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.