Shark Poolers...Help Us, Help You (1 Viewer)

[-baller]

plz make this board as humorless and hypersensitive as possible.

and if you could aim it at the 6-8 yr old demo, I think that'd be a good idea as well.

 

[gianmarco]

plz make this board as humorless and hypersensitive as possible.and if you could aim it at the 6-8 yr old demo, I think that'd be a good idea as well.

Posts like this, which are pretty representative of most of your posts, are probably what are being targeted the most. Just my $0.02.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.

It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.

If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

 

[-baller]

I had actually intended to close the thread and leave this for email only [so that people could feel free to speak freely without repudiation]. Either way, I'll leave it open for now. Feel free to EITHER email me OR post here. But let me say that this is for suggestions. Please don't deride or assail others views in here. There are no right or wrong answers, we're looking for honest feedback.

I think I found another targeted post......thx for the 2 cents worth, though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I had actually intended to close the thread and leave this for email only [so that people could feel free to speak freely without repudiation]. Either way, I'll leave it open for now. Feel free to EITHER email me OR post here. But let me say that this is for suggestions. Please don't deride or assail others views in here. There are no right or wrong answers, we're looking for honest feedback.

I think I found another targeted post......thx for the 2 cents worth, though.

FWIW, gianmarco is spot on.J

 

[-baller]

stop assailing me.

 

[comfortably numb]

I had actually intended to close the thread and leave this for email only [so that people could feel free to speak freely without repudiation]. Either way, I'll leave it open for now. Feel free to EITHER email me OR post here. But let me say that this is for suggestions. Please don't deride or assail others views in here. There are no right or wrong answers, we're looking for honest feedback.

I think I found another targeted post......thx for the 2 cents worth, though.

Are you gone yet?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Apparently, moving forward, there's a 300 word minimum to SP posts, otherwise you're "noise." It's pretty ridiculous to see.

 

[Joe Bryant]

stop assailing me.

You're ok.J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Apparently, moving forward, there's a 300 word minimum to SP posts, otherwise you're "noise." It's pretty ridiculous to see.

To be more clear on that too - NO - every post doesn't need to be long. Sometimes points can be made concisely. That's great. Saves time. I think we all know what "noise" is. All we're saying is please stick to the topic as much as possible and keep the peripheral noise down.J

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Actually that's not the case at all, and as Joe said, we realize it's not going to make everyone happy.The Matt Jones, and Jay Cutler threads are serving as examples today for issues that persist in many threads. Rather than simply deleting and warning folks we're using those threads to illustrate some of the stuff we want to see less of. Sorry if it seems overboard to you, but I have a feeling you'll do just fine once you get the hang of the new status quo.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Actually that's not the case at all, and as Joe said, we realize it's not going to make everyone happy.The Matt Jones, and Jay Cutler threads are serving as examples today for issues that persist in many threads. Rather than simply deleting and warning folks we're using those threads to illustrate some of the stuff we want to see less of. Sorry if it seems overboard to you, but I have a feeling you'll do just fine once you get the hang of the new status quo.

So in the "new status quoe," in a discussion about a WR, if someone posts a one line comment about how that WR's quarterback sucks, it will be deleted?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Actually that's not the case at all, and as Joe said, we realize it's not going to make everyone happy.The Matt Jones, and Jay Cutler threads are serving as examples today for issues that persist in many threads. Rather than simply deleting and warning folks we're using those threads to illustrate some of the stuff we want to see less of. Sorry if it seems overboard to you, but I have a feeling you'll do just fine once you get the hang of the new status quo.

So in the "new status quoe," in a discussion about a WR, if someone posts a one line comment about how that WR's quarterback sucks, it will be deleted?

I don't know it would be deleted. It just wouldn't do much for moving the thread. If you think the QB sucks, that's fine. I guess you could say that but it's not much. If you think that, why not tell us a little more than that? Why is he so bad? Would the WRs make a huge difference? Does he have much of a chance to improve? There are a ton of things that would be MUCH better than just "the QB sucks". I think you have a lot more to offer than that.If that's really all you've got, then ok I guess. But we'd like for the discussion to be better than that.J

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Was the "Cutler asks to be traded" thread merged into one of the many other Cutler threads? If so, Merging more would be welcome.

