They fall off because people who comment are not interested in commenting in the dugout thread. Plain and simple. There is no value in having a small amount of links on the side of the page and setting it up so that something that hasn't been commented on for 4 or 5 hours or more gets top billing.

This. I've never understood people complaining that a topic that only 5 people have something to say about is getting bumped by an active conversation.

EDIT: For the record, right now on HT there is exactly one politics thread (the Schilling one), as far as I can tell without clicking on every thread.

Also, if manners are an issue here, maybe it would be possible to post, or let Primates know, if a huge number of people have them on ignore. I personally have no one on ignore, but if it turned out that 24 Primates have hit the mute button on me, that would indicate I need to look at my posting habits.

I have you on ignore, if it helps.

I have myself on ignore. And also Descartes.

I have myself on ignore.

That is a pretty deep statement. Sort of a nihilist-existential BBTF thing.

I have you on ignore, if it helps.

One down, 23 to go.

Last night I mistakenly scrolled over an ad on the top of the site, and it popped up and started playing music. Is this the place to register my distaste?

I would bet that not too many people utilize the ignore option and that not too many people have been ignored. It simply the nature of the beast. Most people can't stand to see what other people are saying. Especially when they don't like them. Call it the Howard Stern phenomenon if you will.

Is this the place to register my distaste?

Was it Pavement? If so then yes this is the place.

Call it the Howard Stern phenomenon if you will.

Could be. I do know that a few guys have said they have multiple posters on ignore, though.

I don't have anyone on ignore, but once in a while I'll make a drop-dead-brilliant observation like "Pete Fox was the Rusty Greer of the 1935 Tigers," or something, and it's like somebody dropped the Cone of Silence over me. These are pearls of insight, people. Ignore at your peril.

I would bet that not too many people utilize the ignore option and that not too many people have been ignored. It simply the nature of the beast. Most people can't stand to see what other people are saying. Especially when they don't like them. Call it the Howard Stern phenomenon if you will.

I use it. It eliminates the temptation to read someone's nonsense and then get pulled into a discussion that's obviously going nowhere good. This is why I like the proposed change - it's basically a big Ignore feature.

Most people can't stand to not see what other people are saying.




forgot a word.

Repoz's latest links are:

Cal Ripken's new burger venture (= possible food thread)

DBacks possibly offering Brian Banks work if the NFL doesn't work out for him (= possible crime/punishment/judicial system thread--Banks is the former HS football star just recently released from prison after being incarcerated for several years for a crime that he apparently did not commit).

I personally have no problem at all with this or with Repoz. But I think it is worth noting in the context of this discussion. YMMV.

I have exactly one person on ignore, and it has nothing at all to do with politics.

The only time I use the ignore function is when someone uses the code key and inadvertently stretches the page from here to Bucharest with a spreadsheet. When I ignore that person's comment, it restores the page to normal, but then if that person pops up on another thread without using the code, I simply stop ignoring him.

In any event, I assume the complaint is about having to log in every day &/or every damned time you call up the site. That didn't used to be the case (& it's not the case at just about every place I frequent, with a couple of very small blogs being the exceptions). It's hardly a horrible hardship, but it's irritating.

Yes, that is what that complaint was about, and it is an irritant. Sometimes I can log in once in the morning and stay logged in throughout the day and sometimes I have to log in every time I visit the site. A small annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless.

185. Harveys Wallbangers<="" a=""> Posted: May 31, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4144227)
kurt

see post 185. that is a direct, pointed comment that has the single purpose of being insulting.

Wha?

Repoz's latest links are:

Cal Ripken's new burger venture (= possible food thread)

DBacks possibly offering Brian Banks work if the NFL doesn't work out for him (= possible crime/punishment/judicial system thread--Banks is the former HS football star just recently released from prison after being incarcerated for several years for a crime that he apparently did not commit).

I personally have no problem at all with this or with Repoz. But I think it is worth noting in the context of this discussion. YMMV.

