| Football - Select Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: Select Forum - the Sequel Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sat, Sep 09, 13:29 Now that I have the new server up and running, it's time to rethink the Select forum framework. As I often say, you can never really learn how to do something right until you've screwed it up a few times, and I think the first month of this forum has provided good value. There have certainly been some positive results. And it has certainly gotten everyone's attention! But there are a few aspects that lead me to realize that this isn't the "final answer." First, I'm leaning toward eliminating the restrictions on who can start a thread. I commend those who have stepped up and tried to make this concept work. But I think that some of the most "elite" forum contributors are more comfortable responding, rather than initiating. And some of the best threads start out with a question, rather than an answer. Clearly, there have been some "select" threads started in the Open Forum during the last month, and it's a shame that some of them may have been missed by those who don't have the patience to wade through the volume. Second, I think it is worth trying to find a way to unify the football threads into one single listing. It is nice to have the Select threads collected in one place. But with some programming, this could be done via a filtering mechanism. "Experience teaches us to recognize our mistakes each time we repeat them." I've tried to subdivide topic areas before, and with the exception of the Standings Forums, it has never worked satisfactorily. It's time to roll up my programming sleeves and see what alternatives make sense. So, here is what I'm now considering as a general framework:
The trick is in the thread categorization process. I'm having a difficult time envisioning an effective definitional distinction. "Select" threads (for lack of a better term) would be those that would be of interest to users who want a forum focused on items that will help them manage their fantasy teams. "Other" threads would include those that are more community-oriented, or restricted to narrow interests, or of limited lasting value (e.g., today's game updates). Scan down the list of threads here and at the open forum, and try to figure out what you would want to see if your patience was limited. Another concern is the mechanism for tagging threads? Should the initiator indicate the category when the thread is started? Or should other users somehow vote on the correct category? (In either case, I'm assuming that moderators would have the ability to override an inappropriate categorization.) These are some of the dilemmas that led me to the simple "select-open" distinction. And I still haven't seen a categorization solution that I feel confident will work effectively. One alternative idea that I'm considering is to develop a numerical indicator which shows how valuable everyone thinks a thread is. For example, every time you read a thread, you have the ability to assign a rating from 0 (waste of time) to 5 (must read). Thread rankings would represent an average of the votes cast - and your vote could change as the thread evolves.. Then, a filtering mechanism would allow you to screen out all threads rated below a specified level. I really like this concept, although the rating algorithm would be tricky to develop. But with the resource capacity of the new server, it may be the appropriate time to tackle this idea. One big advantage of this approach is that it avoids the need to define categories altogether. OK, enough from me. Let me hear your reactions and ideas. | ||||||
| 1 | biliruben ID: 4487821 Sat, Sep 09, 13:56 |
Guru - I am very glad you are opening thread initiation back to the masses. I was very worried about the recent drop-off in participation, and I think that might have been part of the cause. I think that some sort of community voting would be both appropriate and motivating. If you have a chance to be rewarded through direct recognition, it will serve to motivate you to work on threads whose utility will be embraced by all. Thanks again for giving such time and attention to our feedback, and coming to what I consider a potentially more viable and lasting solution. I think you will see participation and content improve if you can figure a way to program such a solution. Good luck and thanks again. biliruben | |||||
| 2 | Sludge ID: 20421222 Sat, Sep 09, 14:31 |
biliruben - I think that the dropoff may have more to do with the transition between baseball and football seasons and with the start of the new semester than with the creation of the select forum. Guru - Glad you have come around to my way of thinking. :) I feel that the classification scheme should be kept pretty coarse. Perhaps the usual: Strategy, Today's action/Results, Who are you starting/who should I start?, Flame, Off topic, and Miscellaneous. (Obviously, there are more that are out there... just throwing out what comes to mind. | |||||
| 3 | Madman ID: 44633210 Sat, Sep 09, 15:06 |
