|
|
|
Jim's Lab Notes— Site News, Baseball Talk, and a Bunch of Other Stuff
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign
FYI, in the redesign I will restrict off-topic political discussions to a new politics off-topic blog that I am setting up for the purpose. By default, members will not see these discussions in their Hot Topics until they opt-in to see them. In the interim I will restrict off-topic political discussions to a dedicated monthly thread (similar to the football, basketball, and soccer threads), which will be tagged as “politics”, marked as “OT:Politics” in the title, and which will include a disclaimer about the nature and tone of the discussion. I will also begin closing the off-topic political discussions in other threads.
In the redesign I also will be moving the sports-related off-topic threads to their own dedicated area. Like the off-topic political threads these threads will only appear in Hot Topics when members opt-in to see them. When this change takes place members will be able to submit news links to basketball, football, soccer, and golf (whichever sports that generate interest) articles, which will appear in their appropriate off-topic micro.
So, in the redesign people who wish to discuss these topics will be able to do so easily while people who wish to ignore such topics will be able to do so easily as well.
Donate to BaseballThinkFactory.org using PayPal.com
Jim Furtado
Posted: May 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM | 1369 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Join My Sim League (30 - 2:36pm, Jan 03)Last: booondBBTF.org Beta, Take 2 (24 - 10:34am, Dec 28)Last: Jim FurtadoPlease Excuse the Mess (193 - 1:24pm, Nov 30)Last: 'SposStaying Logged In Issue (135 - 6:20am, Sep 16)Last: botemanBBTF.org Beta (18 - 12:47pm, Aug 02)Last: JJ1986microBBTFs: I Have Keys and I am not Afraid to Give Them Out (32 - 9:54am, Jun 04)Last: Neutral Milk Dotel (Dan Lee)Squishing Bugs (30 - 8:59pm, May 04)Last: ShockUpdate News: Question about Community Features (85 - 12:05pm, Apr 28)Last: Jim FurtadoIMPORTANT!!! Login with E-mail Address Soon to Be Required (48 - 10:57am, Mar 14)Last: Jim FurtadoUpgrade Update: New Servers, Email Logins, Mobile, Feature Requests, and a Lot of Other Stuff! (78 - 2:23pm, Feb 21)Last: bobmBBTF Mobile Beta Testers Needed (71 - 3:01pm, Feb 20)Last: madvillainThe Great September 1, 2010 Outage (88 - 10:08pm, Jan 05)Last: The Primer ChimpHow much do minor league players get paid? (30 - 2:46pm, Sep 02)Last: DL from MNCombating Spammers and Upgrades Update (63 - 5:43pm, Jul 15)Last: SpiveyServer Performance (60 - 12:37am, May 25)Last: Harold
|
|
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.
Which is fine, whatever, but then that kind of defeats the argument that a major problem with the political threads was tone/insults. And that a major problem with the people posting in the political threads was rudeness. And that a major problem with the political threads was that they did not foster a sense of community on the site.
The TOS do not seem to be applicable in any way to the lounge.
Yes.
The Lounge is part of the whole community, and at times can be a nasty and contentious part. But it is not the public image of the site. Heck, it's not even the private image of the site, given how many members were unaware it exists and what goes on there.
The site changes Jim speaks of will make it easier for the kind of nastiness and contentiousness you like - the kind outside the Lounge - to exist, without affecting the public image of BTF. In the past, offers to redirect such discussion to the forums have resulted in no takers, and the other alternative - closing and deleting threads - is frowned upon by members even more loudly. By allowing the nastier threads to be bumped to a location that the public (and the default user) won't see it but the participants can continue unabated, Jim can keep the site image how he wishes prospective members to see it while allowing the community greater latitude to destroy itself as it sees fit.
Essentially, I think Jim recognizes that this is the internet, and not everyone will choose the most civil form of discourse. However, in this particular corner of the internet, he wants new users to see insightful baseball content and come here for that, and then decide what additional content - insightful or otherwise - they'd like to include.
The drawback of that, such as it is, is that the user would need to know what exists that they didn't opt in for, in order to know whether they should. If a tree falls in the forest, and all that.
It's a bit limited. What we need is "insightful/funny/unintentionallyunfunny/moronic/SOS/TLDR/brokencode/doublepost."
Not to talk behind their backs, but somebody in the Pablo Sandoval thread just had to type out the whole phrase "This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read." There should just be a button for that.