I think Repoz's sense of humor, his encyclopedic memory for obscure cultural references, and his repressed love for the Yankees make him one of the great attractions of BTF. This site wouldn't be the same without him.

But yeah, there are some days when it seems as if a third of his posts are put up there for the sole basis of attracting the sort of discussions that Jim doesn't seem to like, including the hundreds of non-political pinata posts involving the Chasses and the Lupicas that he's put up here over the years. There's a contradiction here that doesn't seem to be getting addressed.

Jim says that his goal is to encourage more conversation, not less.

I fail to see how limiting the visibility of a conversation encourages its growth.

kurt

now wait a minute

where i have called out an individual poster

name a post here. name any post by me on bbtf

i will wait patiently as you bring forward a post where i directed a personal attack at an individual poster

i know it will be a long wait because i have not nor will not

Seriously? Let's start with post 102 of this thread, in which you directed a personal attack at me:

ray

i am fully cognizant of the hazards of engaging you in any direct dialogue due to your powers of distorting and mangling any point being made not by yourself

It was particularly petty and childish -- and as bad or worse than anything in a political thread -- because you called me out by name and then refused to engage any response of mine. (Not that I responded to the personal attack, but I did respond to the points you were trying to make.)

I fail to see how limiting the visibility of a conversation encourages its growth.

Some conversations attract. Some conversations repel. Some inspire indifference. I can't speak for Jim, but I think that the nth iteration of the same old argument made by the same old people fails to encourage others to participate, and may repel them. So those arguments can continue, but in a location that people have to go by making an affirmative choice.

The arguments against this seem to be that people like these arguments, that there is a value-add to the site. Perhaps for the participants, but I don't see it.

*There's a post you made today in the Lounge, Bernal, that is literally one word ("Nevermind."), and takes up more than a quarter of the page with your avatar, your signature, and the formatting (and you didn't even quote anyone). If you look at the entire page, there are about 15 words of new content before you have to scroll, and about 20-25 if you turn off avatars and signatures. Post #53 is especially egregious: it takes up practically the whole page with avatars and signatures turned off to add literally one sentence.


For whatever it's worth, you can turn off avatars and signatures. (I know you noted that, but wanted to emphasize it for others who might be scarred off by the format)

ray

i will re-enter briefly to acknowledge that the wording was poor and I can see how that would be perceived as an 'attack' but i was attempting to frame why i would not respond because of my personal experiences with you in which excessive effort is made in stating and re-stating a point. i know that one should write so that is impossible to be misunderstood but my exchanges with you have repeatedly failed to meet that standard and i do not care to waste further energy on a what i consider a fruitless endeavor

if you are aggrieved i apologize

i will no longer respond to your posts to avoid anything similar to the future sparing both of us any chance of aggravation created my misinterpretation.

sincerely,

harvey

Could be. I do know that a few guys have said they have multiple posters on ignore, though.

I've got a whopping 2, purely to protect my blood pressure.

I've got a whopping 2,

Yourself and me, presumably.

1.

Unlike the vast majority of *us*, Jim does not limit the concept of "site users" to "people who post on a thread." Similarly, he does not judge a post/link's popularity by counting the comments it has. He actually runs stats for page views and link clicks instead, and in fact there are more unique users on some of the zero-comment links - per click thrus and such - than on the 1000+ comment threads (where people stop clicking the link about the 50th comment on page one.) So there's quite often a disconnect between what Jim's trying to do with the site as a whole, and for his *entire* user base, and what the super-regular commentating crowd of users think he ought to be doing instead.

One solution to this problem is for Jim to cater to the commentating crowd, or go through a long process of explaining why he's not in order to appease them. Another solution is for everyone to realize that Jim's the guy coding all of this #### out in the background, so maybe just shut the hell up and quit your yapping, you bunch of ingrates.

2.

I have one person on ignore - someone calling themselves "Bhaakon" or something. I don't remember why I ignored that user, but considering my long, long, long running aversion to kill-files in general, there has to be some reason for it. I do use the ignore function to kill-file people who click "code" instead of "quote" and break the page layout, until they fix it.