I think people tend to overestimate the need to start a new thread to add the latest news bit on a topic already in discussion, ie McDaniels-Cutler feud.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Was the "Cutler asks to be traded" thread merged into one of the many other Cutler threads? If so, Merging more would be welcome.I think people tend to overestimate the need to start a new thread to add the latest news bit on a topic already in discussion, ie McDaniels-Cutler feud.

That's a good point MA. And I actually differ from you there. I'm fine with a new thread when new info comes up. The Cutler asking for a trade thing is a good example. We have to remember, some people aren't here a lot. They want to come in and scan the subjects and then move on.I like the fact they can see instantly that Cutler asked for a trade without having to wade through 4 pages of the McDaniels or Cutler? thing.We don't always want to create a new thread. But I'm fine with breaking out a new thread when something significant happens. I think it makes the board more useful. I do see the other side of keeping EVERYTHING in one thread. But that doesn't seem as user friendly to me.J

 

[TheFanatic]

5) No more threads that are simply one icon. Only post something that adds to the discussion. It can be annoying when someone adds and the next two or three posters add in approval of the use of the icon. Do we really need that? Sure, it's fine to approve, but please say why.

I disagree with this. I think this helps keep the board a little cleaner. If I see a thread title and go in with a specific post in mind and see someone else beat me to it, I can either try to say it a bit differently or I can drop in a to show I agree with that post. I would much rather see someone hit a post with a than repeat the content of another post.

 

[TheFanatic]

plz make this board as humorless and hypersensitive as possible.and if you could aim it at the 6-8 yr old demo, I think that'd be a good idea as well.

Posts like this, which are pretty representative of most of your posts, are probably what are being targeted the most. Just my $0.02.

Oh, and Gian, not sure your rating system is working. We have about 80% of the threads on the first page with 3 stars. Not much differentiation there. A couple of 1 stars. The Honda about the Hitler/TO vid deserves that, but not sure the other one (Denver offseason thread or something). Maybe there needs to be something like a 10 point scale to show more more differentiation....

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Was the "Cutler asks to be traded" thread merged into one of the many other Cutler threads? If so, Merging more would be welcome.I think people tend to overestimate the need to start a new thread to add the latest news bit on a topic already in discussion, ie McDaniels-Cutler feud.

That's a good point MA. And I actually differ from you there. I'm fine with a new thread when new info comes up. The Cutler asking for a trade thing is a good example. We have to remember, some people aren't here a lot. They want to come in and scan the subjects and then move on.

Fair point, Joe. I guess what we really differ on in this case is how significant that news is. To me it was just the next line of his temper tantrum. And trade has been speculated on in response for awhile. If he was actually traded, that'd be different. Or even if Broncos came out and said they'd consider it. THis is just noise to me, so not new thread-worthy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

1a. One of the things I find lacking is actual fantasy football strategy discussion....Maybe it's there, but it's very difficult to find if it is. Personally, SP rankings, and news feeds really isn't my cup of tea, but I could really get behind some actually fantasy strategy (AVT, dynamic VBD, etc) discussion. I think thats what probably brought in a lot of original members, but it really hasn't been there lately IMO.

I agree completely with this one. I'm glad you mentioned that. I've been trying to put my finger on what's really "missing" from the Shark Pool, and I think this is one of the key elements. One of the contributing factors is that a lot of the guys that engage in this end up being on staff and then they're focused on projections & submitting articles on time instead of the open strategy discussion that was so great.

This is what brought me here in the first place, and what has sadly gone away (or at least been overwhlmed). I used to love the Shark pool in May and June of '01 and '02 or so, but it just hasn't been the same since then.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

osting Charts/tables here is rough sometimes. I really think FBGs should either spend some time searching the web for such an add-on to the board or pay some freelancer to create one. Its a long time coming and I can't imagine it'd be much money at all. What I'm referring to is someone goes to PFR, clicks reply, and then maybe "add table" and pastes in stats from PFR that furthers the discussion. We've been trying code /code and all sorts of things for years to get them to appear better. Could you at least ask around see if such an add-on exists please?Hope this is helpful

:Agree on the charts and tables as well. When trying to post a chart, it's a total pain to get it lined up so it's readable. Either a simpler method or detailed instructions about how to do it would allow for better info. I have not posted things in the past because it would take too much time to post the table data.:

I asked Memphis for tables a few years ago, here was his PM reply-

I'm a little bit wary of add-ons because with a board as large that gets hit as hard as we do on Sunday mornings in-season, even a very minor performance hit can kill us. And a lot of the board hacks and tweaks don't seem to stand up well under massive load. But if the add-on lives only on the post screen and writes standard IB data back to the SQL server that might not be too bad. Can you point me at one or two that I can evaluate?

