November 05, 2007

I've noticed some vague annoyances over the past few months, but part of me thinks it's just that I am still pissed off that Crafty left. I really miss his baseball insight.

posted by hawkguy at 12:24 PM on November 05, 2007

Yeah, well, if you're disgusted enough to quit a place you've put a lot of time and effort into and you leave without saying anything, then there's 0% chance that it will ever change. Better you say something than you say nothing. That's what blogs, whether personal or community ones, are all about. A public resignation is not automatically the flourish of a petulant drama queen, and to lump all of them together in that boat is a bit disingenuous. Now that said, he's right. This has become a lint trap for glaring-blaring headliney bullshit. I stopped posting links to the front page myself, because people only seemed interested in the back-page-of-the-paper things. (No one noticed, did they. But hey, at least I wasn't a drama queen!) That's natural. It's sports, it's supposed to be a diversion. The people who get all academic about it will always be outnumbered by the where-did-my-team's-running-back-get-arrested bunch. It's only natural. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying we shouldn't keep trying to swim upstream on that stuff (and I sense that by the Star Chamber, he means anyone who'll read this thread seriously or especially post in it), but -- the idiocy can get you down. (Can I get a hell yeah up in this bitch, or whut!)

posted by chicobangs at 03:20 PM on November 05, 2007

When a website gains the power to hurt your feelings this profoundly, your problems neither began, nor ended, here. When someone decided that a site that they once enjoyed has now become more hassle and not worth the effort, how does that indicate that their feelings were hurt? Why does every criticism of SpoFi turn into an immediate indictment that the person is too sensitive? It's bullshit. The complete lack of camraderie that people feel for each other is frustrating to me. TCS complains about an FPP, and decided to not post here anymore. Good thing because if he hadn't the asshole comments that occurred in that thread would surely have spurred him in that direction anyway. This seems like an exact retread, but this time let's do the same thing to SE. What a great idea!

posted by bperk at 03:39 PM on November 05, 2007

Scrolling through the current front page, I don't see SportsFilter becoming the Entertainment Tonight of sports sites. Yes, the Bonds, A-Rod, Terrell Owens, Andy Reid, etc. threads tend to get the most comments, but the current front page also has on it posts about a charity football match in LA, an individual chronicling the lowest reaches of football in England, how the Colts defense was built, marathoning through pregnancy, etc. The signal to noise ratio may not be optimal, but it's a lot better than on the internets at large and the commenting here is still leaps and bounds above that elsewhere (check out the user comments thread on ESPN each week for the story related to the new AP or BCS rankings sometime). Like anything on the internet, you have to tune out some crap to get to the good, but that's the breaks. There is one potentially bigger point worth discussing. We never had the discussion about rcade starting a new thread about Alex Rodriguez being a weasel two days after a perfectly serviceable thread about him opting out, so here is my (unsolicited and possibly factually off, but by no means malicious) cautionary word about it. That second thread, in my opinion, was unnecessary and maybe wouldn't have survived Pantheon review had it been posted by someone else; perfectly reasonably arguments could be made to the contrary -- see rcade's rationale for it in the thread itself for all to see. I would venture to guess based on the numbers thrown out in the RSS locker room thread that the sensationalist, tabloidy-type stories (look at the top story listed in that locker room thread -- Suzyn Waldman crying on air) get more external eyeballs than the pregnant marathoner-type stories, which potentially creates an incentive to link more of those stories, as more eyeballs = more ad revenue = more $ to maintain SportsFilter servers, etc. I'm not accusing rcade of posting in bad faith or with bad motivations, rather just pointing out that what's good for the site from a financial perspective or, for those not involved on the financial side of the site, from a perspective of wanting to start a "popular" (as judged by number of comments) thread may not be good for the site in terms of the quality of the links and the level of discourse here.