3.

I want a lists of people who are "uncivil" or ignored. I'm gonna kill the lot of you on rate stats!

Yourself and me, presumably.

Actually, myself twice.

so maybe just shut the hell up and quit your yapping, you bunch of ingrates.

Oh, go stab yourself in the neck.

[Jim] actually runs stats for page views and link clicks instead

Jim - if you're still following the thread - are you counting popularity by click-throughs, or by page loads? Because I usually leave very active threads open in their own tab, and refresh periodically, rather than closing down and clicking on the link itself later.

What's funny is that I don't recall having more than a couple of exchanges with Harveys, if that. And I certainly don't recall the specifics, or anything notable about them. Maybe years ago. Who knows. I guess he does.

I do recall one incident about a year ago, when he started posting several live game updates in a random thread and I got upset and snapped at him - after which I think I apologized. But that doesn't seem to fit the profile of what he was talking about above in #223. Whatever.

What he posted earlier in the thread was clearly a personal attack, though. If it wasn't almost nothing is.

Jim - if you're still following the thread - are you counting popularity by click-throughs, or by page loads? Because I usually leave very active threads open in their own tab, and refresh periodically, rather than closing down and clicking on the link itself later.

From Post #88, authored by Jim Furtado

I will say that some of you have only a small understanding of what drives traffic and pays for this site. Farrrrrrr more people come to the site to lurk and click on links than come to the site to comment. That doesn't mean that I don't value the people that comment here. I appreciate their time and participation very much. It just means I need to do my best to continue to provide the best site to better satisfy the needs of *all* the site's visitors.

What he posted earlier in the thread was clearly a personal attack, though. If it wasn't almost nothing is.

And he apologized for it, so it might be a good idea to just let it drop.

Oh, go stab yourself in the neck

And rob this little world of one of it's only sources of unmitigated hilarity? Why do you hate America, gef?

From Post #88, authored by Jim Furtado

Thanks, but that's not really what I'm looking for. I understand that page views are more important than comments. I was more asking, from a technical perspective, what constitutes a page view. Is it only the initial clicking on the link to get to a thread, or any GET request for a given page?

EDIT: Don't mean for that to come across as harsh. I'm really just more curious than anything else.

And he apologized for it, so it might be a good idea to just let it drop.

2 things.

1. Part of the apology process is letting the aggrieved have their say.

2. He didn't apologize for it or at least that is the way Ray is viewing it. HW is saying he didn't mean it as a personal attack and Ray isn't buying that line. To him it might very well be like some guy saying "no offense, but . . . " and then being offensive.

Why do you hate America, gef?

How long have you got?

1. Part of the apology process is letting the aggrieved have their say.

At gunpoint!

Will there be a way to opt out of threads involving a crusty old braggart telling tales of his legendary business acumen or how, at the ripe old age of 156, he boxed the ears of a whippersnapper who done took a salty tone with the missus? Because I've long since had an assful of those.

"And he apologized for it, so it might be a good idea to just let it drop."

It was more than just a simple misstep, though. He got on his high horse about the tone in political discussions, while insulting people at the same time, and then when his insults were pointed out to him, he challenged people to find "specific insults directed at individual posters" (as if it wasn't clear who the unnamed small group of people he directed most of his comments at were), after which it took me all of 3 seconds to find something to quote back to him, after which he was like, oh, I apologize.

People who live in glass houses - etc etc.

When this thread gets closed, that will be meta cubed!

As is usually the case in these conversations, I am 95% on Jim's side. There is clearly a lot of demand for some mechanisms to manage a particular sort of off-topic stuff. And Sam Hutcheson's post 226 is well-worth reading on this point. As much as we love ourselves, the regular posters are not the only significant users of the site. While it's true that the site would die if we all left and there were NO comments, that doesn't mean Jim has to cater to every single one of our whims.

All that said, I do think there is some reasonable concern here, in part based on a lack of clarity about what this will look like. Some of that may just be because it will take some time to see how people USE the new options. But there's also some elements that I think could be stated more clearly.