Unfortunately I couldn't find a suitable add-on, maybe someone else can?

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

The one thing that really annoys me is when people engage the tools. One doofus posts something stupid, then the horde gets in a race to tell them about how they're not following the ToS, and instead of it being a one-off post by someone with poorly developed social skills, it completely derails the thread.

Honestly, the people who play board cop do far more to annoy me than the people who post "personal attacks." I can quickly scroll past a personal attack. I can't quickly scroll back 20 brown-nosers trying to show how respectful of the rules they are and then getting in a slapfight with the guy who posted something they didn't like.

People playing board cop doing anything but hitting the report button does absolutely no good. None. All it does is let one bad post completely ruin a thread. Make it stop, please.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

plz make this board as humorless and hypersensitive as possible.

and if you could aim it at the 6-8 yr old demo, I think that'd be a good idea as well.

Posts like this, which are pretty representative of most of your posts, are probably what are being targeted the most. Just my $0.02.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Just putting a bunch of quotes from various posters on a similar topic together in one post, as it looks like many people are identifying some good solutions (including the last guy)

I think if every new thread that was started had either Dynasty or Re-draft in the title, we'd soon see how needed separate forums might be. Same thing goes for Re-draft PPR or Non-PPR.Right now it is hard to judge since everything is basically co-mingled.

I don't want to be too iron handed but I can say with pretty much certainty that we won't be subdividing the forums any further. It's a pet peeve of mine.

But I do agree that we should do a better job of identifying whether it's a redraft or dynasty league as that obviously does make a difference.

J

Half the people are talking dynasty. The other half, re-draft. Hard to tell when; and muddles the picture/thread.

I would definitely start here with any changes...

I understand what you guys are talking about here, but just to flesh it out more. How would you propose we monitor that? It would be redundant to have to duplicate every thread and discuss the merits from both dynasty and redraft. Would having people clearly state whether they were speaking dynasty or redraft help?

Maybe there could be a check box for "dynasty" or "re-draft" or "ppr" or not when you post (either in topic of initiating one). You check all the applicable boxes that apply to what you're speaking about. Then we you get to a post and you see (for example) a big blue "D" and a green "PPR" you know it's about Dynasty - Point per Reception. It seems quickest and easiest.

But is it do-able?

This thread is making me think, and that's something I like to do. So for the last couple of hours, I have been wondering why I hardly ever post in the Shark Pool anymore. It used to be something I enjoyed. Is it a change in me, or in the Shark Pool itself?

6) Clutter - by failing to use the search function or by inappropriate bumping of old posts to say "I told you so" or "you're an idiot"

6) This is my main suggestion. When making a post, add radio buttons to say what the post is. Is it dynasty, redraft, PPR, injury news, speculation, a performance projection? Make the use of this a requirement so that the post will not go through without a designation. That would clearly identify what it is, and would remove any need for subforums. The only thing I can see against this is when someone wants to talk about things that fall into more than one category. For example: What is the value of Owens this year? For dynasty purposes? For PPR leagues? That might inflate the number of posts. An alternative would be to make posters designate individual replies as PPR, dynasty, redraft etc. instead of just having a post for each. By making the poster think about and state the rationale, it would help eliminate confusion.

1. I understand the downside of starting multiple forums , but if there would be a for the original poster to "categorize" a thread, and give each user the abilty to filter through threads, I'd imagine that would be a wonderful feature. This could cure the dynasty/redraft, basic/ppr confusion a few folks have mentioned.

.

 

[chook]

plz make this board as humorless and hypersensitive as possible.and if you could aim it at the 6-8 yr old demo, I think that'd be a good idea as well.

Posts like this, which are pretty representative of most of your posts, are probably what are being targeted the most. Just my $0.02.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: -baller. · View this post · Un-ignore -baller

Much better.