posted by holden at 03:53 PM on November 05, 2007

I agree with most everything holden said. I've gotten to the point now to where I'll open the comments on about 15% of the front page posts, and most of the time there, I'll look for certain user names without reading comments. Kind of like how I've been with MetaFilter for a long time (although the favorites system there has changed that a little bit). There's definitely been a certain amount of SportsFilter reading a little bit like a radio talk show without a producer to screen calls. This isn't the first time, though, and we've waded through deeper shit than this in the past only to come out smelling like roses, even if only briefly. I think we desperately need a flagging system to help the aid the admins in being able to use a bit of a stronger hand. That said, I'd've probably flagged a couple of rcade's recent FPPs. Just my two bits.

posted by Ufez Jones at 04:40 PM on November 05, 2007

They don't have much physical power either, jerseygirl. Delete threads, comments, people. Yep, they do.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:06 PM on November 05, 2007

A couple of days ago a member wrote in the trick or treat thread that the Red Sox were getting too much love on sportsfilter. So I looked back over the past few weeks and found that other than the world series thread, which will always be posted no matter the teams, the trick or treat thread was the only Red Sox thread I could find. So I asked what he meant by his assertion. He never answered. And I've done that almost every time someone's brought up an observation. Too many Bonds threads? I'd count up the Bonds' threads compared to the number of non-bond threads. If there was a complaint about the quality of comments I'd point to other sites that were worse (which I shouldn't do, I hate that). In this case I'd point to summerseve's comment that if it 'bleeds it leads' and come up with X number of posts that don't (I'd also point out that those type stories get the most attention EVERYWHERE. That's society, not sportsfilter). I'd point out, as someone already did, that sportsfilter actually covers a wide spectrum of topics. But I've learned it really doesn't matter. If someone has the perception that the Red Sox get too much love, it's the truth, regardless if I disagree, or any statistics I point out. And since it happens almost every single time (I don't see the problem as being as big as the member does) I've concluded that I'm simply too close to the situation to understand. I do know from experience that this happens in every single online community. People, good people like summerseve, will leave, and others will come. And that will happen until the end of sportsfilter no matter the quality, no matter what the admins do. I do wish, however, that before members get so fed up they leave they would email me or rcade. That almost never happens. I read about it in a thread, or in the locker room, or on their about page. I'm not saying it would solve everything, it might still end up with same result, but there's a chance something could be worked out. But that almost never happens. The first news about someone leaving is someone leaving. So I disagree that members have little chance to shape the community. We can have locker room threads before it reaches this level, or a member can email an admin. But that almost never happens. Instead we get some veiled comment to the admins as the last sentence. If someone really cares about the community it seems there's a more constructive way to shape it. I think we desperately need a flagging system to help the aid the admins in being able to use a bit of a stronger hand. I've said the same thing for a long time, and it's actually being worked on by rcade. So it's no longer an if but a when. How is it decided whether to ban a user or to erase all traces of them from the site? I'm assuming that is difficult to do, but it has done before (SportingRhino). There's really no definite answer. If a member's conduct is blatant they can be banned immediately. Otherwise they get a chance or two. The worst cases are members that skate by on a thin line. Erasing all entries is a date base job and done by rcade. The ability to delete comments and ban users is really overrated at this point in shaping the site. I think a flagging system that brings the community into it would be much more effective.

posted by justgary at 06:37 PM on November 05, 2007

I agree with you hawkguy. I've noticed the same thing, and I think it is magnified since many of the Boston die hards are among the more influential members of this site.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:56 PM on November 05, 2007

By the way, I should apologize to all for the potential thread derail I committed in that thread. It's really not like me. Sorry folks. I should have emailed rcade or gary rather that open up a can of worms. Good to know maybe someone else sees what I am seeing. Maybe I'm not insane.

posted by hawkguy at 07:09 PM on November 05, 2007

I do wish, however, that before members get so fed up they leave they would email me or rcade. That almost never happens. I read about it in a thread, or in the locker room, or on their about page. I'm not saying it would solve everything, it might still end up with same result, but there's a chance something could be worked out. But that almost never happens. The first news about someone leaving is someone leaving. I don't think you should expect this to change as long as you are not only admns, but prominent participants. (edit: in response to your comment above, I think the right thing at this point is not to say, "So, okay, what's your solution?" and then list a bunch of "solutions" and reasons why they won't work. Right now it's probably better to spend some more thought and discussion about the situation rather than demanding instant solutions.)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:10 PM on November 05, 2007