I *think* the redesign is going to work like this:
- there will be a simple feature on your profile page that allows you to see all threads marked off-topic. You have to proactively turn this on, but if you do, the site will function basically identically with how it does now.
- there will be more articles submitted in sub-areas of the site. Out of that group, approximately the same number (but potentially 'better' ones) will make it to the main Primer page. If you are like me, you won't use any of the new sub-features, but it won't matter because the experience will still be basically the same.

My only concern is that there does seem to be a little tension between the two themes here. "Your experience will be identical" does not equal "your experience will be better." And I think some people are a bit worried that the definition of 'better' is subjective. The single best thing about the site is that everyone mixes together. More focused conversation about more focused content is fundamentally uninteresting to me. If that's what the change is meant to produce, then I won't like that. But maybe I'm in the minority here and if that's the totality of the negative effect, I'm sure I'll deal with it.

One other thing: I used to absolutely love game chatters. It was, by far, my favorite part about the site back in 04/05. There is nothing more fun than talking about a baseball game as it's going on with people around the country. I really wish that could be revitalized. Maybe a single new game-chatter thread each day for that day's games? I realize that there still are game chatters, but since they are difficult to find, no one posts in them. And since no one posts in them, there's no conversation. And since there's no conversation, no one posts in them. This is, in fact, precisely the concern I have about more specific sub-sections in the whole redesign.

People who live in glass houses

Are rarely, if ever, as hot as they ought to be.

Maybe a single new game-chatter thread each day for that day's games?

Jim seemed pretty entusiastic about that idea in the shorter thread.

Determining whether someone is a hypocrite is more important than the merits of his substantive argument.

YAY for scoring points!!!!

Thanks, but that's not really what I'm looking for. I understand that page views are more important than comments. I was more asking, from a technical perspective, what constitutes a page view. Is it only the initial clicking on the link to get to a thread, or any GET request for a given page?

It's going to be page views, not link clicks. The web server serves you a page, regardless of how you get to it.

re 244

Did you just score some points?

To reiterate a point I made earlier. The problem, such as it is, with the crap posters (the Dirty Dozen maybe? Seems about the right number) and their Bottomless Pasta Argument Bowl isn't their tone, it isn't their insults, it isn't their incivility or their childishness or even necessarily their subject matter. It's that they are all boring as ####, and completely inane, and a turn-off to almost everyone who once liked this place. If these changes drive even one of you brain-shatteringly tedious leprechauns away permanently it will have been worth it. The more the merrier.

I mean, Ray, of course you don't remember talking to Harvey and of course he remembers you. I've never seen you remember what you said to anyone five minutes ago, and yet you've been interjecting in perfectly interesting and worthwhile conversations with more complaints, whines, nitpicks, cavils, and recitations of your nonsensical and purulent political creed than it would be possible for a thousand computers to count in a thousand years. Your comments infest this place like lice. Everyone who ever drops by here for even the briefest time is, at this point, almost entirely exhausted by you and your middle school debating club pals.

Anyway, carry on.

I mean, Ray, of course you don't remember talking to Harvey and of course he remembers you. I've never seen you remember what you said to anyone five minutes ago, and yet you've been interjecting in perfectly interesting and worthwhile conversations with more complaints, whines, nitpicks, cavils, and recitations of your nonsensical and purulent political creed than it would be possible for a thousand computers to count in a thousand years. Your comments infest this place like lice. Everyone who ever drops by here for even the briefest time is, at this point, almost entirely exhausted by you and your middle school debating club pals.

Yet they can't ignore him.

Ray is an updated version of Kramer, the painting.

You know if someone managed to get themselves put on "ignore" by 24 posters, they are likely the type of person who upon finding that 24 had put them on ignore, would simply log off and log back in under a new sock puppet name...

To reiterate a point I made earlier. The problem, such as it is, with the crap posters (the Dirty Dozen maybe? Seems about the right number) and their Bottomless Pasta Argument Bowl isn't their tone, it isn't their insults, it isn't their incivility or their childishness or even necessarily their subject matter. It's that they are all boring as ####, and completely inane, and a turn-off to almost everyone who once liked this place

This comment, however, is the-life-and-times-of-Hemingway fascinating, however.

