Quality of Posts in the Sun Deck

[Reds Freak]

My fellow Sun Deck posters, as some have noted in other forums, I have noticed a decline in the quality of posts in the Sun Deck since the big changes. In no way am I saying that the posters here are inferior to those at the ORG, but the quality of some posts seems to be missing. For example, I believe I count four threads that were started and are currently on the first page of the SD that are one line comments about the what happened during the specific game. I don't believe one line observations merit their own thread. Reds44 has started posting post game observation threads in which I think those type of posts are more appropriate.

Two reasons I think this hurts the quality of the Sun Deck board. One, it is hard to have a meaningful baseball discussion in a thread that only contains one sentence. If you are going to start a thread, put some thought behind it and make it a solid post. If you have a one sentence comment or observation try to find the thread in which it might belong. Secondly, the threads that have been started that are well-thought out and solid get lost in the mess and I have a hard time finding them. This hurts the quality of the conversation and the posters who are making good posts.

So I guess my point is I don't think a thread should be started unless you have a developed and well thought out point or question. Right now I see a lot of "useless" threads that are hard to comment on. Am I off base here, what do others think?

[bucksfan2]

My fellow Sun Deck posters, as some have noted in other forums, I have noticed a decline in the quality of posts in the Sun Deck since the big changes. In no way am I saying that the posters here are inferior to those at the ORG, but the quality of some posts seems to be missing. For example, I believe I count four threads that were started and are currently on the first page of the SD that are one line comments about the what happened during the specific game. I don't believe one line observations merit their own thread. Reds44 has started posting post game observation threads in which I think those type of posts are more appropriate.

Two reasons I think this hurts the quality of the Sun Deck board. One, it is hard to have a meaningful baseball discussion in a thread that only contains one sentence. If you are going to start a thread, put some thought behind it and make it a solid post. If you have a one sentence comment or observation try to find the thread in which it might belong. Secondly, the threads that have been started that are well-thought out and solid get lost in the mess and I have a hard time finding them. This hurts the quality of the conversation and the posters who are making good posts.

So I guess my point is I don't think a thread should be started unless you have a developed and well thought out point or question. Right now I see a lot of "useless" threads that are hard to comment on. Am I off base here, what do others think?

I joined a few months ago and have enjoyed the now called "Sun Deck". I enjoy the debate, competitive banter, and people posting in the reds. I dont see anything wrong with the way it is now. I also do see a whole lot of chance since it was the reds live section.

[bounty37h]

I think this thread is useless

[Moosie52]

It's apparent to me that we are deemed to be second class posters, not good enough to be included (actually retained) in the Old Guard. I understand the desire to weed out immature posts, but it seems to me that the baby was thrown out with the bath water. There is more to life than baseball statistics. In fact, there is more to baseball than baseball statistics. There is humor, inspiration, and comraderie. There is tragedy, passion, and joy. There are many ideas that have the makings of a great post. Right now I agree, this forum could use some imaginative posts.

[muethibp]

It's apparent to me that we are deemed to be second class posters, not good enough to be included (actually retained) in the Old Guard. I understand the desire to weed out immature posts, but it seems to me that the baby was thrown out with the bath water. There is more to life than baseball statistics. In fact, there is more to baseball than baseball statistics. There is humor, inspiration, and comraderie. There is tragedy, passion, and joy. There are many ideas that have the makings of a great post. Right now I agree, this forum could use some imaginative posts.

My point is that the way message boards are set-up is the perfect tool for self-wedding out of bad posts. The bad posts don't get responses and go to the bottom. By breaking up the board, the effect that responding to good posts has is actually cut in half. If a terrible post is made at ORG (and we all know there are plenty), it actually stays up far longer than it otherwise would because there is an artificially created scarcity of posters there. If the full collection of Redszoners could post there, it would quickly be beat down by the activity on the good threads.

[RedEye]

My point is that the way message boards are set-up is the perfect tool for self-wedding out of bad posts. The bad posts don't get responses and go to the bottom. By breaking up the board, the effect that responding to good posts has is actually cut in half. If a terrible post is made at ORG (and we all know there are plenty), it actually stays up far longer than it otherwise would because there is an artificially created scarcity of posters there. If the full collection of Redszoners could post there, it would quickly be beat down by the activity on the good threads.

I disagree. This might be true if all posters read all posts with equal attention, but that's simply not the case. As the original poster argues, the Sun Deck is often a flood of one-line comments masquerading as threads. While I have nothing against people posting their ideas of whatever sort, part of fruitfully participating in a group like this is understanding that some ideas are better as part of a pre-existing conversation that is already taking place elsewhere (e.g., the Reds44 game comments threads) and that some of them require their own thread.