That button should auto-post the name of the user and the comment in question to that day's Lounge, for behind-the-back-talkeration.
I love how this has progressed, though:
"Political threads are bad! They are contentious and acrimonious and filled with insults and personal attacks! Political posters are bad!"
"We're not really that acrimonious -- we all pretty much like each other -- but... Whoa, look at what is going on down in the lounge by some of the same people who have a problem with the tone of the political posters..."
"You guys are crybabies. We're not insulting people behind their backs, and if we are just get over it. Do you need to be babysat?"
So all this is about keeping up appearances to impress clickers-through?
The only real issue is going to be setting up your personalized folders and once that is done we'll all get used to set up and carry on as normal.*
*Well, the other issue will be the mods. We don't know how that is going to go just yet.
Just for reference sake, exactly which cloud are you on "up there"?
DB
I don't actually think that most people who participate in political discussions on the site (including Ray, but I don't want to speak for him), really like nastiness or contentiousness. Most of the participants want an interesting discussion. Name-calling detracts from that. Ad hominems are generally frowned upon by all participants (if not always enforced). I don't like it when Sam H shows up screaming and hollering, as I feel that it detracts from the discussion and has the unfortunate effect of focusing the discussion on Sam (which is much less interesting to me).
Ray has, at times that I can recall, specifically called people out (including myself on at least one occasion) for comments that go past the line (edit: which I accepted). Some people are nasty on the political threads, but I don't think that's the norm at all (edit: at least since around 2009 or so. Things were much more acrimonious with RETARDO and kevin around).
Yes, I think so. (I don't mean this as a negative. Appearances for clickers-through are very important to Jim as it really affects how well he can run the site).
So all this is about keeping up appearances for clickers-through?
I thought that was obvious from the git-go. And I can see Jim's point, even if personally I'd solve the "problem" in a different way if I were running the place. At this point, though, I'm willing to give him a chance and see how it all plays out in the realm of unintended consequences.
Clickers-through! Oh ye unwashed lurking hordes, you too have been NAMED!
Unless I'm completely misremembering, most of the acrimony surrounding those two came on steroids threads, not political threads. Of course many of the complaints about political threads were made about steroids threads, and often by (and about) the same people.
Nope. The entire premise that the political threads are nasty and contentious is highly dubious, and we now know entirely hypocritical issuing from many voices who've bleated about it.
Jim's trying to get the casual fan in here, and that's his business. I can entirely see how a link entitled, "Sox claim Bloomquist on waivers," that morphs into the best way to poach Indian Ocean fish and proceeds to the injustices in the Treaty of Ghent might not be the best way to do that.
An angel just lost its wings.
Perhaps we can coalesce by insulting them to their faces. Then it's unarguably their own damn fault for not signing up.
I'm curious to see how all of this plays out. As much as I don't like it, we're becoming more and more of a Twitter and Facebook world by the day — i.e., less and less demand for anything longer than 140 characters. Who, exactly, is going to be posting these "hundreds and hundreds of links" and/or commenting on them?
Mods, admins, and us. Right now their is a bottleneck in place in that everything that is submitted to get posted has to be approved by a very very small group of people. So it can take awhile for submissions to get posted. Under the new system that is supposedly going to be streamlined and the adding of many links looks to be actively encouraged.
As for who is going to comment on them I think the answer is going to be not a lot of people. It's going to take a bit of getting used to but eventually I think people will get the hang of it and they'll find out where they can hang out and get the most sense of community.
I am simply commenting on the bizarre juxtaposition of people whining about tone who then go and attack others without those people even being present, and how this seems to be ay-ok just because it occurs down in the lounge. I get that the lounge is a different part of the site and Jim is concerned with the public/googleable face of BBTF, but the behavior of many of the people complaining about the political threads really is hard to believe, and their behavior does violate the TOS without repercussion.
Thank you for all you've done for all of us over the years. You've enriched my life and the lives of many others through the connections we've made here. You have no idea how much it's meant to so many.
Kudos.
Yes again. As I posted about 1000 posts ago in this thread, nowadays there are only one or two mainland posters (who, I think, are both active in the lounge, too) that seem to go out of their way to engage in personal attacks over political disagreements. The rest is mostly interesting discussion and disagreement. Sometimes even agreement. To be sure, after 100 posts where Andy says the same thing on a particular topic and refuses to acknowledge that his statement has been addressed, I sometimes get frustrated and yell at him. But five minutes later, we're talking civilly again; it's not personal insults.