You know if someone managed to get themselves put on "ignore" by 24 posters, they are likely the type of person who upon finding that 24 had put them on ignore, would simply log off and log back in under a new sock puppet name...

If a list of the most ignored posters were published, I would expect them to take it as a challenge, rather than as a rebuke, and just ramp up the same behaviors that caused people to ignore them in the first place.

To reiterate a point I made earlier. The problem, such as it is, with the crap posters (the Dirty Dozen maybe? Seems about the right number) and their Bottomless Pasta Argument Bowl isn't their tone, it isn't their insults, it isn't their incivility or their childishness or even necessarily their subject matter. It's that they are all boring as ####, and completely inane, and a turn-off to almost everyone who once liked this place. If these changes drive even one of you brain-shatteringly tedious leprechauns away permanently it will have been worth it. The more the merrier.

Well, if this is the kind of mail that Jim was getting, then I guess I don't blame him. I'd hate to put up with emails like this. I really don't understand this POV. Is it really so hard to not click on a link?


I think it's interesting/odd that Jim see's the site's purpose as an aggregator, rather than as a source of content. To me, the site has very little value as an aggregator.

I just un-ignored the only person to whom I had given that honor. It kinda felt good.

Well, if this is the kind of mail that Jim was getting, then I guess I don't blame him. I'd hate to put up with emails like this. I really don't understand this POV. Is it really so hard to not click on a link?

I think it's interesting/odd that Jim see's the site's purpose as an aggregator, rather than as a source of content. To me, the site has very little value as an aggregator.

The issue isn't how hard it is to not click on links, it's how much harder it is to find material of quality when people are intent on treating the site as their own personal pigpen.

And if the site has little value as an aggregator, it's because a bunch of people persist in pissing in the Cheerios and then have the gall to call their discharge milk.

The site has little value as an aggregator because there are a bazillion aggregator sites out there.

For the record, I don't go to the Lounge much, not because of the layout or interface, but because it's sort of like taking a tour through Williamsburg while not wearing the proper skinny jeans.

I have exactly one person on ignore, and it has nothing at all to do with politics.

Just admit the Beatles are overrated and we can all breathe easier.

Geez, it is kind of how odd how the posters that say they want a better site are the ones being mean and pointless right now.

Well, if this is the kind of mail that Jim was getting, then I guess I don't blame him. I'd hate to put up with emails like this. I really don't understand this POV. Is it really so hard to not click on a link?

Yeah, he must have been getting flooded with emails such as that. Maybe the path of least resistance for him is just to cater to the people who scream the loudest in private emails.

Sending complaint emails to Jim. Lol. I've never penned a single one.

The site has little value as an aggregator because there are a bazillion aggregator sites out there.

What BTF really needs to add in are *slide shows.*

For the record, I don't go to the Lounge much, not because of the layout or interface, but because it's sort of like taking a tour through Williamsburg while not wearing the proper skinny jeans.

Pants are optional in the Lounge.

Geez, it is kind of how odd how the posters that say they want a better site are the ones being mean and pointless right now.

MUNB

San Miguel Primavera Sound 2012 Live

Thanks, Shaker.

For the record, I don't go to the Lounge much, not because of the layout or interface, but because it's sort of like taking a tour through Williamsburg while not wearing the proper skinny jeans.

Honestly, it's a shame you don't drop into the Lounge more.

Mellon United National Bank?

The site has little value as an aggregator because there are a bazillion aggregator sites out there

Yup. Extolling BBTF as a news aggregator is kind of like recommending Lincoln Center as a nice place to sit outside and eat lunch.

OTOH, I get 99% of my baseball news here. Come for the HOF discussions, get fascinated by whether you should recline an airplane seat, and stay to learn who's hit the waiver wire …

If I hadn't gone by BDC so long, I would totally change my handle to "Brain-Shatteringly Tedious Leprechaun" right now.

