Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Friday, October 20, 2006

Housekeeping

Not sure what else to call this - but let’s make this a catch all thread for ideas on how we run things.

I really don’t like the new setup where we are posting individual threads two weeks early - 1989 eligibles as we start the 1988 discussion for example.

I like the idea of starting the discussion early . . . but I don’t like how all of the new threads bump off of hot topics the guys that are actually coming up for election this year. This is a major issue for me.

One - do others agree, or I am off base?

Two - if others agree, how is this for a suggestion. We post the 1989 discussion thread at the start of 1988, and agree to use that to discuss the new eligibles only for the first week on that thread. Then the individual threads will go up when we are up to 1989, and anything really good from the discussion can be moved to the individual thread as appropriate.

This would allow us to keep the focus on the people that are actually coming up that week, while allowing for a head start on the other guys.

I’m open to other ideas too, but the main thing is that I’m not in love with this new setup.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

—Joe

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 20, 2006 at 12:59 AM | 13 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 20, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#2218597)
Hot topics.
   2. DavidFoss Posted: October 20, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#2218676)
Does this site have a way to make posts "sticky" so that the current year's discussion and ballot will stay on top of Hot Topics?
   3. sunnyday2 Posted: October 20, 2006 at 04:12 AM (#2219228)
Yeah, somebody bump it if it falls off.
   4. Tiboreau Posted: October 20, 2006 at 05:57 AM (#2219331)
When John creates the yearly discussion thread could he use the candidate list to link to the individual player threads? That way the only thread that would need to be bumped would be the discussion thread, which provides access to the various candidate discussion without clogging a thread with copied arguments.
   5. yest Posted: October 20, 2006 at 06:03 AM (#2219334)
is there any way to extend thew hot topics to around 25 ?
because if not we should keep it the way it was
   6. fra paolo Posted: October 20, 2006 at 09:43 AM (#2219378)
I'm always lagging behind in any case, so it doesn't really bother me when a thread goes up. It's not rocket science to track stuff down one wants to follow.

One can always use the handy bookmarking system to peg a thread one wants to watch.

So in the end, this is just a pointless thread cluttering up the Hot Topics section. People should ignore it.
   7. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 20, 2006 at 11:10 AM (#2219389)
"It's not rocket science to track stuff down one wants to follow."


Of course it isn't. Nothing on this website is rocket science. But it is a pain in the ass. That's the problem.

And the bookmarking gets cluttered up to easily also.
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: October 20, 2006 at 11:45 AM (#2219398)
I've never had a problem.
   9. Rob_Wood Posted: October 20, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2219791)
I'm with Joe on this one.
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 23, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2221918)
Since a significant number of voters don't want to post the threads earlier, I wont do so anymore. Since I personally didn't see a need for it, that's fine by me (sorry, Dan), though I didn't see it as a major problem, either.

When John creates the yearly discussion thread could he use the candidate list to link to the individual player threads? That way the only thread that would need to be bumped would be the discussion thread, which provides access to the various candidate discussion without clogging a thread with copied arguments.

That's just too much work for me for something that's a luxury. But if someone wants to take care of it, that's fine by me.

I've never had a problem.

I happen to agree, Mark. I usually find a player thread takes no longer than 15 seconds to locate. As long as you know where the player thread is located (19th century players, 20th century players, NeLers, and Cuban Stars), it's easy, IMO.

Two - if others agree, how is this for a suggestion. We post the 1989 discussion thread at the start of 1988, and agree to use that to discuss the new eligibles only for the first week on that thread. Then the individual threads will go up when we are up to 1989, and anything really good from the discussion can be moved to the individual thread as appropriate

Do we have major objections over this? If not, I can post the '89 thread tomorrow.
   11. rawagman Posted: October 23, 2006 at 05:27 AM (#2221927)
I think posting the general discussion thread early would be much more productive than posting the significant player threads early.
   12. KJOK Posted: October 23, 2006 at 06:05 AM (#2221936)
I already came out against early threads. I like having the discussions in the "Ballot Discussion" treads anyway, at least until they start 'dominating' the discussion, and THEN it might be a good time to create an individual player thread..
   13. DanG Posted: October 23, 2006 at 01:00 PM (#2222013)
“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, “Why not?". --George Bernard Shaw

We post the 1989 discussion thread at the start of 1988, and agree to use that to discuss the new eligibles only for the first week on that thread.

I think that's a good compromise.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3011 seconds
68 querie(s) executed