An open discussion about the state of the forums

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Would love to find a way to integrate the articles into appropriate threads, especially pertaining to offseason transactions.

I'd also love this but from a code level, it's so ugly that it borderlines on impossible. It's the kind of thing we COULD implement but I'd be so scared of massive code failure that I'm just not willing to do it. Why it's that way is kind of tough to explain but in simplistic terms, the time stamps on posts in the database dictate in which order posts appear. We'd have to do some pretty nefarious stuff to the time stamps to make it work and that leads to some pretty dangerous database issues.

[I owned a Suzuki]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

There is quite a sentiment to move articles to their own forum. I'm okay with that but we need to make a compromise:

I'll move articles to their own forums if we kill megathreads. I don't mind one or two megathreads - we also use them on other sites for minor transactions or what former players are up to across the league - but we can't have one offseason thread or one transactions thread. It's too offputting to new users.

The first thing a new user does in a forum is look at how many threads are recent and any click into a thread automatically takes them to the first unread page. That's a problem if the first page is posts from 90 days ago.

When we took over a year ago, about 250 people visited NSBB a day. That number is now 1,000. We're bringing in new users on a very regular basis and I want some of those users to drift to the forums and participate. For that to happen, we need the most welcoming environment possible and part of that goal means the Cubs forum needs to have recent, specific threads that make them want to click and read (and then hopefully post their own opinion).

I really like the articles and dont mind where they are at.  I kind of agree about megathreads.  Good example is how sick I was about Bellinger discussion this off season that drug on forever.  Would need to dig thru that to find discussions about other things if they were there.  Like Morel to 3b should have been its own thread.  Talk about Matt Chapman its own thread.

I really like that their are a lot of good analytic baseball minds who help this old man understand the game more.  I think sometimes though it can be kind of snobbish if a not so analytic old time stat guy brings up some old time baseball thinking

Politics strays from political thread some. 

[squally1313]

42 minutes ago, I owned a Suzuki said:

Good example is how sick I was about Bellinger discussion this off season that drug on forever.  Would need to dig thru that to find discussions about other things if they were there.  Like Morel to 3b should have been its own thread.  Talk about Matt Chapman its own thread.

 

To push back on this a little though, in my head all three of those discussions overlap. We clearly had room for one of the Boras guys, so debating the relative merits of Bellinger vs Chapman makes sense to me. And a wrinkle in that discussion is whether you thought Morel could play a reasonable third base (or the difference between a mediocre defensive third baseman and an elite one (Morel v Chapman)). 

I totally understand the desired intentions of splitting up topics in terms of attracting new visitors. And I would guess most of the mega thread frustration from the guys at the top was based around the offseason. But for me the offseason discussion centers around roster construction and putting together a puzzle based on guys we have, guys we want, money available, etc. Having a separate thread about each puzzle piece without a spot to debate the differences in them seems like a step back. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

There is quite a sentiment to move articles to their own forum. I'm okay with that but we need to make a compromise:

I'll move articles to their own forums if we kill megathreads. I don't mind one or two megathreads - we also use them on other sites for minor transactions or what former players are up to across the league - but we can't have one offseason thread or one transactions thread. It's too offputting to new users.

The first thing a new user does in a forum is look at how many threads are recent and any click into a thread automatically takes them to the first unread page. That's a problem if the first page is posts from 90 days ago.

When we took over a year ago, about 250 people visited NSBB a day. That number is now 1,000. We're bringing in new users on a very regular basis and I want some of those users to drift to the forums and participate. For that to happen, we need the most welcoming environment possible and part of that goal means the Cubs forum needs to have recent, specific threads that make them want to click and read (and then hopefully post their own opinion).

Longhorn20 is the megathread antidote this board has needed since rawdog disappeared.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

….

Edited May 1, 2024 by Bobson Dugnutt

[Rob]

14 minutes ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

Longhorn20 is the megathread antidote this board has needed since rawdog disappeared.

rawdog's random reappearances are what make him so beloved. If it was a daily thing, he'd be an annoyance.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

31 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

To push back on this a little though, in my head all three of those discussions overlap. We clearly had room for one of the Boras guys, so debating the relative merits of Bellinger vs Chapman makes sense to me. And a wrinkle in that discussion is whether you thought Morel could play a reasonable third base (or the difference between a mediocre defensive third baseman and an elite one (Morel v Chapman)). 