Another set of categorizations would be those based on game-type. Although the boards are heavily weighted toward Smellworld, this would be a good chance to help liven up the other games, perhaps. Regarding the voting model, it's really hard to say how effective it would be. I don't like the total point idea (ceteris paribus) because it would tend to favor some of the threads that get out of hand with flaming (a flame thread in which 100 people give a rating of "1" shouldn't be rated even close to the same as a strategy thread that 20 people rate a "5"). I would advocate an average approach, conditional upon the number of replies or votes being at least x. I think the more formulaic you get, and the less pressure on the moderators, the better. Right now, the moderators are largely invisible, and that's a good thing. We don't want anyone accusing an active moderator of elitism, for example, if they have to continually over-ride these pseudo-democratic votes. ;-) I also would second Sludge's suggestion that the traffic volume decrease has been largely due to other factors. In addition to what he mentioned, the baseball and football games seem to be largely devoid of significant strategy conundrums; the absence of such further obviates the usefulness of these boards. | |||||
| 4 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 4286723 Sat, Sep 09, 16:37 |
Guru, One way to seperate the "Select" threads from the "Who do I start this weekend?" threads in a single forum would be to have an icon that you can put next to the threads you deem are "Select". This may require a bit more moderation than you wish to involve yourself in, so maybe you could pass the duties around to some others also. Basically, it would work like an E-bay type thing. If you go to E-bay and you see a little camera next to a listing, you know it has a picture. This way, if you see a little icon next to a thread, you know it's considered "Select" and can provide some valueable insight. | |||||
| 5 | mad scientist ID: 31831916 Sat, Sep 09, 17:30 |
What about having the select threads simply not drop off the bottom of the board as new regular threads are added. Call it select thread anti-gravity. Maybe the 10-20 most recent select threads could have their own special pool at the bottom of page 1. Also, the single biggest think that wastes time is misleading/misunderstood subject lines, which cannot always be avoided due to the fact that threads change direction and mature (or degenerate). Perhaps moderators could simply more aggressively edit subject lines? | |||||
| 6 | man ID: 55833917 Sat, Sep 09, 17:34 |
Guru, congratulations on finshing the server transfer -- and thanks again for taking this issue seriously. Your attention to your users is a feat in customer service! I like the idea of a rating system, although I generally don't do the rating on sites where it's offered, in the interests of time. Perhaps a number of frequent users could make a commitment to be especially conscientious about rating, so that a minimum threshhold of input is met. In addition to the rating system, a filter system could allow users to customize their own experience further . . . such as: Show [ONLY or FIRST] threads [STARTED BY or CONTRIBUTED TO BY] person x. Sort next by [DATE or RATING]. "Person x" could be identified by clicking on handles in existing threads and/or by typing or choosing from a pulldown menu. Thanks again, Guru. | |||||
| 7 | man ID: 55833917 Sat, Sep 09, 17:40 | . . . and if it wasn't clear, "person x" would be a list. | |||||
| 8 | Lutefisker ID: 377403118 Sat, Sep 09, 18:46 |
Guru... Thank you for continuing to listen and consider the opinions of those who care deeply enough about your site to post to you, even when the postings that they give may go against what you have deemed appropriate to begin with. It is out of true concern and care for this site that I have continued to post my opinions, even against the majority of those who posted on this matter. It is your listening to such opinions that truly allows this whole site to be select and not any one thread or set of threads. May I suggest that what you do is firstly throw out the names "select", "elite", etc. from consideration as to the names of the catagories that a post might fit into. Instead, why not have catagories based on areas of intrest. I am not a computer guru but I am pretty confident that you could have a listing of all of the threads on a general screen and than "buttons" that one could push that would bring people to subcatagories of that general screen. Thus on the main screen one would have all of the posts, but at the top of the main screen one could push a button which allows catagorized threads to pop up. One could therefore look over all of the threads on the main screen but could also push, as an example , a button on the top of the screen that says "strategies" or another that says "weekly tactics", or perhaps one that says "community" and than only have those subcatagories of the main catagory pop up. The posts would first be put into the catagories by the originator of the post but could be changed by a limited amount of designated and preferably anonomous moderaters. This provides the distinctions that you state that you are interested in, does not classify one group of people or even catagories as better than others, and does not specifically say who is the elite who can override the system. You, of course, would have final say in any matter that is particularly contested. If you wished to go further, you could have a box where the originator can complain if the thread is changed to a new location or a voting process that overrides either the moderators or the originators. In my opinion, however, neither of the ideas in this last paragraph are really necessary and would seem to only further complicate the system. Guru... In all sincerity. Thank you for listening. :) Lutefisker, the again content gurupie | |||||
| 9 | Harkonnon ID: 4453220 Sat, Sep 09, 21:18 |