 

[BassNBrew]

Just curious guys about the less humor more NFL movement...right now of the first page....

TO - Hitler

Staff avatar pics

XFL or AFL (thread about a start up league)

5 things I hate about FF

I'm pretty much of the opinion of letting it ride and die it's own death if not funny. Just find the topics on the first page interesting given the discussion here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just curious guys about the less humor more NFL movement...right now of the first page....TO - HitlerStaff avatar picsXFL or AFL (thread about a start up league)5 things I hate about FFI'm pretty much of the opinion of letting it ride and die it's own death if not funny. Just find the topics on the first page interesting given the discussion here.

Good examples.TO is about TO. It's a goofy look at the situation with real discussion within.Staff pics - just goofy. Probably should go.Start up XFL stuff. Definitely pro football. Fine.5 things I hate about FF. Great thread talking about FF of interest to lots of people.When we say limit humor, I'm more talking about a guy trying to throw comedy into a thread that's going along. It's usually a hijack type thing and often can take the thread off track. This isn't going to be a serious all the time thing. But it needs to be mostly real discussion.J

 

[cobalt_27]

Agreed. It's the back and forth "noise" where people get on a smack talking tangent muddying up what could be a good discussion. Most of the time, other people have zero interest in that and want to get back to the topic being discussed.J

Well.Knowing that you guys have already made up your mind to make this the no-fun zone, I don't see this as just limiting the back-and-forth. Jason already changed Scotty's Bills thread title, which wasn't a back-and-forth at all. It was a funny way to make a statement that he's excited about the Bills chances (knowing full well that it would elicit a "don't be ridiculous" response by many here). And, if this is the new We're All About Serious Business in the Shark Pool approach, then so be it. I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

 

[Bri]

Start up XFL stuff. Definitely pro football. Fine.

but it's NFL talk in the byline. Not to picknits but what if CFL talk comes along then?what if this XFL stuff has drafts, fantasy drafts etc?genuine Q

 

[Bri]

Unfortunately I couldn't find a suitable add-on, maybe someone else can?

I'll look some, thanks for the update

 

[Bri]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

Apparently, moving forward, there's a 300 word minimum to SP posts, otherwise you're "noise." It's pretty ridiculous to see.

hadn't noticed thisany more examples?is this a trial thing or is Jason going to be moderating threads like this for a long time?

 

[Bri]

I think, to quote Joe, you need to contribute something to make the thread "move along." This new approach is all about enforcing real discussions about fantasy football.

To be consistent, I think it would be wise for Serious Joe to remove all the emoticons from the thread. They do absolutely nothing to move the discussions. It is all about having real discussions about fantasy football with the utmost seriousness and purpose.

That's what's being advertised at least.

I didn't notice and am real unclear on what happenned today.Jason was like an editor making a 300 word post to be 200 words?

Or Jason was deleting posts as not pertinent?

or was he just weeding out general BS?

the latter would be kinda cool I suppose

 

[BassNBrew]

I think they're trying some new approaches. some will work, others won't. Usually they're pretty good about revisting and looking for feedback on what works and what doesn't.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the Matt Jones thread is a big example of where this "new Shark Pool" stuff is going way overboard.It's like every post in there that is less than 2 paragraphs long got snipped at by Jason for being useless and distasteful, when several of them were neither of those. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to make a point without writing a dissertation on it, and those statements often lead to better conversation going down as people bounce their opinions off each other.If every post has to be a 3 paragraph response backed by stats and figures then there is no progression of conversation. The best conversation usually is not derived via direct responses to the original post, but rather expanding discussions built on multiple responses that eventually lead to those great, stat-filled posts.

:( Apparently, moving forward, there's a 300 word minimum to SP posts, otherwise you're "noise." It's pretty ridiculous to see.

hadn't noticed thisany more examples?is this a trial thing or is Jason going to be moderating threads like this for a long time?

Hi Bri,This is not accurate at all. Covered it above. There positively is no "minimum" post requirement. None whatsoever. Sometimes, all you have to say is "me too". But on the other hand, I want to be clear that what we'd like to see is more of the thoughtful and detailed posts. J

 

[cobalt_27]

I think they're trying some new approaches. some will work, others won't. Usually they're pretty good about revisting and looking for feedback on what works and what doesn't.

