Why doesn't FBG's have a special section for subscribers? (1 Viewer)

[blake]

I'm not sure how many of you are fantasy baseball players, but I used to subscribe to Mastersball.com several years ago, and they had a general forum like this one, and then they had another one for subscribers where a member of the staff would always answer any of your questions.

Maybe it is just not needed here?

Or there are so many subscribers, there would be no one left in the general forum? On the old Mastersball, subscribers also posted in the general forum too.

Just thinking aloud, wondering if I might subscribe to a website as I'm not a subscriber now to any site, including FBG.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I'm not sure how many of you are fantasy baseball players, but I used to subscribe to Mastersball.com several years ago, and they had a general forum like this one, and then they had another one for subscribers where a member of the staff would always answer any of your questions.Maybe it is just not needed here? Or there are so many subscribers, there would be no one left in the general forum? On the old Mastersball, subscribers also posted in the general forum too.Just thinking aloud, wondering if I might subscribe to a website as I'm not a subscriber now to any site, including FBG.

A subscriber-only forum threatens the viability of the general forum. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Staffers here are always happy to answer questions; it's just not standard practice to spoon-feed noobs with FF advice just because they plunked money down for a subscription.

 

[blake]

never was talking about spoon feeding noobs, and if you read that in my answer, apparently i didn't phrase it well.

i'll try again. i was merely wondering why there isn't a subscriber section where the staff answers questions, but again, i never intimated that subscribers were noobs, and never meant to insult anyone like that. that seems to be a very shortsighted approach to this question.

would be curious to hear some serious answers to this curious questions. certainly not a criticism in any way of FBG, just more curiosity.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

never was talking about spoon feeding noobs, and if you read that in my answer, apparently i didn't phrase it well.i'll try again. i was merely wondering why there isn't a subscriber section where the staff answers questions, but again, i never intimated that subscribers were noobs, and never meant to insult anyone like that. that seems to be a very shortsighted approach to this question.would be curious to hear some serious answers to this curious questions. certainly not a criticism in any way of FBG, just more curiosity.

Sorry, I think you took my comments the wrong way....Maybe if I explained it this way: I'm assuming the questions you're talking about being answered by staffers would range from "who do I start" to "what are the long range prospects for Michael Turner" to "what are the pluses and minuses associated with redraft versus dynasty leagues?".It would be a very labor intensive process to have "subscriber consultants" available to answer a myriad of questions, and such a process would run contrary to the "design" of the website as it exists today, which is built, in simple terms, on (a) subscriber content, (b) an assistant coach forum, and © the shark pool. I can't think of a question which can't be answered through one of these 3 channels, and yet doesn't require "subscriber consultants" to deliver value to the customer.To put it even more simply, I think what you are asking for already exists here; just not in the format you envision...

 

[blake]

true, i think you are right here. i just find it interesting i suppose that there isn't a separate forum to discuss those topics that are available through subscriber content. why wouldn't that be the case? i'm interested in all aspects about this.

meaning, it seems to be a no-no to bring up stuff that is in the subscriber's section. but in a subscriber's forum, you could talk about the top 250 going forward and many of the other articles that are posted in the subscriber's section.

it seems that there is no way to talk about those things now? maybe i'm wrong about that.

and i guess i do find it interesting that rarely does the staff post in this NFL forum, but maybe i'm wrong about that too.

 

[Captain Hook]

blake - glad you enjoyed the old boards.

This has been brought up many times here but the bottom line is that Joe and David want the system the way it is now - so just one big group of free forums here.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

There is a forum available for website subscriber content/product questions..........

 

[blake]

blake - glad you enjoyed the old boards.This has been brought up many times here but the bottom line is that Joe and David want the system the way it is now - so just one big group of free forums here.

it could only be the infamous perry van hook! i always loved mastersball's system and thought that website, when it was around, did things really, really well. it could be that the volume of questions on this site is just too vast, but i find it puzzling that you really can't discuss subscriber content anywhere on the forums, since it is criticized if you do so on the general forums.also, i always liked how the mastersball staff, in addition to you, would post in both forums, and i guess i'm intrigued as to why that's not the case here.