Well, first off, I think "too many red sox" is a bit of a digression here, so call it a dodge, but I don't really want to even think about solutions because I'm not convinced that that's the problem. Crafty left because he felt that there was a certain heightened tolerance of rudeness towards all things yankee here, and because he got a shit pie right in the face when he stood up and said so. I think that is the problem that needs to be solved -- not specific to the Yankees, by any means, but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:35 PM on November 05, 2007

I guess I just don't understand this trend of public resignations from a sports website. I enjoyed Crafty's input, as well as Douche's, but it gets a bit ridiculous when you feel the need to make a public spectacle In SummersEve's defense, I made a point out of his leaving, not him. When a website gains the power to hurt your feelings this profoundly, your problems neither began, nor ended, here. I think that stopped being true around 2002. How is a website different from any other community? And what chico said. This isn't the first time, though, and we've waded through deeper shit than this in the past only to come out smelling like roses, even if only briefly. I think we desperately need a flagging system to help the aid the admins in being able to use a bit of a stronger hand. I've gone back and forth on what to say. I didn't add anything to the post originally because I didn't want to influence the direction of the thread. SE's comment really was just an opening for a thread I probably would have posted anyway. We've seen any number of "imminent death of Metafilter predicted" threads at Mefi and here, so I feel a little stupid, but I do think the nature of a sports-talk site is different. Look at this thread and then compare it to any thread on the real front page of this site: why aren't all the people here discussing sports there? Why aren't some of the great contributors we've had over the years in those threads? It feels to me like the shitbirds are dragging the discussion down more than ever before. In the past it was a matter of ignoring spammers and shouting down the trolls. But now it's upisde down; it's as though we need a quorum just to have a reasonable, rational discussion in any sports thread. I guess that's whining. I don't know. I feel like I'm a huge bully around here, so I've tried to stop doing that. Which leads to me feeling like SE and others. So I disagree that members have little chance to shape the community. We can have locker room threads before it reaches this level . . . If someone really cares about the community it seems there's a more constructive way to shape it. Well ok then. If we have such a chance, I hold in my hand a list of about a dozen members you can just ax tomorrow and the site will be no worse for the wear. How do we "shape the community" other than to bully new members out in order to keep old members in?

posted by yerfatma at 08:19 PM on November 05, 2007

As far as team X is getting too many posts and team Y is getting crapped on, that's happened since the inception of Sportsfilter. Surely, many of the people in this thread remember Ben Roethlisberger's breakout season and how many Seriously Fucking Annoying Steelers fans jumped into the site, right? It ebbs and flows. Calm down, enjoy the off-season, and come back in the pre-season. 85% of those jackholes will be gone by then. Come next post-season, some other jackholes will come around. Ignore 'em. Hypocritical to what I said earlier? I don't think so. Like I typed earlier tonight, I've learned to mentally Filter SportsFilter. I hate to do it, but so it goes. There's been a lot going on here tonight, and I've already gone to the Mavs/Rockets game, so I'm a bit spent, but I'll leave tonight publicly saying this (for better or worse) -- Much of this is a bit of backlash from the initially great-minded and optimistic, nay, idealistic thought that SpoFi could exist with a Locker Room that was MetaTalk-ish free. And to be blunt (and I've expressed these feelings to Gary before, so it won't be a surprise to him) that worked to a certain extent. After five of the initial seven moderators left and the site ballooned, that kind of failed. This isn't the first time this has been the backlash of that, but it still makes a *lot* of sense in my mind. The rest of my sentiments will go to justgary in an e-mail in the next few days, b/c that's worked for me in the past.

posted by Ufez Jones at 11:20 PM on November 05, 2007

I love you all. *hug* That is all.

posted by dusted at 12:23 AM on November 06, 2007

the initially great-minded and optimistic, nay, idealistic thought that SpoFi could exist with a Locker Room that was MetaTalk-ish free I have to agree with this. In the absence of a forum to discuss behavior and see if you're crazy or if the silent majority agrees, it appears as though whatever is currently happening on the site is condoned.