I think you're right that if you compare current political threads to ones from the Kevin/Retardo days (which you can't easily do because Kevin's posts have been scrubbed), then there's no comparison: these are genteel compared to those. And that's a good thing.
As is often my wont when confronted with repeated legalistic diversions and other rhetorical dodges and obfuscations which are routinely engaged in by the distinguished Government in Exile from New Jersey.
Robot Boy, actually. And as a whining robot, it occurs to me that you're probably Skynet. We're all doomed.
Well said.
EDIT: Technically, I don't take anything *but me* seriously. But, you know, six of one, half dozen of the other. I'll let you slide, Longthreader. This time.
So, the ones where you're intimately involved. (-:
Echoing #1221. Thanks a TON for all you've done for the "thinking fan". This is THE site on the web for baseball, baseball news, etc. There aren't even appropriate words for how awesome this place is!
Everyone else: Perhaps SOME may just be tired of THESE types of "train wreck" threads, where a lot of the better posters expose their...petty (for lack of a better term) side...seriously, the manner with which some of you have composed yourself and the manner with which you speak to each other is just awful and makes you think differently about folks you assumed were more intelligent and level-headed. If you all could see yourselves objectively, if you were on the outside looking in, you'd be ashamed you visit this site. You'd be ashamed you allowed yourself to believe this is a site for those who have matured beyond this level of inane discourse. You'd be ashamed at your 3 attempts to kill this stupid thread with peaceful jargon....we all like baseball a whole lot...some like lots of neat, kitschy pop-culture things and hip song references, Keefe, etc. Some have different tastes then others. Some are more SABER inclined....in the end...
We're all ###### human.
Not as funny as you referring to your whining as "commenting" in the post where you whine about being called a whiner.
Except Ray. Who is a robot.
It's much easier to understand if you just go to the Beta. Keep in mind the basics are present but a lot of planned additions will be added as time goes on and as I get feedback from the beta testers.
While the devil is in the details, I'm not that worried about the whole OT plan that Jim has (which is ostensibly the topic of this thread); I'm actually more concerned about the whole aggregator model. It's Jim's site, and it's been great over the past ~dozen years, but if it caters to click-throughers rather than discussers, it seems to me that the site risks losing what makes it worthwhile. I understand and appreciate Jim's desire to be able to post a bunch of Red Sox stuff without hearing complaints from the non-Boston-fan contingent, but even though I want to read a lot about the Orioles, I don't want 25 links to articles about the team each day. Who's going to have time to discuss that many? Let alone the upcoming presidential election, Clemens' trial, Jamie Moyer's chances of breaking Cy Young's record, and whether Albert Pujols is through?
Incidentally, Jim, I like the look of the Beta a lot; it's cleaner.
Well, that's why I keep the New York Times Book Review open in another tab so I can click away from here when my girlfriend walks past.
You'd lose all of your humanity.
How do you get there? I sent you a message through the site if you're still looking for more testers.
Top right hand corner. Blue box. "Beta" link. It's very complicated.
I presume what I'll be seeing after I opt in is 50 or 100 new threads a day rather than 12, and 50 or 100 new threads where people are discussing some of those new threads? It seems like what will be left is a ton of threads with a handful of comments, rather than the state now where there are only a few threads but with more comments in each thread. Threads that go a couple pages or more will be much rarer. Am I incorrect in assuming this?
"Thank you for not discussing the outside world."
FYI, for me that link shows up in here (one of the Jim's Lab Notes threads), but not from the main page.
Politics is the outside world, that's why it's OT.
We're using the Beta to talk behind your backs, that's why.
That's my assumption, too. It sounds like the model is something like the Hockey's Future boards, where each team and various categories ("The Business of Hockey," "The History of Hockey," etc.) have their own "micros" and the mods are very tough about keeping comments "on point."
What has become clearer (that's why you have discussions, folks) is that a definite prospective pecking order to be set in place has emerged. Turns out it is for the little old lady in Dubuque after all. And for Sam, of course--the combination Max Bialystock of little old ladies and toyboy Ganymede between the Hatfields and McCoys (nothing personal, personal McCoy).
It sounds nothing like that. Unlike HFBoards, this site is run by competent people who want posters to have a good time.
I had hoped to have completed an entry on the status of the beta (including known problems and planned features) but I have been occupied with family stuff since my wife returned from a visit with her son. I have plans with my wife tonight but I will try to get something finished up tomorrow.