RJ, Sam knows he is one of us but can't admit to himself the terrifying truth. Those skinny jeans are sitting in his closet, though, and he sometimes puts them on and stands in front of the mirror, looking over his shoulder at how cute his buns look in them.

OTOH, I get 99% of my baseball news here.

If it doesn't get posted here, I just assume it didn't happen.

Wilco live through the link above.

Those skinny jeans are three years out of fashion and they don't fit my fat ass any more. Probably due to all the roids I've been eating.

RJ, Sam knows he is one of us but can't admit to himself the terrifying truth.

Also, there's that guy over there who wants to kill me.

Also, there's that guy over there who wants to kill me.

Just stay in a different ZIP code and you'll be fine.

Also, there's that guy over there who wants to kill me.

Well, Sam, let's not kid ourselves - that hardly makes the lounge a unique place.

- At the same time the people who don't give a rats ass about these types of discussions and want to avoid them will be able to easily do it.

People already can easily do it.

And do do it.

You know how I do it? By barely participating in The Mainland. It's long past the point where I can assume, with almost 100% accuracy, that any thread in the hundreds of posts has nothing to do with baseball. I would also guess that the plurality of off-topic threads are dreary political bloviation festivals.

The Jim apparently doesn't want that, he wants people to be able to find relevant baseball discussion. It is his site and his prerogative, and I wish him well, particularly as his goals as site proprietor in this respect correspond to my goals as site jackal. As it is, I find more substantive discussion of baseball in one day of The Lounge than I find in five months on The Mainland.

And note the precision of my verbs -- "I find" is not the same as "There is". I'm willing to believe there's tons of great baseball discussion over here, it can just be cumbersome to navigate to it. Now, I understand how some may say the same of The Lounge -- but, of course, The Lounge is designed for off-topic, not for the baseball discussion. The fact that baseball discussion is frequent and meaningful is a nice bonus, but it is not by design.

Well, Sam, let's not kid ourselves - that hardly makes the lounge a unique place.

Acknowledged and stipulated.

Just stay in a different ZIP code and you'll be fine.

I honestly don't know where he lives, but if I ever travel there for work, I'm totally asking him out for a beer.

Also, there's that guy over there who wants to kill me.

He also wants to kill people who make ranch dressing. You can't take his kill-lists seriously.

It's going to be page views, not link clicks. The web server serves you a page, regardless of how you get to it.

Believe me, I know that!

I guess I'm still not being clear enough. My question is, which more important to Jim: the number of times a page is served or the number of times someone clicks on a link to get there?

He also wants to kill people who make ranch dressing. You can't take his kill-lists seriously.

You say that now. But when the police discover the bodies of waiters who have wronged him lying all over his crawlspace, boy oh boy won't you feel silly.

As others have pointed out, those of us that spend time commenting are not the only users, nor are we even the majority. It just seems like that because we keep seeing each other in the threads.

I could see an intelligent baseball fan absolutely using BBTF as an aggregator, even though I do not.

I could also see lurkers (or even posters) who don't like the off-topic threads when they devolve into the "usual suspects" doing their thing again. I get that some of those usual suspects do not see how this would be a problem, but that's part of the problem, wouldn't you say?

I had one guy on ignore for a while because he came across as a complete and total jerk with nothing worthwhile to say, but after a while I took him back off and, sure enough, I realized that he also posts some great stuff. On the big political threads, I mostly just bail when they get out of hand.

These improvements sound like improvements. I like all the opt-in / opt-out features.

I seem to be ignoring 5 people but they are all people who rarely post and are basically subliterate bozos who mistakenly wandered in from their local TV station's comments section. Some frequent posters annoy me a lot but I never thought to ignore them because they are not totally valueless.