posted by yerfatma at 06:20 AM on November 06, 2007

To add to that, lbb, I would like to think that people can also be a little more thoughtful about what the post within the thread. So many times it seems recently that people are making comments that don't make a valid point just because they want to turn a 27-post thread into a 97-post thread. How many times can a recovering addict hear "just quit using and get on with your life," before he/she starts vomiting responses all over the thread. For that matter, how many times can an A-Rod fan hear that A-Rod is a weasel and not worth his money before the same happens. I think it would help if we tried not to stir the emotional shit just to stir it, and make comments when there is a valid point to be made.

posted by hawkguy at 09:04 AM on November 06, 2007

O.K. Let's say you're correct. How do we solve that? If it's a good link, it's a good link. In response to suggestions for a solution? For starters, not double posting almost exact stories about A-Rod when you know members (look at the thread. It's not hard to figure out) are going to get pissed. That does not promote thoughtful discussions. That's saying the same thing twice. It comes across as rubbing it in, much like posting a crappy Yahoo thread seven minutes after the Yankees get the boot from the playoffs. We know where that one got us. See lbb's suggestions about FPPs. I think that is a good start.

posted by hawkguy at 09:52 AM on November 06, 2007

So does the beware-the-toe-stepping apply just to Yankee team/player stories or... Is it possible to "know" what's going to piss members off all the time? I think in general, just don't overplay the same story or related stories on consecutive days or in the same week with multiple posts. The two examples I can think of when this occurred in recent history were Yankee-related (A-Rod opts out/A-Rod is a weasel and Yankees early exit/Suzyn Waldman cries), but I think that's just coincidental. I think the same exercise of discretion should apply where the subject in question is the Lakers, Barry Bonds, the Red Sox, etc. Other than that "no piling on" principle, I don't think we need an absolute prohibition of posting on certain topics, but I do think that posting something to the front page should be done thoughtfully and with some discretion.

posted by holden at 10:08 AM on November 06, 2007

There is a difference between stepping on someone's toes by accident, and jumping on them with both feet. It's the latter behaviors that I think we need to curb, and if they've happened more around certain subjects than others, well...if the shoe fits, wear it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:13 AM on November 06, 2007

Some of the member insist on making opinion, that are contrary to their own, the butt of some ridicule and wait response to affirm their cleverness. Hang on a tick: what is everyone else here for?

posted by yerfatma at 10:21 AM on November 06, 2007

Sigh.

posted by jerseygirl at 10:33 AM on November 06, 2007

So a Yankee fan quits because of a perceived slight towards the Yankees, and a Philly fan quits because Philly is getting dragged through the mud. Sounds like fans being fans to me. Quitting spofi is a long and sanctimonious tradition going back as far as I can remember, of which I am a part. People are people, get used to it.

posted by garfield at 10:47 AM on November 06, 2007

Let's not talk about the Red Sox or Yankees ever again. Deal? Great. 99% of our problems are solved now.

posted by jerseygirl at 10:53 AM on November 06, 2007

I guess my response is that we all have the ability to influence how the front page looks -- it's incumbent on those who have issues with the quality or subject matter of some of the FPPs to keep an eye out for interesting stories and subjects and post their own FPPs. Part of the problem, though, is that you can post a great FPP that gets very little attention because it's not about basketball, baseball, football or hockey. I still post a few "other" threads but I've mostly given up.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:12 AM on November 06, 2007

The Red Sox and Yankees recieve a lot of attention because of who they are. As a result they have big fan bases, which is also reflected in SpoFi. I've noticed that there tends to be many pro-Boston discussions but that is a result of having a large amount of contributing Boston fans. If there was a large amount of Detroit fans there would probably be a similar amount of discussion on Detroit based topics. That said, I don't think it should be considered a problem that must be rectified. The only solution would be to limit the amount of discussion on Boston/New York topics and that wouldn't be character of a sports blog. Usually there isn't a problem with the volume of coverage on these topics; personally if I don't want to hear about it any longer I just move on to a different thread. Where this can be viewed as problematic (this is one reason that I believe may have provoked crafty to leave) is when someone presents a point that is opposite to what one of the large factions believes and then is critized by several people at once. However, part of being a sports fan is being able to defend your team. Some individuals may just find defending their views against a large, vocal faction overwhelming.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:32 AM on November 06, 2007