Guru That's a good decison ! I never likened the terms "select" and "restriction". On your evaluation process for special threads. Use the attribute in which these boards excels the most. COMMON SENSE ! I don't think there are a lot of forums in the internet, that are equal to these in Common Sense ! On your fear of stupid postings or flames or whatever. The recent Big G. thread is the perfect example, how self cleaning these boards are. Humour and smarts are the best weapons against Idiots that will come over from time to time. But preventing them to post may rob us all of real good laugh ! So much well done Guru and thanks Hark "a former selected" and now "a relieved un-selected" | |||||
| 10 | Matt S ID: 57543213 Sat, Sep 09, 21:49 |
Some good comments from all so far. Here's my thoughts: I like the idea of a "ratings" or "categorization" of threads. We certainly don't want to completely throw out the idea of exposing the more strategic threads, as that would be a waste. Rather, we should build on it. I don't really like the idea of 2 or more "separate" forums, as switching back and foruth can be annoying and confusing (if you are fairly new to the community) I'm thinking you can have one forum, and add another column on the main page along with "subject", "Replies", "Submitted By", and "Last Post." You could call it "Category" or whatever. That's not what's important. When submitting a thread, you could have the writer click a button to choose what category the thread falls under. You could even colour code them: Smallworld Strategy Questions (injuries/need advice) Division Chatter Sports Talk (trades, trash talk, signings, general news) Today's Action Other Strategy (Echelon, Sandbox, Pickoff) The moderators (we might need a couple more than the current crew) would be there to overule a poor categorization, or to change the categorization if the thread begins to "stray". Additionaly, I like the idea to keep some of the more popular threads around a bit longer at the bottom of the first page, instead of discarding them like some of the "duds". Just my idea. Matt S | |||||
| 11 | Josie ID: 4441223 Sat, Sep 09, 22:02 | I started out as someone who hated the select forum idea and now I like it alot. I hope you keep it. I think it is good for the football forum as a whole. | |||||
| 12 | TBRaiders ID: 26738619 Sat, Sep 09, 22:34 |
I wasn't thrilled with it at first but that was because like many others, I felt excluded. Then, out of curiosity, I went and did some thread searches to see how many I started and got a good chuckle. Nothing had changed in how I could use the board. I don't need the ability to start threads, it's just nice knowing you can if you want to. I feel more than free to reply to whatever ones I want to. I think there can be a better way to allow people to post or be "added" to the select list if you wanted to maintain two forums. They can register in the Forum Registry and email you for access. That would prevent most "g" award candidates from posting trash. Do we need two football forums? Probably not. Do I like the quality of threads in the Select forum? Sure do. If you set up a rating scheme then there needs to be a way for each user ID to only rate a thread once. What's to stop me from posting a garbage thread then BUTTing it up 20 times with 5 star ratings? BTW, I doubt I ever rate a thread. I read them and reply if I can add insight or humor and move on to the next one. Baseball definitely needs a fix before next season, but it is easily the most used forum during it's season. If we can get through the first two months of baseball threads we can get through any other sport. I must like reading what I write because all I am really saying is it doesn't matter to me. I can and will adapt to any changes the best site on the net makes. | |||||
| 13 | Ender ID: 58853822 Sat, Sep 09, 22:48 |
This is what I truly love about these boards. Great minds putting great ideas together. I am happy to see this idea evolving. One caveat on the categories proposed above: It only takes one trip to the SW boards to see that some people will post the exact same thing in every category in hopes that SOMEONE will bite and spoon feed them info. I am a little wary of posters simply tagging there new thread for every category. I like the rating/vote idea much better. The EBay analogy works well. When a thread gets enough votes or rates at an average of >4.5 (or 4?, based on the average of a minimum number of followups) on a 5 point scale (or some similar criteria), tag it with a star or someother small icon. If the icon idea is too problematic then bump it to a "select" forum or whatever status you choose to bestow. | |||||
| 14 | allhair allstars ID: 34836720 Sun, Sep 10, 00:28 |
Guess I'll jump in on this one. If categorization is the way to go, why limit an entire thread with one label? Many threads may begin in one vein and mutate into another "type" of thread. After actual categories are determined, how about setting up an extra column (to the left of the Subject cell) that would have some identifier (say the first letter of each category) listed within it's cell. Let's assume we're using a general version of Matt S' categories (in post #10 above). Each category would appear like so in the column... SQDNTO You could make the letters smaller if that would work better and there would also need to be a key to the letters. Anyway, perhaps each letter begins as gray, and if a thread deals with Today's Action but also happens to contain some excellent strategic advice, both the T and the S would be highlighted somehow (in black, blue, bold, whatever). The viewer can scan this column to see which threads may best apply to their area of interest and these