesting that we "Stock Up" on this Free Agent because he is a "considerable" upgrade.  To WHOM is he an upgrade over?  (ie. what player should be dropped to make room for the incoming 'upgrade'?)

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Speaking of the "Stock Up report"...   it is interesting, but I have a question:  each player is ranked with an "upgrade" (huge, considerable, reasonable, minimal) but if (and I am assuming it is) the report is suggesting that we "Stock Up" on this Free Agent because he is a "considerable" upgrade.  To WHOM is he an upgrade over?  (ie. what player should be dropped to make room for the incoming 'upgrade'?)

Thanks in advance for any help!

My thoughts as well.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My thoughts as well.

Thanks Folks. We definitely need to make that more clear. Thanks for the feedback there.

 

[apalmer]

Speaking of the "Stock Up report"...   it is interesting, but I have a question:  each player is ranked with an "upgrade" (huge, considerable, reasonable, minimal) but if (and I am assuming it is) the report is suggesting that we "Stock Up" on this Free Agent because he is a "considerable" upgrade.  To WHOM is he an upgrade over?  (ie. what player should be dropped to make room for the incoming 'upgrade'?)

Thanks in advance for any help!

Ok all.

There's a new version today.

A ton of changes.

• a lot of people misunderstood that "considerable upgrade" on the waiver wire screen does not mean a considerable upgrade to their roster but to the stock of the specific player. I changed the wording.
  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks @apalmer

@acme and @BroncoFreak_2K3 are you saying you still don't understand after Simon changed the wording?

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Nope got it. thanks Joe

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

@Ignoratio Elenchi let’s do this. Why don’t you say what you want the format of the primer to be instead of saying what you don’t like about the current format? “Exactly as it used to be” probably isn’t an answer we’re going to go with due to changes we’ve made.

Despite my lengthy feedback, I honestly don't care that much what the new version looks like.  As long as the classic version is still available, I'll probably continue to use it.  You want me to tell you what I want the format of the primer to be, but then you admit you already know the answer.  I prefer the classic to the new version for reasons already discussed, that's the answer. 

I'm aware that I'm just one guy and you get feedback from lots of users, much of which is probably conflicting.  I've done product management, I know how frustrating it can be at times.  I don't expect the product to cater to my desires, was just providing genuine feedback on my opinions of the changes.  I'll bow out of the conversation, just wanted to make sure some of the critiques of the new version (mine and others) were being correctly understood as some of the responses seemed to be missing the point (e.g. "get rid of team colors" seemed to be misinterpreted as "get rid of pills.")  If you're frustrated by the feedback, I don't know what to tell you.   

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok all.

There's a new version today.

A ton of changes.

• more compact view for player lists so more fit on the screen at a time
  
• the "pill boxes" are dead and gone
  
• there is now a button called "Teams" next to settings that allows you to highlight teams
  
• free agents are now blue text across their whole row, not just their name
  
• 10 second primer renamed to 5 second primer (more on that in the article linked at the bottom of this post)
  
• more compact navigation menu so it should fit on everyone's screen vertically without a nasty scrollbar
  
• Altering consensus projection balances not immediately saving
  
• column spacing increased for some columns that needed it
  
• a lot of people misunderstood that "considerable upgrade" on the waiver wire screen does not mean a considerable upgrade to their roster but to the stock of the specific player. I changed the wording.
  
• although we don't support multi-player pool leagues, I can set the user's team ownership last, which at least means their own roster displays correctly. That'll now happen.
  

And here's the promised article on moving from Classic to MyFootballguys: https://sportsguys.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009344133

And the link to try it out: https://my.footballguys.com 

If you don't see the changes listed above, please refresh the page, close and re-open your browser, and try again. The current version number is 1.4.X.

Thanks for this, as I just mentioned in another thread some explanation of the trade tool and how to use it would be helpful I think.

 

[KingPrawn]

Thanks for this, as I just mentioned in another thread some explanation of the trade tool and how to use it would be helpful I think.

 I would second the explanation of the trade tool. There are some ridiculous suggested trades for my team.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Despite my lengthy feedback, I honestly don't care that much what the new version looks like.  As long as the classic version is still available, I'll probably continue to use it.  You want me to tell you what I want the format of the primer to be, but then you admit you already know the answer.  I prefer the classic to the new version for reasons already discussed, that's the answer. 