Al I half this to say about the new Primer. It is O.K. as long as there is a Keefes Corner where people can read the latest on Keefe. This is all most people want to know any way. Start with the facts, I am Pitcher Jack Keefe of the Mia. Marlins and I am 29 3/4 years old and my pitcher OOPS+ is 123 and my manager is Ozzie Guillen. Also I am develping a delicious snack called the Keefe Tofu Knish but do not tell any 1 they are all up set about Cal Ripkin Burghers. Where was I. Oh yes there will be Mini Primers now. We need 31 of them 1 for each Major League Club and 1 for Keefe. That is all I will poast more when I think of it.

You know how I do it? By barely participating in The Mainland. It's long past the point where I can assume, with almost 100% accuracy, that any thread in the hundreds of posts has nothing to do with baseball. I would also guess that the plurality of off-topic threads are dreary political bloviation festivals.

Currently the threads on the Hot Topics board are discussing:
- student loans
- um, this thread
- how the Texas Rangers compare to historically great teams
- soccer
- the Rays and how they sometimes do things that go against their positive image
- basketball
- the Braves shortstop position
- QWERTY keyboards
- hipsters
- ground beef
- Eric Davis
- Sam Hutcheson
- the White Sox's problems
- J.R. Richard

This is not great for a baseball site, but only one of them is about politics so you're off by that metric.

I find the links posted with the clear intention of starting off-topic threads to be fascinating. It's clear that to be a community we have to talk about things other than baseball from time to time. We can't have the same discussion over and over and over.

And somebody is intentionally forcing us to have non-baseball discussions. It's working all too well, though not as well as you describe. If we could hide the ones we aren't interested in (QWERTY keyboards, Sam Hutcheson, basketball, hipsters, and student loans, for me), the site would be perfect.

It is O.K. as long as there is a Keefes Corner where people can read the latest on Keefe. This is all most people want to know any way.

truth.

We can't have the same discussion over and over and over

BUT ICHIRO SO DOES BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME

It is O.K. as long as there is a Keefes Corner where people can read the latest on Keefe. This is all most people want to know any way.

truth.

And he'd be a first ballot BTF Hall of Famer if he hadn't pizzened poor Clarine Seymour with all that bootleg hooch.

I would also guess that the plurality of off-topic threads are dreary political bloviation festivals.

As Srul said earlier, they usually revolve around other stuff--music, movies, sci-fantasy books, GoT, food, drink, video games, history.

As to the people hungry for "great baseball discussions" who seem to think Ray and Andy and the 15 other guys who like to talk politics are preventing these from emerging, I would suggest that they do what I did when I wanted to talk about the NBA Playoffs and not hijack baseball threads in so doing: Find a sabermetric or other worthwhile article and link it, or, as I did and as was then done with soccer, College football, the NHL, and the NFL, post a thread with a suggested topic of discussion; like say recent studies on catchers' ability to frame pitches. If the discussion doesn't take off, bump it once or twice with a civil, insightful comment. That would take maybe 5-10 minutes--less time than it takes to

a) Complain about DiPerna and Andy multiple times in this thread
or
b) Fire off an angry email to Furtado, who is a very busy man

And would be a useful thing to do both now and after the site is re-organized.

Wait, there's a hipster thread? All right, I'm throwing in with Harv now - kill 'em all.

a) Tell Repoz and others to stop posting links like "Obama wears White Sox cap while hanging out with Wife and Kids" and start linking to more sabermetrically-inclined articles

Do you really think that if Repoz didn't post these things, people would stop talking politics? Hijackers hijack. Like scorpions, it is their nature. In the same way that some threads turn into movie discussions and music discussions, others will turn into political discussions, particularly with the very political animals who prowl this savannah.

I have 22 people on my ignore feature, with Joey at the "top" of the list.

I have removed some people from the list over time, but all in all, it works well for me.

I think it's interesting/odd that Jim see's the site's purpose as an aggregator, rather than as a source of content. To me, the site has very little value as an aggregator.

This. I thought it was very strange when Sam posted in 226 about the zero-comment threads as though they were a good thing. I don't go to BBTF to find out about baseball news; I go to BBTF to talk about baseball news. (And, yes, other stuff.) If I just wanted a lot of baseball news links, I'd go to Google News or ESPN.com or MLB.com.