Part of the problem, though, is that you can post a great FPP that gets very little attention because it's not about basketball, baseball, football or hockey. I still post a few "other" threads but I've mostly given up. why give up? because a post doesn't receive a lot of comments? a good FPP shouldn't be validated by the number of responses it gets. i find most of the better, well constructed FPPs tend to get the least amount of comments. don't let the lack of responses to discourage you from posting. it can only help balance out the signal to noise around here.

posted by goddam at 11:41 AM on November 06, 2007

If someone felt it was interesting enough to post then yes. As rcade posted last month to the locker room, links are getting up to a couple thousand clicks from RSS suscribers. Even though there may not be many comments, there still is a good possibility the link is attracting many readers. I have two goals when posting links; to create discussion and to give members an opportunity to read something that is interesting and maybe they haven't seen yet. WingFilter forever!

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:58 AM on November 06, 2007

Part of the problem, though, is that you can post a great FPP that gets very little attention because it's not about basketball, baseball, football or hockey. I still post a few "other" threads but I've mostly given up. I interpret that as sour grapes. 100 comments doesn't validate the relevancy of a link. If you post something about skiing and one person finds interest in it can't you consider it a success. Could you continue the conversation with that one person and share opinions? The community is what you make of it and while Hawkguy is in here trying to point out the issues, he was also the first guy to bring up Spofi's love of the Red Sox in the trick or treat thread. Was it worth comparing Varitek to Mike Sweeney? Are we to assume this is the extent of Jason Varitek's community involvement. My motivation for posting was not to show how much I love them, but rather that it was an interesting story that others nationwide may not here. I apologize for living in the greater Boston area, I guess - I saw it in my paper. If I'm to follow some of this logic I'd be better off avoiding iit because of its context in the sporting landscape. The truth is some links need no comments. The trick or treat thread needed no comments - if I had the ability to dictate as much in the posting process I would have. What the hell are you gonna say beyond "wow, what a cool thing"? Did I perpetuate the derailing there, sure. But nothing that couldn't have gone unsaid. On that note, I leave you with these words.... Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Carver. Do you really think it's going to change anything around here; make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I won't do anything. The only promise I will make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the student government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again! [Student body erupts in huge cheers] Or don't vote for me... who cares? Don't vote at all!

posted by YukonGold at 12:00 PM on November 06, 2007

I really think that we need to give more attention to the "other" threads that lbb mentioned. If we raise the bar about what we post comments on then hopefully it will overcome the whole site. You are never going to have a site where everyone is pleasant and polite and considers other peoples feelings. Get real this is life and it rarely happens in person. The more attention we give the good fpp's and the less we give the poor ones the better. on edit: I guess everyone is basically saying the same thing. The #1 rule I remember that I learned on sportsfilter - "don't feed the trolls"

posted by skydivemom at 12:10 PM on November 06, 2007

The more attention we give the good fpp's and the less we give the poor ones the better. what do you consider attention? commenting for the sake of commenting is no good. how many times can you write "this is good"? maybe we can have some sort of flagging system for good posts too, not just the bad ones? that way people can see what makes a good FPP, and it will give some encouragement to the person to posted it as well.

posted by goddam at 12:22 PM on November 06, 2007

posted by yerfatma at 12:58 PM on November 06, 2007

Obviously just posting great link isn't going to lead to a discussion, but I believe that it makes people more likely to read the link. Is that saying that all links need discussion? If that's the case Barry Bonds, dogfighting and Yankees/Red Sox are our bread and butter. I think the exact opposite. Link (news) aggregation and discussion are two completely separate facets of SpoFi and have no dependence on one another.