I totally understand the desired intentions of splitting up topics in terms of attracting new visitors. And I would guess most of the mega thread frustration from the guys at the top was based around the offseason. But for me the offseason discussion centers around roster construction and putting together a puzzle based on guys we have, guys we want, money available, etc. Having a separate thread about each puzzle piece without a spot to debate the differences in them seems like a step back. 

I agree that especially in the offseason there's some nuance.  I don't like everything being funneled into a single thread that spans hundreds of pages, but there were also a couple times where I felt like I was replying and making the same point in the same day because the same convo was essentially happening across threads.  Maybe in the offseason there's a way to split the difference in a similar way that game threads do.  We had a winter meetings thread that worked decently for that period of time, but repeating that idea for smaller intervals than *the offseason*, while still creating new threads when genuine news arrives, might be a middle ground?  It's also just really hard when you have a slow offseason too, there's lots of interest in roster building but you've got 3+ months of information/news trickle and there's not a perfect way to solve for discussing that.

[Thurman Merman]

4 hours ago, BigbadB said:

Mine only does that on the first page turn on each thread visit. After the first one, it goes back to the top for all subsequent page turns.

Same

[Brock Beauchamp]

20 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I agree that especially in the offseason there's some nuance.  I don't like everything being funneled into a single thread that spans hundreds of pages, but there were also a couple times where I felt like I was replying and making the same point in the same day because the same convo was essentially happening across threads.  Maybe in the offseason there's a way to split the difference in a similar way that game threads do.  We had a winter meetings thread that worked decently for that period of time, but repeating that idea for smaller intervals than *the offseason*, while still creating new threads when genuine news arrives, might be a middle ground?  It's also just really hard when you have a slow offseason too, there's lots of interest in roster building but you've got 3+ months of information/news trickle and there's not a perfect way to solve for discussing that.

See, I have no issues with the winter meeting megathread, that's a useful way to track a single event that will have related topics. We do the same thing for draft days. A three-day-long megathread makes sense. A three-month megathread, not so much.

[squally1313]

21 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I agree that especially in the offseason there's some nuance.  I don't like everything being funneled into a single thread that spans hundreds of pages, but there were also a couple times where I felt like I was replying and making the same point in the same day because the same convo was essentially happening across threads.  Maybe in the offseason there's a way to split the difference in a similar way that game threads do.  We had a winter meetings thread that worked decently for that period of time, but repeating that idea for smaller intervals than *the offseason*, while still creating new threads when genuine news arrives, might be a middle ground?  It's also just really hard when you have a slow offseason too, there's lots of interest in roster building but you've got 3+ months of information/news trickle and there's not a perfect way to solve for discussing that.

Yeah at the risk of trying to emulate Reddit, which is probably never a good idea, maybe you consider a weekly 'general offseason' thread?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, squally1313 said:

Yeah at the risk of trying to emulate Reddit, which is probably never a good idea, maybe you consider a weekly 'general offseason' thread?

Not volunteering, but maybe there's a periodic 'state of the offseason' article that could be written/re-written on an interval to get double benefit of being a catch-all of non-newsworthy chatter while also providing the broader benefits we aim to get from articles in general?

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Not volunteering, but maybe there's a periodic 'state of the offseason' article that could be written/re-written on an interval to get double benefit of being a catch-all of non-newsworthy chatter while also providing the broader benefits we aim to get from articles in general?

That's a good idea. A "This Week in the Cubs Offseason" type thing? Recap rumors and transactions?

I'm sure one of us writers can do it. Hell, probably something I could do. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah at the risk of trying to emulate Reddit, which is probably never a good idea, maybe you consider a weekly 'general offseason' thread?

This is how it’s done at the Illini board I frequent, and seems to be a nice solution. One thing that would be nice is if the first post of said weekly thread could be updated periodically to highlight and allow users to jump to key posts. For example, a tweet from Passan about the “Player X signing with Team Z” or a post linking to an article from one of NSB(B)’s writers. This allows users to catch up within the weekly threads from a logical starting point.