 

[Captain Hook]

We still do the same thing blake - just a different site

 

[blake]

We still do the same thing blake - just a different site

i'm not too much of a fantasy baseball guy anymore, unfortunately. :(

 

[captbly]

I'm not sure how many of you are fantasy baseball players, but I used to subscribe to Mastersball.com several years ago, and they had a general forum like this one, and then they had another one for subscribers where a member of the staff would always answer any of your questions.Maybe it is just not needed here? Or there are so many subscribers, there would be no one left in the general forum? On the old Mastersball, subscribers also posted in the general forum too.Just thinking aloud, wondering if I might subscribe to a website as I'm not a subscriber now to any site, including FBG.

A subscriber-only forum threatens the viability of the general forum. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Staffers here are always happy to answer questions; it's just not standard practice to spoon-feed noobs with FF advice just because they plunked money down for a subscription.

I disagree. One problem I have had is when I had questions on the subscriber content. I copied and pasted thing and then had it deleted because of too much sub content. Having a sub board would allow more of an open discussion regarding the subscriber content. Dont worry I dont think you freebie guys would lose out on content that you see now. Most of the conversation would happen here, but in the sub forum...specific subscriber articles could be discussed better.

 

[blake]

I disagree. One problem I have had is when I had questions on the subscriber content. I copied and pasted thing and then had it deleted because of too much sub content. Having a sub board would allow more of an open discussion regarding the subscriber content. Dont worry I dont think you freebie guys would lose out on content that you see now. Most of the conversation would happen here, but in the sub forum...specific subscriber articles could be discussed better.

that is basically the crux of my question. how is there any accountability if it can't be mentioned on the forum? i'm not saying for criticisms, just merely for discussion and/or clarification if need be.

 

[HoTnickZ]

But you can ask subscriber related content questions on here. Unless you want to dissect an entire subscriber piece.

 

[blake]

But you can ask subscriber related content questions on here. Unless you want to dissect an entire subscriber piece.

oh my fault then if that is true. i've always seen threads deleted or being criticized by other posters for publicly disclosing subscriber content, time and again, which is why i started this thread. i've always assumed because of this that it was frowned upon, though there aren't really any guidelines anywhere to point to for this that i know of.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I disagree. One problem I have had is when I had questions on the subscriber content. I copied and pasted thing and then had it deleted because of too much sub content. Having a sub board would allow more of an open discussion regarding the subscriber content. Dont worry I dont think you freebie guys would lose out on content that you see now. Most of the conversation would happen here, but in the sub forum...specific subscriber articles could be discussed better.

that is basically the crux of my question. how is there any accountability if it can't be mentioned on the forum? i'm not saying for criticisms, just merely for discussion and/or clarification if need be.

As a prior poster mentioned, the website owners prefer it this way, as it avoids the possibility of de-valuing the non-subscriber forum. I wholeheartedly agree.You'll find that it is generally acceptable to post or reference "snippits" or excerpts from subscriber content, provided that you don't just copy and paste the whole Top 250 Forward, as an example. Practically speaking, you don't really need to cut and paste to get a specific question answered...

 

[GregR_2]

But you can ask subscriber related content questions on here. Unless you want to dissect an entire subscriber piece.

oh my fault then if that is true. i've always seen threads deleted or being criticized by other posters for publicly disclosing subscriber content, time and again, which is why i started this thread. i've always assumed because of this that it was frowned upon, though there aren't really any guidelines anywhere to point to for this that i know of.

It's not too hard to discuss things in a way that staff is ok with. Just discuss the pertinent bits and don't repost the entire thing whether it's an article, ranking, or set of projections. We routinely have discussions on subscribe content, and staff join in them as much as everyone else does.

 

[blake]

But you can ask subscriber related content questions on here. Unless you want to dissect an entire subscriber piece.

oh my fault then if that is true. i've always seen threads deleted or being criticized by other posters for publicly disclosing subscriber content, time and again, which is why i started this thread. i've always assumed because of this that it was frowned upon, though there aren't really any guidelines anywhere to point to for this that i know of.