labels could easily be integrated into the filter. As/If the thread grows to contain injury information or a discussion about trade conservation, so be it. The thread originator provides the initial designation, and after a set number of replies (say 10), anyone that reads the thread could input which categories apply to the thread. Maybe as readers choose to categorize the thread they are reading, the reader desigations are recorded and after three readers have actually designated it into a category (not initially selected), that new designation becomes reflected in the main thread listing page. Just an idea. Perhaps I'm missing something here. If the idea is to create threads that deal only with a specific content area, then establishing this add-on category labels may not be necessary, but I think that this system may better represent the ebb and flow of some threads. | |||||
| 15 | CanEHdian Pride ID: 426351415 Sun, Sep 10, 01:40 |
I like the idea of having 2 forums. One for idle chit chat and daily happenings (price changes, today's action) and one for good hard analysis. The best way to tackle the problem IMO is to have all threads started in the Open Forum and maybe there should only be a link to the Select Forum once you've entered the Open Forum. Thus no threads can initiate in the Select Forum. They can only be initiated to the Select Forum once they have been deemed Select through a voting system at the top of each thread. Simply have a button that says Select this thread or something to that affect. Once a thread has obtained a certain amount of votes it will be moved to the Select Forum. This will: a) prevent any elitism because everyone has the potential of being selected and no one person has a say in who is selected b) reward insightful thread starters as well as posters because a thread that may not be deemed fit for the Select Forum may mature into a valuable thread that belongs with other Selected threads c) delegate one forum for all post that will help in game play for those who are in need of quick advice that don't want to wade through other threads which will not help solve there problems. d) should be pretty easy for Guru to do (I think...than again I think he can do anything.) I think that the Select Forum is having less of an affect during the Football season because since action only takes place once a week the posting isn't as heavy as the other sports but during the hoops and baseball season, having an area to find all of the important statisical and strategical threads will be of great benefit to all of us. Good Luck tomorrow everyone and enjoy a great afternoon of football. | |||||
| 16 | Lutefisker ID: 377403118 Sun, Sep 10, 08:02 |
I have to admit that while the term "select" presently has a bad taste in my mouth, the term if applied to the thread as opposed to the person and the means of determination being one that I consider to be of reasonable methods (such as one that at least has some opportunity for everyone to have an amount of imput)that the term "select", while still not my favorite word, does not have the same negative word value as it does when it is applied as present to the person and not to the thread or idea. Hmm.... I think now I will take the time to consider whether my former college communications prof had a point about my "run-on" sentences. :) | |||||
| 17 | Mike D ID: 43819522 Mon, Sep 11, 10:16 |
I prefer an non-categorized, simplistic approach to the Boards. I have only been to the SW boards 1 or 2 times, and I absolutely hated the time it took to locate threads. This was not due to "wading through" poor threads; rather, it was due to so many levels of categories. What a waste of time. I'm still of the opinion that major changes do not need to be made. I like the original Board attributes. Seperating the Standings threads was masterful. Seperating the items listed under "Other Pages" was helpful as well. What else really needs to be seperated? I do like Madman's idea of creating different areas for game types. This was done with "Grand Slam" baseball, and I prefer it. Adding Swirve and Sandbox areas would be of great assistance, IMHO. CanEHdian Pride has an interesting idea about retaining the Select concept (with a different name) but only allowing threads to be archived there. This could alleviate pressures of threads falling to the second page. Keeping it very simple, Gurupies would simply need to recommend/nominate a thread for the Archived Forum, and it could be moved there. Guru and Moderators could probably cover this movement, but everyone would have the ability to make the suggestion to move, since everyone has different preferences. The Pedro and Unit into the Future thread in Baseball is one that could have been moved and archived. I agree with Guru that hopping between 2 boards (Select and Open) is somewhat of a pain currently. However, if current info was on the Open Forum, and archived info on the Archived (Select) Forum, I could dig that. BTW, I don't think rating threads is needed. Seems like overkill. It also contradicts the fact that a thread can be meaningless to 99% of the readers, but TOTALLY helpful to the poster who just had his question answered. Witness this thread that would have been "rated low" I'm sure, but was a winner to Wazaaap Guy. | |||||
| 18 | Guru ID: 330592710 Mon, Sep 11, 11:38 |