posted by YukonGold at 01:15 PM on November 06, 2007

If Spofi is adding a way to flag trolling members, why not also add a way to "star" (or otherwise "flag")a great FPP? Agreed. Good idea.

posted by justgary at 01:21 PM on November 06, 2007

Obviously just posting great link isn't going to lead to a discussion, but I believe that it makes people more likely to read the link. I usually cheat and post a little additional info as the first comment on any post I think it a bit obscure/ boring to make it look like a discussion started without all of you. Suckers!

posted by yerfatma at 01:54 PM on November 06, 2007

I've wondered about the value of seeing X comments (Y new) below a post. Long time ago, someone posted that they sometimes feel intimidated to comment, even though they really liked the article. So there you have it. I used to worry more about the comments until I saw that. (btw, I also sometimes engaged in yerfatma's "trick" of seeding the comments. This is actually useful, tho, in cases where you're avoiding making a big fat FPP, but want to add additional notes or clarifications.) In fact, I had a couple of posts in the last couple of weeks that ended up w/ zero comments. A little disappointing but, hey, them's the shakes. It ain't a popularity contest (unless that's how you measure the value of your posts). Anyway, from the 60+ comments I'm seeing here, I see a general move toward flagging stuff, kinda feels like Digg. Whatever it is, let's keep it real simple. Let's not encumber a system with controls aimed at 1% of the numbnuts that ends up breaking the system for the majority of the population. At the end of the day, no amount of rules and techno-sophistication are going to make up for plain bad behavior. Also, some concern about rcade "double-posting" stuff and getting away with it. Can we have a special knuckle-rapper icon for flagging naughty Pantheon posts, then? A nun with a ruler? Heh heh. Also, who here's left and returned? I didn't realize fatcat garfield was one of that club. Oh, yeah, you can count me as one of the "blessed", too. btw, I realized, when I went through my, erm, "experience"... unless people have really met you, all this flaming is in response to a string of words you put up. It ain't about you, man, just some symbols on a flickering screen. And you're responding to the same symbol sets. Symbols against symbols. No need to get riled up. Re: trolls ... Here's my favorite: The ubiquitous "who cares?" troll in every soccer thread. I recommend we just build in this feature that plugs in "Who cares?" as the automatic first comment everytime someone posts a thread in the "Soccer" category. That gets that out of the way, and we can carry on with some proper communication. Also, it saves owlhouse and the other gents the effort of responding very nicely with the "read the guidelines, please" comment. It would look like so: "Who cares?" posted by nobber n00b [brought to you by SpoFi Technologies Division] Dear nobber n00b, please RTFG. posted by All the ones that care [brought to you by SpoFi Technologies Division]

posted by worldcup2002 at 02:43 PM on November 06, 2007

Let's not encumber a system with controls aimed at 1% of the numbnuts that ends up breaking the system for the majority of the population. Is that who we're talking about thought? My issue isn't with trolls; they're easy to ignore. It's with the semi-regulars who are nothing more than sloganeers and shouters who refuse to engage in anything other than argument.

posted by yerfatma at 03:28 PM on November 06, 2007

Right there with you, verfatma.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:01 PM on November 06, 2007

Vas is los?

posted by yerfatma at 04:27 PM on November 06, 2007

btw, I love yerfatma's interjections. They tend to be funny and often lighten exchanges that are starting to get, what do they call it, heavy. Yeah. Just had to say it. yerfatma, yer all right by me. Oh, btw, I also hate yerfatma because he has a two-digit member number.

posted by worldcup2002 at 04:39 PM on November 06, 2007

jerseygirl cut off your one good leg! It's a running joke amongst us that my offensive user name somehow gets mis-parsed by new members. It even happened at Mefi once and some guy on the Internet is talking shit about me.

posted by yerfatma at 05:09 PM on November 06, 2007

I don't mind that some threads get a bit contentious, so long as the arguments are cogent and they don't get personal. I could however do without douchery like this. Thats just crass.

posted by lilnemo at 05:35 PM on November 06, 2007

Misspelt.