It's not too hard to discuss things in a way that staff is ok with. Just discuss the pertinent bits and don't repost the entire thing whether it's an article, ranking, or set of projections. We routinely have discussions on subscribe content, and staff join in them as much as everyone else does.

they do? i must not be reading carefully enough because i never see the staff post here. so i guess i am wrong about that, but just seems like an odd setup when the staff don't make very many appearances in this forum and don't seem to be held too accountable for their articles. i'll have to read more closely in forum threads to see when staff members actually write though.

 

[GregR_2]

But you can ask subscriber related content questions on here. Unless you want to dissect an entire subscriber piece.

oh my fault then if that is true. i've always seen threads deleted or being criticized by other posters for publicly disclosing subscriber content, time and again, which is why i started this thread. i've always assumed because of this that it was frowned upon, though there aren't really any guidelines anywhere to point to for this that i know of.

It's not too hard to discuss things in a way that staff is ok with. Just discuss the pertinent bits and don't repost the entire thing whether it's an article, ranking, or set of projections. We routinely have discussions on subscribe content, and staff join in them as much as everyone else does.

they do? i must not be reading carefully enough because i never see the staff post here. so i guess i am wrong about that, but just seems like an odd setup when the staff don't make very many appearances in this forum and don't seem to be held too accountable for their articles. i'll have to read more closely in forum threads to see when staff members actually write though.

Well, let's take the most recently posted threads in the pool at the time I post this. I was going to grab 10, but will make it 11 since one of them is a new thread with only 1 reply.

Trading: Why in some leagues and in others it is like Ebenzer on Christmas Eve?

Jacoby Jones or Mike Walker!:

Who's better?? And Why?

Troy Smith - BAL homers...

A trade was vetoed

why?

Kurt Warner * 12

how long before the hook?

Boldin Update

2008 Shark Pool Suicide Contest - Week 05 * 12

Winners proper, Pool thins

Rough RB Matchups in Week 5...

For those who used WR-heavy/early strategy

Kyle Orton vs Detroit

Week 5 FA/WW D/ST

49ers, Panthers, Saints, Cowboys

Carson Palmer, anyone else getting the feeling hes done for the yr

There are staff comments in the Warner thread by Michael Brown. Jeff Tefertiller has comments in the Shark Pool suicide thread. Bloom has comments in both the Rough RB Matchups and Carson Palmer threads. Small sample size obviously but that's 40%. And a few of them like the threads questioning trades made in their leagues, I wouldn't really expect to be the kind of thing staffers should focus on.Different people have different areas you are likely to see them post of course. Drinen often shows up in statistical discussions. Woods on Eagles issues. Yudkin is a primary source for Patriots news. MT on the Chargers. Dodds will often post in serious discussions about the projections and rankings and uses feedback from the pool on places he may not have taken something into account.

 

[blake]

Well, let's take the most recently posted threads in the pool at the time I post this. I was going to grab 10, but will make it 11 since one of them is a new thread with only 1 reply.

Trading: Why in some leagues and in others it is like Ebenzer on Christmas Eve? Jacoby Jones or Mike Walker!:Who's better?? And Why? Troy Smith - BAL homers...A trade was vetoedwhy? Kurt Warner * 12how long before the hook? Boldin Update2008 Shark Pool Suicide Contest - Week 05 * 12Winners proper, Pool thinsRough RB Matchups in Week 5...For those who used WR-heavy/early strategyKyle Orton vs DetroitWeek 5 FA/WW D/ST49ers, Panthers, Saints, CowboysCarson Palmer, anyone else getting the feeling hes done for the yr

There are staff comments in the Warner thread by Michael Brown. Jeff Tefertiller has comments in the Shark Pool suicide thread. Bloom has comments in both the Rough RB Matchups and Carson Palmer threads. Small sample size obviously but that's 40%. And a few of them like the threads questioning trades made in their leagues, I wouldn't really expect to be the kind of thing staffers should focus on.Different people have different areas you are likely to see them post of course. Drinen often shows up in statistical discussions. Woods on Eagles issues. Yudkin is a primary source for Patriots news. MT on the Chargers. Dodds will often post in serious discussions about the projections and rankings and uses feedback from the pool on places he may not have taken something into account.

thank you for taking the time with that. i don't have a whole lot to add except to appreciate your points and take the board for what it is. thanks again.