Clearly. I'm just predicting that it's going to fail miserably because Joe appears to have a vision of the SP that is contrary to (a) the level of expertise its members and (b) internet psychology in general. Joe seems to want this to be for serious football discussions, which by and large, it already is. As his own data would undoubtedly show, FBGs (and the SP in particular) is an enormous success. But, what's being proposed here, and how it's going to be implemented, doesn't square with what the audience is mainly here to provide (i.e., opinion) and what it lacks (expertise). I think Joe envisions all the young FBGs flourishing under this new system. By filtering out the "noise" with onerous moderation, he clearly views this as his own Little Albert experiment, where he can shape/mold regular people into providing 100% hard-hitting, content-rich, insightful commentary. Good luck with that.

And, obviously, there will be many here supporting this because it resonates with how they want to view themselves (i.e., as experts). I imagine there will be many from the AC Forum who will be very eager to return to the SP to take part in this new world of seriousness. If you want a model for how this will turn out, just visit the AC some day, and you'll get the idea.

Missing, of course, will be any remote facsimile of humility, personality, humor, or natural exchange that reasonable people have with one another. If the dictum here is "move the discussion" and threads that are titled, "How Many Buffalo Bills Wins in 2009: 10, 11, 12+" get adjusted so that we can have a serious polls/discussion...then you're emphasizing what this is not (a place of expertise) and neutering the very strength that people bring here (personality/social interx).

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

You and I have a different view of what's "better." But, it's your board, so you win.I'm just a about it because it will dramatically shape the dynamic that has brought you so much success and, for many of us, a great mix of info and entertainment.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

You and I have a different view of what's "better." But, it's your board, so you win.I'm just a about it because it will dramatically shape the dynamic that has brought you so much success and, for many of us, a great mix of info and entertainment.

Disagree. Wherever I see FBG's and a few of the other high-profile fantasy boards referenced to (and recommended as a source) on 3rd party sites, "entertainment" and "humor" is never mentioned. It's typically a statement along the lines of - great fantasy football talk and a extremely knowlegable core group of posters. Entertainment value is never mentioned and it is not what's brought this place success. That's just a fact.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

You and I have a different view of what's "better." But, it's your board, so you win.I'm just a about it because it will dramatically shape the dynamic that has brought you so much success and, for many of us, a great mix of info and entertainment.

Disagree. Wherever I see FBG's and a few of the other high-profile fantasy boards referenced to (and recommended as a source) on 3rd party sites, "entertainment" and "humor" is never mentioned. It's typically a statement along the lines of - great fantasy football talk and a extremely knowlegable core group of posters. Entertainment value is never mentioned and it is not what's brought this place success. That's just a fact.

Well, it's also a fact that those boards enjoy a good deal of entertainment and humor as a consequence of normal, human interaction. No one bills it as such; it would be stupid and irrelevant to do so. But, to artificially attempt to cleanse these qualities out and wash them away misses a fundamental component of internet/messageboard psychology. That's at the core of what makes this a community, and the football/fantasy football element is only important insomuch as it self-selects the person who has a topical interest in the subject.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

You and I have a different view of what's "better." But, it's your board, so you win.I'm just a about it because it will dramatically shape the dynamic that has brought you so much success and, for many of us, a great mix of info and entertainment.

Understood. We just differ on where the board is I think. I think we've drifted significantly away from what brought us whatever success we've had. I'm trying to get us back to that.J

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Jason and Joe,

I feel you will face a couple serious obstacles in this endeavor.

1.) Increased moderation will require increased activity by moderators who have not or are not very active on the boards. Unfortunately, I believe you will find that it will be difficult if not nearly impossible to get all those with mod ability on the same page. The result of this will be over moderation by a few, which IMO is just as bad as under moderation. This over moderation will come across as a power trip and will alienate users. My advice is that moderators should be given very strict guidelines ahead of time and they should be advised to moderate IF AND WHEN they come across something rather than actively LOOKING to moderate. It will be tough, and I wish you the best of luck.

2.) The Shark Pool: NFL News vs Fantasy Discussion. Joe, you are in a tough position here. You have stated in the past in multiple threads that a certain post does not fit the guidelines of the Shark Pool, so it is moved. Unfortunately, it does not fit the guidelines of the the forum that it is moved to either ( Asst Coach ). Back when the board was more intimate, there was latitude to discuss your personal league and ask league specific questions. It would seem that these posts do not fit the narrow guideline of the Shark Pool anymore. If you move too many posts, you will stifle true discussion. If you move too few, the SP will be full of noise.