posted by yerfatma at 08:08 PM on November 06, 2007

Something very important has been missed in the Flyers thread: Samsonov14 is back! How are you, mate?

posted by qbert72 at 10:58 PM on November 06, 2007

I too am an everyday reader who/whom? does not comment very often. In this case though I felt like some spofites have their own line. The talk of not pilling on while still pressing the issue of rcades a-rod posts is not adding to this discussion. He has already stated his reasoning and like it or not I dont feel he needs to explain it any further. Just my simple thoughts on one small aspect of spofi manners.

posted by Folkways at 09:59 AM on November 07, 2007

As much as I appreciate a discussion like this, which demonstrates that SportsFilter members expect this place to challenge them and be more intelligent than the average sports forum, there's too little posting here. On Sunday night, the biggest regular season NFL game in years didn't get posted! Wait a minute, who says we need x number of FPPs a day? There isn't a "void" if we "only" have one post on a given day. Maybe it's better to let things flow naturally rather than to post filler. The Andy Reid story, sorry to disagree, was marginal at best. Reid's status as an NFL coach doesn't have bupkis to do with the story at this point; if, down the road, Reid makes some confessional or someone writes an article about how being an NFL head coach essentially precludes having a sane and healthy family, that's another matter. I will grant you that it is "hot-button stuff", but I don't see that as a positive recommendation. Calling attention to anything sordid will get reactions -- doesn't mean it's a good idea.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:22 AM on November 08, 2007

Wait a minute, who says we need x number of FPPs a day? I sez. When I visit this place and there's nothing new posted in the last 24-36 hours, it blows me away. The Reid story drew some dumb responses, but it also had interesting takes about drug abuse and whether parents have responsibility for their adult children. But I'm not sure I should be defending it, frankly. I'm not a fan of the MetaFilter model where the front page requires increasingly thick-skinned contributors. I'd rather find a way that people could turn a marginal link into a better one, if they were unhappy with it.

posted by rcade at 10:18 AM on November 08, 2007

What's even more surprising is that Petersen's rushing record wasn't the only NFL record set that during that single game. So, yeah, why didn't one us FPP that game?

posted by NoMich at 10:53 AM on November 08, 2007

Wait a minute, who says we need x number of FPPs a day? There isn't a "void" if we "only" have one post on a given day. Maybe it's better to let things flow naturally rather than to post filler. He didn't mention a quota. But can you honestly tell me that over a 24 hour period there's only one or two great stories/links that would make good posts? I think the flagging system will be a great addition, but nothing will do the job that great links will. Raising the signal to noise ration would go further than any addition to sportsfilter. If the Reid thread goes badly but there's 7 other good threads, it's easier to ignore. If it's the only one, or one of two, it's harder to ignore. The same thing with comments. I realize not everyone has been to metafilter, but as an example there are plenty of throw-away comments in almost every thread, but there's also a good number of intelligent ones, and that helps drown out the mouth-breathers.

posted by justgary at 11:40 AM on November 08, 2007

He didn't mention a quota. But can you honestly tell me that over a 24 hour period there's only one or two great stories/links that would make good posts? So, you're saying there's no quota, but if you don't get x number of posts in a 24 hour period, you and rcade get itchy. Got it! Seriously, I don't think that this should bother you. This site is in no danger of becoming moribund. But not everybody posts FPPs, not even "regular contributors" -- there are long-standing members who comment on a regular basis, but who haven't put up a FPP in a long time. For those of us that do, well, y'know...we've got lives. We're not here every day. My idea of a good weekend is one spent away from the web, and I suspect many other regular FPPers like to spend their weekends somewhere other than in front of their computers. So if a day or two goes by and there are no FPPs, I think that's okay, really. Sure, no doubt a bunch of FPP-worthy sports stuff happened over that weekend. Is there a rule that it can't be posted on Monday? I think the flagging system will be a great addition, but nothing will do the job that great links will. Raising the signal to noise ration would go further than any addition to sportsfilter. And the flagging system will show where the signal is. I can't wait to see it in action.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:49 PM on November 08, 2007

For $10 you can watch me... handle it.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:19 AM on November 09, 2007