I'm aware that I'm just one guy and you get feedback from lots of users, much of which is probably conflicting.  I've done product management, I know how frustrating it can be at times.  I don't expect the product to cater to my desires, was just providing genuine feedback on my opinions of the changes.  I'll bow out of the conversation, just wanted to make sure some of the critiques of the new version (mine and others) were being correctly understood as some of the responses seemed to be missing the point (e.g. "get rid of team colors" seemed to be misinterpreted as "get rid of pills.")  If you're frustrated by the feedback, I don't know what to tell you.   

The primer criticism you have appears to apply to the Classic version too.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

I'm finding this a completely frustrating experience. The recommendation that I pick up T Ginn in every league is ridiculous and he is in all my "starting" lineups ignoring good players that actually get 6+ targets a game. I have players still on my roster or not on my roster after this weeks waivers as it hasn't updated. It wants me to pick DST's that aren't available or never mind locked until next Wednesday. Why aren't recommended FA pick ups on the side or on a different row? One of my leagues has 6 starters on D, but this thing reads it as 3 and a superflex (it's not a SF). 

I play in 15 leagues and I would find such a tool useful, but not in its current condition. 

my 2 cents. 

It sounds like you need to sync rosters.

on the issue with your IDPs please email me your username and the name of the league so I can take a look

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Thank you for the improvements. Much easier to read, especially with the wider column spacing.

Free agents in the Weekly Rankings and Top 200 still seem to be a little bit hard to find with just the blue text and the slanted line highlight. Is it possible to highlight free agents similar to players on my roster, just in a different color? Seems like it would be much quicker for me to identify free agents with a quick glance.

Otherwise, looking much better. Thanks for listening to everyone here.

Ok; I’ll look at this one again.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

some of the responses seemed to be missing the point (e.g. "get rid of team colors" seemed to be misinterpreted as "get rid of pills”)

I totally understood what you guys were saying.

the message was position colors are more important than team colors and there were too many colors

thats why position text is now in bold and teams have just one color, not two - we also removed the pills so the emphasis was more on the player name too.

i didn’t go full exactly as you guys here would have it, because I believe this is an extremely reasonable compromise while keeping some team color for people newer to Footballguys/fantasy football. Lots of people like the team colors. Please don’t take me not doing exactly what was suggested here as not listening to you all!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Despite my lengthy feedback, I honestly don't care that much what the new version looks like.  As long as the classic version is still available, I'll probably continue to use it.  You want me to tell you what I want the format of the primer to be, but then you admit you already know the answer.  I prefer the classic to the new version for reasons already discussed, that's the answer. 

I'm aware that I'm just one guy and you get feedback from lots of users, much of which is probably conflicting.  I've done product management, I know how frustrating it can be at times.  I don't expect the product to cater to my desires, was just providing genuine feedback on my opinions of the changes.  I'll bow out of the conversation, just wanted to make sure some of the critiques of the new version (mine and others) were being correctly understood as some of the responses seemed to be missing the point (e.g. "get rid of team colors" seemed to be misinterpreted as "get rid of pills.")  If you're frustrated by the feedback, I don't know what to tell you.   

Thanks. I don't think anyone is frustrated by the feedback in the least. And certainly nobody already knows the answers or we wouldn't be asking. There will naturally be a ton of feedback that's not implemented. But that's always the case. Zero to do with frustration or already knowing the answers. Thanks for sharing what you did. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Nope got it. thanks Joe

Much thanks. 

And this illusrtrates a pretty important point too. One crucial part of asking for feedback is making sure we're clear. That obviously has little to do with preferred features or preferences. It's us being clear on what the feature can do or how to use it. Or both. That unfortunately is sometimes a difficult thing. Especially with tools that do a lot of things. Thanks for the help there. 

 

[davearm]

Another vote for bringing back the colored position "pills", and changing team abbreviations to all black.

I don't need the ARI next to D Johnson to be red. Value is zero and distraction is >0.

Position pills were great though, and more distinguishable at a glance than the colored text.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Another vote for bringing back the colored position "pills", and changing team abbreviations to all black.

I don't need the ARI next to D Johnson to be red. Value is zero and distraction is >0.

Position pills were great though, and more distinguishable at a glance than the colored text.

Thanks. It’s in its finished form now that’s the best balance for all our users. I understood what you guys are saying here one hundred percent. I spent a few hours playing with the different options and we had a staff thread on this where I asked for opinions there, too. This isn’t something that’s likely to change from here.