Joe, I know you don't want to fracture the boards further with additional forums, but I think you are defeating your own purpose by narrowing the scope of the SP. Certain discussions regarding fantasy football topics will be left without a home. A perfect example of a post without a home is discussion about completed drafts. Where do you draw the line on what is a "RATE MY TEAM" post and what is draft discussion? If I thought I knew the answer, I would share it, but I don't. What about people asking advice on the various league managers or fantasy contests? It is not NFL news and it is not strategy.

I wish you luck in your efforts to clean up the pool.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I'm already on record with how silly I think this all is.

I understand that opinion. As I said, I'm sure we'll lose a few folks with this. We just think the net overall effect will be a better Shark Pool. J

You and I have a different view of what's "better." But, it's your board, so you win.I'm just a about it because it will dramatically shape the dynamic that has brought you so much success and, for many of us, a great mix of info and entertainment.

Disagree. Wherever I see FBG's and a few of the other high-profile fantasy boards referenced to (and recommended as a source) on 3rd party sites, "entertainment" and "humor" is never mentioned. It's typically a statement along the lines of - great fantasy football talk and a extremely knowlegable core group of posters. Entertainment value is never mentioned and it is not what's brought this place success. That's just a fact.

Well, it's also a fact that those boards enjoy a good deal of entertainment and humor as a consequence of normal, human interaction. No one bills it as such; it would be stupid and irrelevant to do so. But, to artificially attempt to cleanse these qualities out and wash them away misses a fundamental component of internet/messageboard psychology. That's at the core of what makes this a community, and the football/fantasy football element is only important insomuch as it self-selects the person who has a topical interest in the subject.

"But, to artificially attempt to cleanse these qualities out and wash them away misses a fundamental component of internet/messageboard psychology." Nope. We still disagree.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I wish you luck in your efforts to clean up the pool.

Thanks. Truth be told, it'll wind up being not as drastic as it's seeming now. We just want to lessen some of the noise and increase the good discussion in trying to get it back more like it used to be. Some of that will never come back I know just because the board is so much bigger than it used to be. But some of it can I think. We'll see.J

 

[guderian]

Was the "Cutler asks to be traded" thread merged into one of the many other Cutler threads? If so, Merging more would be welcome.I think people tend to overestimate the need to start a new thread to add the latest news bit on a topic already in discussion, ie McDaniels-Cutler feud.

That's a good point MA. And I actually differ from you there. I'm fine with a new thread when new info comes up. The Cutler asking for a trade thing is a good example. We have to remember, some people aren't here a lot. They want to come in and scan the subjects and then move on.I like the fact they can see instantly that Cutler asked for a trade without having to wade through 4 pages of the McDaniels or Cutler? thing.We don't always want to create a new thread. But I'm fine with breaking out a new thread when something significant happens. I think it makes the board more useful. I do see the other side of keeping EVERYTHING in one thread. But that doesn't seem as user friendly to me.J

When speculation becomes reality (i.e. trade speculation becomes an actual trade) I'd like to see a new thread started.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

When speculation becomes reality (i.e. trade speculation becomes an actual trade) I'd like to see a new thread started.

Definitely agree. As said, this was, to me, still speculation, not reality -- just another whine until they trade him or at least say they will entertain trades. So maybe that was a bad example. But on any issue, people will see things differently as to what is significant enough to warrant new thread, I guess. And, as a clutter-hater, I could be on the end of the continuum.

 

[gianmarco]

Something else to consider is how you go about cleaning up the pool.

Using more negative reinforcement like cleaning up posts, timeouts, etc. are effective, but usually only in the short-term. What happens when the moderation starts to slack again and the "point" starts to be forgotten again?

Using some positive reinforcement along with that would probably serve the board well and would end up being longer lasting. Using the 2 in conjunction would probably help advance what you're trying to do more than just increased moderation.