Sorry, guys. After Starbucks and the MBTA got done with me, all I have is $1.43.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:35 AM on November 09, 2007

I just want to know what I do when I feel not-so-fresh now.

posted by yerfatma at 05:47 PM on November 09, 2007

That is pretty close to what I meant, LBB. I'd like to see more people posting here.

posted by rcade at 08:25 AM on November 10, 2007

OK yfm I see your point also. I was just showing the post wasn't as bleak as described and I could have been more descriptive and instructional in my description when I posted the FPP. I do take for granted that readers are as passionate of the sport as myself and take the time to click embedded links. I'll work on that.

posted by skydivedad at 02:15 PM on November 10, 2007

Something very important has been missed in the Flyers thread: Samsonov14 is back! How are you, mate? When SummersEve and Crafty got sick of Spofi, they vented their spleens in grouchy comments and left in a huff - which is okay if you like to do things in a half-assed, weenie sort of way. Me, when a website starts to get on my nerves, I just sack up and do what any other tough guy would do - silently walk away from the computer and JOIN THE GODDAMNED ARMY. Beat that with your whining on the internet. Anyway, now that I have regular access to the internet and some time to use it, I'm a regular visitor to Spofi again. It's still one of the best websites out there. We all knew that as Spofi got bigger the signal to noise ratio would get a little silly, and it has. Lots of new visitors act like jerks, older members drop out, and some of the new jerks in time become older members. I'm totally holding a baby lion up in the air right now. It's like it's always been, there's just more of it these days. We've been through this whole "so-and-so" leaving the site thing before, and while I think it's close to pointless, I do enjoy the discussion. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to DEFENDING YOUR FREEDOM.

posted by Samsonov14 at 01:21 AM on November 12, 2007

Sammy, congratulations on your choice. You've adopted an honorable profession, and I hope you'll do well in it. Let us know what you're doing and where you are once in a while. I for one am interested, since I work for a defense contractor on a system used by Army aviation. I echo jersey girl; stay safe!

posted by Howard_T at 09:10 AM on November 12, 2007

I'll bet Sammy is spawn camping.

posted by NoMich at 12:25 PM on November 12, 2007

Dumbledore's Army?

posted by hawkguy at 01:43 PM on November 12, 2007

of course now that Sammy is in the army all SpofiSwap related face punches will be administered by Sammy himself. or possibly the US Special Forces, we haven't decided yet. so, delinquents beware!

posted by goddam at 02:32 PM on November 12, 2007

Or, if you prefer not to be clear in your statements, and in what hat you're wearing when you make them, then don't accuse people of "mak[ing] shit up" when you are misunderstood. Does that sound fair to you? No, it doesn't. That I am not rcade, that what I said was nothing like what you insinuated (claiming I said something and then using rcade's comment as proof is just bizarre), and that when I throw my 2cents into a thread I'm not wearing an admin cap are concepts that I don't believe need clarifying, and the "got it!" was the cherry on the top. As Ari told E, when you call someone a douchebag the conversation is pretty much over (not that you called me a douchbag by any stretch, but it's been my experience that once someone starts debating in a combative humorous manner (out of nowhere) the discussion pretty much goes down hill from there.

posted by justgary at 05:44 PM on November 12, 2007

You can't be deaf to the tone you use online.

posted by yerfatma at 01:18 PM on November 13, 2007

Unless you type in all caps.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:51 AM on November 14, 2007

NUF CED

posted by yerfatma at 12:12 PM on November 14, 2007

Uh, excuse me hawkguy, but fatty just ended this thread with a NUF CED. By Internet law, we cannot go any further.

posted by NoMich at 02:13 PM on November 14, 2007

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to DEFENDING YOUR FREEDOM. I thought the thread should have ended there. You kick ass, Sammy!

posted by qbert72 at 09:32 PM on November 14, 2007

He is. And on top of his wicked smarts, he now is even more diesel than before. Throw in killing techniques with a hanky, and you have one bad ass samsonov14.

posted by garfield at 08:56 AM on November 15, 2007