The TOS also seem to require that you be 13 years old to use the site. I suppose it is an interpretive question whether it requires that you act like you are at least 13 years old.
We'll see. My worry is that with many more threads -- whether people opt in to all of them or just to some of them -- we will have fewer comments in each thread, and therefore fewer people discussing things in any one thread. I think it will really affect a major aspect of this site, i.e., the commenting aspect. What is nice about the site now is that hot topics will show 8 or 10 threads a day where there is lively discussion going on from a broad spectrum of baseball fans.
For example the team-specific sites now, such as Sox Therapy, seem to be dominated by a handful of Red Sox fans. Which is fine, but contributions from a wider audience are not present.
Very well put...how can anyone argue against this? This seems to make the most sense, really. That way, those involved can stay involved and those who don't want to see it, don't see it. Win/win.
Okay, but for god's sake man, DON'T TALK ABOUT US BEHIND OUR BACKS! You'll ruin your dinner.
You are implying that Jim is incompetent and wants to make things miserable for everyone here.
I implied nothing of the sort, and it's unfair of you to say that. I was commenting simply that "we'll see" how the changes turn out. And then I went on to explain my concern. Which had nothing to do with Jim being incompetent and wanting to make things miserable for people.
I said that this site is run by competent people (i.e. Jim) who want the posters here to have a good time. Your response was "we'll see."
Good, because you weren't actually addressing anything I said and were wasting my time.
The hilarious thing is that the changes Jim is making are being made to *better facilitate the Longthreaders.* In the coming world, there will never be a random Dan-Hammering of a political thread, because the front end mods Jim is making will make it okay to have those threads (if you're interested enough in potential OT threads to go in and make a simple opt-in decision.)
I don't want to speak for Jim or assume this is right, but I will.
The forums were created so that people that wanted to snark at each other or argue about politics or talk about other posters would have a place to do it where casual visitors wouldn't have to see it.
Hey, if you guys ant to act like clowns, do it in the back room. One group (now called Loungers), said "Okay, we'll go make a mess where your guests don't have to see it." So Jim lets it be a mess, as his guests don't have to see it.
The others (we'll call them Longthreaders) said "{Forget} that!. I will continue to make a mess in front of your guests. My posting is CRITICAL to the site! I will not be relegated to some backroom!" So the time has come for someone to put his foot down and that foot is Jim. So, shut it, and take a forum.
Also,I like that Ray is put out by a post from 2.25 years ago. HA!
Yes I understood that very clearly. The only thing "that" could be in response to my post was the competence of the people who run this site, since that is what I was talking about and nothing more.
We'll see?
I am just speaking for myself here:
If the changes result in a freedom to discuss, but less diversity of contribution, that would constitute an overall downgrade to me. I think the fear that there will be fewer potential voices is what is driving the slightly negative reaction. I see the POV of people who feel otherwise. I am in the wait-and-see camp.
Also, there's a lot of white space on the sides in the Beta.
I was having a discussion about the changes. My crime was to quote too much of DA's post. I was responding simply to his "It sounds nothing like that" comment.
That's the way they like it. And it's just fine.
Which would have been out of context. My "it sounds nothing like that" part had nothing to do with the micro and everything to do with slagging HFBoards management, as that place is truly a cesspool, while this place is not.
There's nothing funny about a sentence that includes Ray and the phrase "put out." Stop it.
So there's going to be an "OT: Pottery"? Where is the pottery discussion going to go?
The hilarious thing is that the changes Jim is making are being made to *better facilitate the Longthreaders.*
Right, but then every "Longthreader" came onto the site and expressed reservation and told Jim they didn't think the political threads were as nasty or contentious as they might seem -- which they aren't.
People are often resistant to change. Just because one disagrees with something doesn't mean it's not better.
Which assumes the Lounge and mainland are equally worthy of being backroomed, which is absurd on its face.
I see the same thing, though I was chalking it up to the size of my monitor. I haven't had a chance yet to look at the beta with a normal-sized screen.
You talk about the "mainland" as if it were some homogenous thing, where all threads are the same and accomplish the same thing.
No one would argue that the baseball discussions should be sent to the forums. More than a few people would argue that the off-topic discussions should be sent to the forums (since that's what they were set up for in the first place).