 

[stickboy]

I for one think it is friggin' awesome and more understandable than the classic.  It's just different, but clearly has added features.  It only takes a few seconds to figure out the color and font scheme.  I know where to look and find the info I want, and it is much easier than carefully going through drop down selectors.

 

[davearm]

Thanks. It’s in its finished form now that’s the best balance for all our users. I understood what you guys are saying here one hundred percent. I spent a few hours playing with the different options and we had a staff thread on this where I asked for opinions there, too. This isn’t something that’s likely to change from here.

No worries.  There's no right answer, just preferences.

 

[Phantom Knight]

I couldn't find this thread (I guess I didn't scroll enough pages) earlier.  And so I posted in the MyFBG Import thread erroneously.

I agree with the idea that there were too many colors which made it harder to focus on the important information with a quick passing glance.

My strongest request (I don't believe I am the first?) would be for the "Primer" page to have an easy way to see recommendations based solely upon players currently on our roster - i.e. without any free agents.  If possible, that would be with an "Include free agents" check box for each league.  I can understand that could be a bit more programming, so if not possible, at least one blank "Include free agents" checkbox at the top of the "Primer" page as there is on the "Matchup" page.

Hey Simon! Disregard this with my apologies (as noted in the MyFBG Import thread)!

 

[houston]

My ESPN lineups still aren’t shown correctly in the primer, even after hitting the button to sync leagues. 

Thats always been my biggest problem with these myfbg features, can never have total confidence that the info shown is 100% accurate to my league. 

 

[Simon Shepherd]

My ESPN lineups still aren’t shown correctly in the primer, even after hitting the button to sync leagues. 

Thats always been my biggest problem with these myfbg features, can never have total confidence that the info shown is 100% accurate to my league. 

What do you mean exactly by lineups - starting lineups or rosters?

the primer isn’t what you have now. It’s what we think you should do, in terms of starting lineups

 

[houston]

What do you mean exactly by lineups - starting lineups or rosters?

the primer isn’t what you have now. It’s what we think you should do, in terms of starting lineups

Thanks. Is this a change? Didn’t it always show who was plugged into my current lineup? Would be nice if it highlights what the actual lineup is set to. I could see someone easily be confused when they see one of their players listed as best option, even if they are not in their starting lineup. 

For flex you should consider listing all eligible players on one’s roster.  

 

[candian fantasy guy]

It sounds like you need to sync rosters.

on the issue with your IDPs please email me your username and the name of the league so I can take a look

Do I need to sync up every time I use the feature? It solved the waiver issue, I thought the loading screen at the beginning was getting my league info, my bad.

Is there a way to turn off the FA guys AFTER the waivers have passed or altogether? 

I appreciate all the work you guys do here at FBG, I was just expressing my experience as an average "computer skills" guy. However, I should have been much nicer with my criticism.

Will do going forward. 

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Thanks; they should be and this is in the list of things to sort here.

sort working now, thanks!

new question. my cbs league schedule isn't syncing and iirc this was not working since inception of this new site because of the way cbs codes their stuff. is this something possibly coming this year, or is this still not possible because of cbs setup? thanks.

 

[Simon Shepherd]

sort working now, thanks!

new question. my cbs league schedule isn't syncing and iirc this was not working since inception of this new site because of the way cbs codes their stuff. is this something possibly coming this year, or is this still not possible because of cbs setup? thanks.

Perfect I'm looking for a CBS problem league right this second! PM me your username and the name of the league!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Thanks. I don't think anyone is frustrated by the feedback in the least. 

I was just responding to this:

I’ll confess to being a little frustrated on your feedback on the player boxes. 

 I'm happy to provide feedback because I've been a subscriber forever and love the service.  I wouldn't bother if I wasn't a big fan - there are a lot of other services I have criticisms for but I don't bother telling anyone because I don't care if they improve, I just end up canceling.  So I definitely don't mean to come off antagonistic or anything.  I appreciate that you guys are active in the forum this year and responsive to feedback, and definitely understand that you have to strike a balance that's pleasing for everyone.  

I still find it impossible to believe that literally anyone cares about having team names colored.  Seems like classic case of sacrificing function for form.  But whatever.  

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Wonder if you guys can help with something.

I think you guys here would love the screen that's currently called "Matchup". Because it's a really detailed dive into who to start for a given league. If you liked the detail of the classic 10 second primer, you'll love this.