Currently the threads on the Hot Topics board are discussing:
- student loans
- um, this thread
- how the Texas Rangers compare to historically great teams
- soccer
- the Rays and how they sometimes do things that go against their positive image
- basketball
- the Braves shortstop position
- QWERTY keyboards
- hipsters
- ground beef
- Eric Davis
- Sam Hutcheson
- the White Sox's problems
- J.R. Richard

Links added today:
Trout
Diaz vs Umpire
Dugout
Matt Kemp's hamstring
BJ steal signs
SS change for Braves
Ripken makes burgers
Maddon joins the crowd
McCourt investigated
D-Backs gladly welcome un-convicted rapist
Cubs will trade everybody
Rangers Great

It has been 16 hours since the first thread went up today and no thread beyond the hotdog thread has more than 40 posts and most have half that or less. If people want to comment on baseball it is there. It has always been there but surprise people are not.

I'll say it again, I don't know why people cannot use the newsstand and why the "hot topic" section is such an important thing that it needs to be drastically altered. Do people need to be fooled into thinking something is a "hot topic" in order for them to check it out or post in it? We'll get more baseball talk if the 15th thread in hot topic is from yesterday instead of three hours ago?

Currently the threads on the Hot Topics board are discussing:
- student loans
- um, this thread
- how the Texas Rangers compare to historically great teams
- soccer
- the Rays and how they sometimes do things that go against their positive image
- basketball
- the Braves shortstop position
- QWERTY keyboards
- hipsters
- ground beef
- Eric Davis
- Sam Hutcheson
- the White Sox's problems
- J.R. Richard

WINNING!

<throws down microphone; prances off of stage>

Pants are optional in the Lounge.

So that's where Smitty went to.

Just stay in a different ZIP code and you'll be fine.

ZIP codes don't work that way.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the majority of off-topic threads aren't about politics. I think the fact that I don't know, because I've given up caring a lot of the time and don't even look to see anymore, is the sort of problem The Jim is trying to address here.

Jim, couldn't you just store opt-outs in memory (backing up to a database, of course, but reading primarily from memory)? This is C#, but you get the idea:

Make a Dictionary with user IDs as keys and a List of blocked link IDs as values:

if (dict.ContainsKey(userID) && dict[userID].Contains(linkID)) continue;

You have ~25000 members, it seems. A small minority are logged in at any one time, and that's pretty small data you'd storing. Obviously I have no idea how much memory your server has or how much of it regular site operations consume but that doesn't seem like an order of magnitude above doable or anything like that.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the majority of off-topic threads aren't about politics. I think the fact that I don't know, because I've given up caring a lot of the time and don't even look to see anymore, is the sort of problem The Jim is trying to address here.

For the record, I rarely if ever jump into an "long thread" until its lingered in Hot Topics for a few days to a week, has 300+ posts or so, and is clearly going on far beyond the life cycle of your standard "on topic" discussion. At that point, it's like Mayor Gordon has lit up the Rickey-signal.

because I've given up caring a lot of the time and don't even look to see anymore, is the sort of problem The Jim is trying to address her

He wants you back on the main site?

Do you really think that if Repoz didn't post these things, people would stop talking politics? Hijackers hijack. Like scorpions, it is their nature. In the same way that some threads turn into movie discussions and music discussions, others will turn into political discussions, particularly with the very political animals who prowl this savannah.

But one of the points I've been making is that very few of the politics threads are "hijacks." They evolve into politics threads. There's a difference. (That difference, in case it's not clear, is that a hijack is a conscious effort to change the subject. Often, it will be someone deciding that a particular topic isn't interesting and then just randomly talking about their favorite cheese or movies that nobody cares about or whatever.) In fact, most political threads are obvious from the moment the article is posted.

EDIT: It should also be noted that these threads generally evolve once nobody else has anything to say about the topic of the article. For instance, the "student loan" thread -- i.e., the Curt Schilling thread -- is something like the fourth story in a week on Schilling's company's problems. There's not much to say about that topic anymore.