Mike D - doesn't your last example suggest why a rating scheme might be helpful? People asking specific questions could get answers, but wouldn't clutter up the forum for others. For example, suppose that thread was rated 1 (low). The best threads are rated 5, and there is a continuum in between. If you set your listing to exclude all threads rated 1, then you'd just see those rated 2-5. Even more importantly, when we get some of those annoying "troll" threads that keep popping to the top, the rating system could presumably keep them out of view. When a new thread is started, it would need to have a default rating assigned - or perhaps it would just be non-rated until at least a minimum number of people (5 or so?) had rated it. Until then, new threads would appear regardless of the filter threshold. BTW, ratings would definitely be based on an average, not a total. The thing I like most about a ratings scheme is that it avoids the need to categorize, it is self-generating, and it is conceptually simple. Some of the categorization schemes suggested above seem way too complicated. You shouldn't have to study a classification system to be able to effectively use the forum. | |||||
| 19 | JeffG ID: 25414311 Mon, Sep 11, 12:08 |
I had not read through all the responses above, but noticed Matt's category suggestions. That is similar to what I was thinking after reading today's daily blurb. My first thought on the 1-5 rating does not seem to appeal to me because the purpose with the select forum initial approach was to segregate one type of thread from the others, the type of discussion plays more into the initial approach. The numbers would need to be less subjective and more quantitative. If I say something that is repeated above, forgive me but I do not have much time this afternoon. Perhaps when the thread poster initiates a thread, they get a drop down menu with a choice of topic type. Give them a first shot at categorizing the thread. Certainly a few may be mis-categorized but just let them be for now. I am not a supporter of heavy moderation but if there seems to be a rash of mis-categorizations or there are some people doing it on purpose, some can be deputized to re-categorize later on. But most forum participants are pretty reliable and have very good judgment. A self-edit function may even be allowed for the initial poster to correct ones if they feel it was mis labeled. The thread list would need this indicator and a filter of checkboxes (not radio buttons so several can be selected) for which categories the user wants to see. If you go to this approach, it may be a bit more of programming but, I also think that each forum's front page would benefit by a process where the strategy discussions can stay on page 1 longer than other 'less vital' threads. Maybe the bottom 10 threads on the page 1 directory would be (if they could be) reserved for strategy discussions where others would fall right to page 2 when so aged. This I think would accomplish the one goal that was initially identified as the reason the select approach was taken. Although not much of a football participant, I like the way the open forum has evolved so far, especially after it's opening bell reception and negativity that some gave it before they let it play out. I think that the sub categorization system and a single forum (including a re-merging of the standings as a separate category within the forum) is a great stride in the direction of the desired environment you are trying to create. | |||||
| 20 | Mike D ID: 43819522 Mon, Sep 11, 12:18 |
Guru, excellent points. I guess my concern in "filtering out" low rated threads would be that I might miss a beneficial/non-troll thread. A thread where I was one of the 1% who would have benefitted. If the rating scale were done consistently, it might add value. I'd be concerned about wazaaap guy's thread getting a 1, while a thread like "when does RJ pitch next" gets a 3. Wouldn't it be tough to quantify? The scale itself may be tough to adhere to as well. Not a big deal though, IMHO. An optional filter based on ratings could still not be employed by the reader. I'd probably do that a lot, at least at first, while also filtering and seeing how the "scale" was working. | |||||
| 21 | VIDevilRays ID: 498488 Mon, Sep 11, 14:58 |
Thank you, Guru, for allowing us to provide input. First, my belief is that select threads are few and far between. If that's the case why not have the moderators, if willing, with or without your advice and consent, decide what gets moved to the other forum? I have the utmost respect and regard for the moderators I am aware of, and their exercise of judgment and discretion. My only concern with voting is that it gives whomever is in cyberspace the opportunity to influence what is placed in the other forum, on your website. Maybe its just my internet paranoia but I am not sure you or your customers would want that. Just my two cents. | |||||
| 22 | blue hen ID: 534402321 Sun, Sep 17, 20:20 |
Guru, First of all, someone should edit these long answers. All have good (great!) points, but it was quite tedious to read through everything. Which, as we've established, is not the preferred way to obtain information. Second, I think that you have answered the concerns of the Select Forum Matter in absolutely the best way possible. You analyzed the situation thoroughly, then began to implement a well-thought-out plan. Excellent job. However, I will put it on record that I would not expect anything less, based on your track record. blue hen | |||||
| 23 | YankeesRule ID: 527103117 Thu, Oct 05, 18:28 |
Thnx for the insight. I too feel that the original select system was flawed and you have undoubtably made strides to overcome that.All Hail The Guru! | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 0-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||