Now, as to what that positive reinforcement could be? Well, that's where the creative part goes. An obvious answer is giving a free membership to active posters who contribute well. This will help "keep" some of the crowd you're afraid of losing and providing incentive for them to stay. Maybe starting up a Shark Pool Member "Spotlight of the Week" to bring attention to some noteworthy contributions. Maybe getting some noteworthy contributors to participate in some of the productions that go on like with Bloom/Cecil. Even just giving some of the posters their own temporary thread to do a Q&A or something.

There are lots of possibilities to promote this and encourage people to stay in a positive light rather than weeding out the bad and hoping they want to stay as a result. The combination of the two will probably be more efficient and have more permanent results.

 

[Musesboy]

Something else to consider is how you go about cleaning up the pool.

Using more negative reinforcement like cleaning up posts, timeouts, etc. are effective, but usually only in the short-term. What happens when the moderation starts to slack again and the "point" starts to be forgotten again?

Using some positive reinforcement along with that would probably serve the board well and would end up being longer lasting. Using the 2 in conjunction would probably help advance what you're trying to do more than just increased moderation.

Now, as to what that positive reinforcement could be? Well, that's where the creative part goes. An obvious answer is giving a free membership to active posters who contribute well. This will help "keep" some of the crowd you're afraid of losing and providing incentive for them to stay. Maybe starting up a Shark Pool Member "Spotlight of the Week" to bring attention to some noteworthy contributions. Maybe getting some noteworthy contributors to participate in some of the productions that go on like with Bloom/Cecil. Even just giving some of the posters their own temporary thread to do a Q&A or something.

There are lots of possibilities to promote this and encourage people to stay in a positive light rather than weeding out the bad and hoping they want to stay as a result. The combination of the two will probably be more efficient and have more permanent results.

I almost suggested the same thing but thought it would take too much effort for someone to judge the posts.

The spotlight competition a couple of years back prompted some great discussion.

 

[Jason Wood]

Something else to consider is how you go about cleaning up the pool.Using more negative reinforcement like cleaning up posts, timeouts, etc. are effective, but usually only in the short-term. What happens when the moderation starts to slack again and the "point" starts to be forgotten again?Using some positive reinforcement along with that would probably serve the board well and would end up being longer lasting. Using the 2 in conjunction would probably help advance what you're trying to do more than just increased moderation. Now, as to what that positive reinforcement could be? Well, that's where the creative part goes. An obvious answer is giving a free membership to active posters who contribute well. This will help "keep" some of the crowd you're afraid of losing and providing incentive for them to stay. Maybe starting up a Shark Pool Member "Spotlight of the Week" to bring attention to some noteworthy contributions. Maybe getting some noteworthy contributors to participate in some of the productions that go on like with Bloom/Cecil. Even just giving some of the posters their own temporary thread to do a Q&A or something. There are lots of possibilities to promote this and encourage people to stay in a positive light rather than weeding out the bad and hoping they want to stay as a result. The combination of the two will probably be more efficient and have more permanent results.

I love this idea. The whole honey versus vinegar argument.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

cobalt_27, I agree with your posts in here.

 

[stevegamer]

A smiley that would be useful:

A smiley guy holding a sign asking for league size & scoring rules. For the AC forums, it would save posters some typing time when people fail to post that.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Something else to consider is how you go about cleaning up the pool.Using more negative reinforcement like cleaning up posts, timeouts, etc. are effective, but usually only in the short-term. What happens when the moderation starts to slack again and the "point" starts to be forgotten again?Using some positive reinforcement along with that would probably serve the board well and would end up being longer lasting. Using the 2 in conjunction would probably help advance what you're trying to do more than just increased moderation. Now, as to what that positive reinforcement could be? Well, that's where the creative part goes. An obvious answer is giving a free membership to active posters who contribute well. This will help "keep" some of the crowd you're afraid of losing and providing incentive for them to stay. Maybe starting up a Shark Pool Member "Spotlight of the Week" to bring attention to some noteworthy contributions. Maybe getting some noteworthy contributors to participate in some of the productions that go on like with Bloom/Cecil. Even just giving some of the posters their own temporary thread to do a Q&A or something. There are lots of possibilities to promote this and encourage people to stay in a positive light rather than weeding out the bad and hoping they want to stay as a result. The combination of the two will probably be more efficient and have more permanent results.

this is a great idea, Gian. Thank you for helping us improve the Shark Pool.