[spaincubsfan]

13 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

That's a good idea. A "This Week in the Cubs Offseason" type thing? Recap rumors and transactions?

I'm sure one of us writers can do it. Hell, probably something I could do. 

We shall henceforth be known as "MLBTRADERUMORSNBB.COM". 😉😉

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, spaincubsfan said:

We shall henceforth be known as "MLBTRADERUMORSNBB.COM". 😉😉

So what you're saying is "I want more power rankings".

[spaincubsfan]

Equtes to about 2.5 runs PG, but that has to improve. Obviously many things occur during the seasonal ebb & flow of MLB offensive output. There is this also:

 

 

Edited May 2, 2024 by spaincubsfan

[squally1313]

I also agree that the quality of this board correlates heavily to the amount of runs the Cubs score

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm doing month-end numbers and happened to stumble across this:

In April of 2023 (the first full month after relaunch), users posted 5,050 posts.

In April of 2024, that number was 7,550. The forums are *much* more active than they were a year ago. I thought there would be growth but not 50% growth.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Is April '23 the month that mojo was gone?

[BigbadB]

19 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm doing month-end numbers and happened to stumble across this:

In April of 2023 (the first full month after relaunch), users posted 5,050 posts.

In April of 2024, that number was 7,550. The forums are *much* more active than they were a year ago. I thought there would be growth but not 50% growth.

50% seems pretty good, but hell, my insurance company's rate increase this year was 44%. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

39 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

50% seems pretty good, but hell, my insurance company's rate increase this year was 44%. 

"North Side Baseball, Better Than Insurance Companies"

[PackLandVA]

On 5/2/2024 at 9:57 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm doing month-end numbers and happened to stumble across this:

In April of 2023 (the first full month after relaunch), users posted 5,050 posts.

In April of 2024, that number was 7,550. The forums are *much* more active than they were a year ago. I thought there would be growth but not 50% growth.

I think there's been a bit more excitement going into this season as opposed to last season.  Also, last season's game thread starter seemed to crap out early if I recall.

[Brock Beauchamp]

6 minutes ago, PackLandVA said:

I think there's been a bit more excitement going into this season as opposed to last season.  Also, last season's game thread starter seemed to crap out early if I recall.

Yeah, definitely more excitement going into this season and last year's game threads were a mess early on. I wasn't used to the format, the format was flawed, and it took awhile to get it all sorted.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I am a bit late in responding, but I think my thoughts have mostly already been covered by others.

I am in agreement that Articles are "clogging the bases" in the Cubs forum and I generally skip over them.  I do appreciate the effort and research that goes into writing them, and their importance in leading people to the site, but most of the time they just aren't for me.  I would prefer them to be relegated to their own forum, and have voted as such in the poll.

I also think the Transactions forum could use some work, and that ties into the megathread idea.  I like seeing separate threads for all substantial transactions rather than all discussion being buried inside a megathread, a gamethread, or a generic daily discussion thread.  When the Cubs make a roster move, I would love to have that highlighted by a corresponding Transactions thread with appropriate subject line, rather than being buried inside some other thread.  Do I want to see a separate Transaction thread when the Marlins sign Matt Swarmer (callback to Matt Swarmer FOCO bobblehead, on sale now!) to a Minor League deal?  No, definitely not.  But definitely any Cubs transactions and other significant MLB transactions.

Overall though, it is great to see the activity picking up!

[Brock Beauchamp]

51 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I also think the Transactions forum could use some work, and that ties into the megathread idea.  I like seeing separate threads for all substantial transactions rather than all discussion being buried inside a megathread, a gamethread, or a generic daily discussion thread.  When the Cubs make a roster move, I would love to have that highlighted by a corresponding Transactions thread with appropriate subject line, rather than being buried inside some other thread.  Do I want to see a separate Transaction thread when the Marlins sign Matt Swarmer (callback to Matt Swarmer FOCO bobblehead, on sale now!) to a Minor League deal?  No, definitely not.  But definitely any Cubs transactions and other significant MLB transactions.

For the record, this is how I feel about transactions as well. If it's a substantial Cubs move - like a 40-man move - it should have its own thread. If it's a rando minor league signing for AA depth, it can be buried in a larger thread.