The problem is, "Matchup" is kind of a lame name and looking at it now I totally get why people are not clicking on it, and therefore are wondering where some of the old primer stuff is on the new system.

Here's the question: what can we call that screen that would indicate it's a detailed look at your matchup for the week? We have some ideas internally. Just wanted to throw it out there for ideas here too! Thanks in advance.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I was just responding to this:

 I'm happy to provide feedback because I've been a subscriber forever and love the service.  I wouldn't bother if I wasn't a big fan - there are a lot of other services I have criticisms for but I don't bother telling anyone because I don't care if they improve, I just end up canceling.  So I definitely don't mean to come off antagonistic or anything.  I appreciate that you guys are active in the forum this year and responsive to feedback, and definitely understand that you have to strike a balance that's pleasing for everyone.  

I still find it impossible to believe that literally anyone cares about having team names colored.  Seems like classic case of sacrificing function for form.  But whatever.  

Thanks @Ignoratio Elenchi I'm not frustrated at all. 

Glad to be active and getting feedback from the forums. It's how we get better. 

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Wonder if you guys can help with something.

I think you guys here would love the screen that's currently called "Matchup". Because it's a really detailed dive into who to start for a given league. If you liked the detail of the classic 10 second primer, you'll love this.

The problem is, "Matchup" is kind of a lame name and looking at it now I totally get why people are not clicking on it, and therefore are wondering where some of the old primer stuff is on the new system.

Here's the question: what can we call that screen that would indicate it's a detailed look at your matchup for the week? We have some ideas internally. Just wanted to throw it out there for ideas here too! Thanks in advance.

Spitballing here because I've been staring at this new site longer than I should, the new layout seems to be separated as this week management info under Lineups and season long management info under Waiver & Trades. So how about relabeling the sections to reflect that, something like Weekly Manager and Season Manager? Not great names, but you get the idea. I realized looking at this in depth this week the Matchup page and the Rosters page is essentially the same, with current week info and ROS info separated into these sections. So if the section names are changed, then those two pages can have the same or similar names, like Roster Manager.

 

[Elevencents]

I dunno I thought matchup was pretty self explanatory? 

 

[brun]

Great job! It takes a little time, but I'm getting used to it.

One thing that would be nice, is a further refinement to the weighting of the staff in the consensus projections, at least as it applies to the specific offensive positions (QB, RB, WR, TE). For example, if you had significantly more faith in Dodds' TE projections, you could change the setting for TE consensus projections to 70% Dodds, 15% each Bloom & Tremblay.

Thanks! We have that: hit Settings then above where you select projections used there’s a button called “edit consensus”

Sorry, either my question wasn't clear enough or I'm just not seeing what you're referring to .

I only see the ability to change the weighting of the consensus projections for the offensive positions as a group, not the weighting for specific offensive positions.

For example, if you had significantly more faith in Dodds' TE projections, you could change the setting for TE consensus projections to 70% Dodds, 15% each Bloom & Tremblay. At the same time, you could could also apply a different weighting for each of the other skill positions, QB, WR & RB.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Here's the question: what can we call that screen that would indicate it's a detailed look at your matchup for the week? We have some ideas internally. Just wanted to throw it out there for ideas here too! Thanks in advance.

Perhaps something along the lines of "Deep dive"?  It's not so much a difference of content as a difference of degree?

 

[Simon Shepherd]

Sorry, either my question wasn't clear enough or I'm just not seeing what you're referring to .

I only see the ability to change the weighting of the consensus projections for the offensive positions as a group, not the weighting for specific offensive positions.

For example, if you had significantly more faith in Dodds' TE projections, you could change the setting for TE consensus projections to 70% Dodds, 15% each Bloom & Tremblay. At the same time, you could could also apply a different weighting for each of the other skill positions, QB, WR & RB.

Oh ok; thanks.

That's probably a little too detailed for the stage we're at of this product right now - just trying to get people to use this and add what's needed to achieve that - but it's on the list for us to consider in the future.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

On the "Week Rankings" tab, can we get a button to export to csv?  On the classic version it's easy to copy/paste into Excel, but it seems to be basically impossible on the new version.  And the new version actually does contain a lot of useful info that isn't present on the classic, so I'd love to use it, but I can't if I can't get the data into a spreadsheet. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey @Simon Shepherd one more suggestion, the rankings don't sort by staff member in the weekly rankings. That might be handy from time to time. Fyi I think it's supposed to but it doesn't. Thanks.