They could be the most civil things on the planet, following Robert's Rules of Order, and they'd still be clogging up the Hot Topics list on the main site, which detracts from the baseball related content of BASEBALLthinkfactory.org. As such, the changes would be worthwhile regardless. I think Jim's primary miscommunication in this thread was in suggesting that the "acrimonious" nature of the threads was the primary driver of the change. The point isn't necessarily to hide the nasty arguments from the public, so much as to make the front page of BASEBALLthinkfactory.org more specifically relevant to baseball, unless the user chooses otherwise.
I also think the worries about losing participants are extremely overblown. It's not like the regulars of the Longthreads aren't going to set their preferences to allow for OT posts going forward, and it's not like we see 10-20 new Longthreaders popping into the game every month either.
Also, not *every* Longthreader. Hi. My name's Sam, and I'm the white ####### buffalo.
I thought nobody really cared, and that it was Jim's decision.
The soccer and basketball and football threads, too?
The title of this post is "Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign." You'll see that in addition to "Politics" Jim includes "Off-Topics," which would suggest that the OT: NBA and OT: Soccer, etc, are going to have tags/redirects as well.
Nobody really cares about education policy either, but that doesn't stop people from arguing about it for 5000+ posts.
I've never thought of the Hot Topics line as "clogged" in six years on this site and am hard-pressed to even understand the concept. When the "Hot Topics" seem boring, or I just want a survey of baseball, I click on the Newsstand. I do the latter quite a bit. Isn't that the whole point of the Newsstand?
Let it go. You are beating a dead horse with your own head.
Some of the white space will be taken up with extra material in the sidebar. Eventually I may add additional content for people with extremely large monitors (like the one I use on a regular basic). The design is responsive (it adjusts to the size of your screeen) so it should look much better on mobiles and handhelds (although I still have some tweaking to do). Lastly, studies show that columns which are too wide are harder to read for most people. So it's a balance between using the space on different sized viewing ports and usability.
I prefer women. I have no time to waste training them up.
On the backend, channels of content will be set up: 1) baseball, 2) OT-sports, and 3) OT-other. When an item is submitted into the system, people will select one of the three channels. They will then supply a primary tag (red sox, football, politics, etc., which will control which micro has moderation responsibility) and any other appropriate secondary tags. They will also supply all the other relevant information (link, title, etc.).
One additional channel will be available to admins and the moderator of the primary micro: OT-controversial.
By default members will see baseball on the front page and in Hot Topics. Within each member's preferences, members will be able to select the content they want to show up in the sitewide Hot Topics when they visit the site:
1) baseball
2) baseball+OT-sports
3) baseball+OT-sports+OT-other
4) All (1-3 plus OT-Controversial)
Once a discussion on a baseball thread goes off-topic and gets controversial it will be changed to OT-controversial by either the responsible moderators or the admins. If, using the pottery example above, a thread grows to 500 off-topic comments in a day and keeps going, it will be moved to the OT-other channel. After being moved from the baseball channel a topic will continue to display on the appropriate micros entry list (where the display is driven by tag/micro and status) but will only display in the sitewide HT or micro HT if a member opts-in.
Any topic which you "save" will show up in your personal Hot Topics regardless.
As for the Pottery micro...if members wish to share a link or discuss a topic which is not baseball-related, they will be able to submit a link to the off-topic channel and then tag it appropriately. Again, in this case, it would be submitted to "OT-Other" and be marked as "pottery" and it will show up in the Pottery Think Factory. It will not show up on the main page at all. It will only show up in Hot Topics for people who have opted-in to follow OT-Other posts in their Hot Topics. So, all you pottery fans can discuss your pottery on the site, if you wish, without ruining the experience for everyone else.
Disclaimer: Some topics will stay off limits. There will be no Porn Think Factory, for example.
You're a prince
It's quite simple really. Hot Topics has a limited amount of space in which to feature active threads. If 3 or 4 tenths of the items are devoted to off-topic threads (many of which are quite old, populated by the same handful of posters and easily bookmarkable by its partcipants), then that's limiting the potential of baseball threads, the kind of threads Jim wants the site to be about. And while it's not difficult to retrieve (or find for the first time) other threads from the newsblog, the feeling is that some users simply navigate the site through Hot Topics. Thus, some potential links/threads have been crowded out.
However, it should be noted that this was much more of a problem before the last site tweak when Jim allowed for more threads to appear on the Hot Topics sidebar.
I'm gonna make it do what it do, baby.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main