I guess that while I agree that the so-called "market principles" are good for some activities on the internet, I actually think that many sports fan forums would do well to require posters to operate according to a basic set of posting principles as well.

[CWRed]

I blame Adam Dunn for all this!

[muethibp]

I don't understand the complaining about stupid threads. The internet is fantastic for 1000 reasons, one of them is that true market principles apply to thread creations. If the thread is worthless, it quickly plunges to the bottom as superior postings generate interest and discussion and stay at the top. If your gripe is that other threads are getting in the way of quality, this one does that too.

That's why I have little understanding of the structured hierarchy at this site. Rather than allowing good posts and bad posts to be rated by market principles on one collective board, with the good posts staying up top and the bad ones getting pushed away, this site relies on an inefficient popularity contest. While the goal is to have the highest quality posts (and don't get me wrong, the site owners can do whatever they want), the irony is that it forces good conversation into multiple places, bars people from responding to posts in ORG where they have something of value to say (or forcing the creation of a parallel Sun Deck thread), relegates strong posters to second class status, and generally stifles the quality of the site.

[Reds Freak]

I don't understand the complaining about stupid threads. The internet is fantastic for 1000 reasons, one of them is that true market principles apply to thread creations. If the thread is worthless, it quickly plunges to the bottom as superior postings generate interest and discussion and stay at the top. If your gripe is that other threads are getting in the way of quality, this one does that too.

That's why I have little understanding of the structured hierarchy at this site. Rather than allowing good posts and bad posts to be rated by market principles on one collective board, with the good posts staying up top and the bad ones getting pushed away, this site relies on an inefficient popularity contest. While the goal is to have the highest quality posts (and don't get me wrong, the site owners can do whatever they want), the irony is that it forces good conversation into multiple places, bars people from responding to posts in ORG where they have something of value to say (or forcing the creation of a parallel Sun Deck thread), relegates strong posters to second class status, and generally stifles the quality of the site.

That's a very good point, A survival of the fittest posts type thing. However, I don't know if that's happening yet in the Sun Deck. Maybe it just needs time, but at the time that I posted this we had threads at the top that included the announcement of Dunn's sac fly, whether a runner was safe or out last night, and narron picking his lineup out of his hat...

[muethibp]

That's a very good point, A survival of the fittest posts type thing. However, I don't know if that's happening yet in the Sun Deck. Maybe it just needs time, but at the time that I posted this we had threads at the top that included the announcement of Dunn's sac fly, whether a runner was safe or out last night, and narron picking his lineup out of his hat...

I agree, there are bad posts in the Sun Deck. There are also bad threads on page 1 of ORG right now (see, e.g., Jr. commercials, Babe Ruth/women and the same thread three times in rage/waiting/can't take it). And because the board is split in 2, good posts have to work twice as hard to knock out the bad posts. Imagine how long (not long at all) a stupid thread would last on a combined board, as the good threads continued to generate response after response while poor threads got no response and sunk to the bottom. But with the board split as it is, the site owners have guaranteed any thread, no matter how little merit, nearly two full days of page 1 attention (note that the bottom thread on ORG goes back to 5/28, Sun Deck post goes back to 5/29).

[muethibp]

I agree, there are bad posts in the Sun Deck. There are also bad threads on page 1 of ORG right now (see, e.g., Jr. commercials, Babe Ruth/women and the same thread three times in rage/waiting/can't take it). And because the board is split in 2, good posts have to work twice as hard to knock out the bad posts. Imagine how long (not long at all) a stupid thread would last on a combined board, as the good threads continued to generate response after response while poor threads got no response and sunk to the bottom. But with the board split as it is, the site owners have guaranteed any thread, no matter how little merit, nearly two full days of page 1 attention (note that the bottom thread on ORG goes back to 5/28, Sun Deck post goes back to 5/29).

Two current threads in ORG emphasize the point I was trying to make here. In two cases there are ORG threads created to talk about Sun Deck threads (this happens in reverse as well). And the two groups/classes of people can't discuss with one another. The ORG poster starts a thread to ask a question he can't post in the Sun Deck but the author of the Sun Deck post can't respond in ORG. Seems so silly and counter-productive, with due respect to the site owners, as I've said on numerous occasions.

With many posters and a little bit of moderation, I am convinced that worthwhile threads will be replied to and thus stay up while bad threads go off the first page. Unfortunately the two tier system frustrates peoples ability to have those type of conversations (as I've described above) and gives weak threads longer play by cutting in half the number of posts in a particular forum (increasing the time it takes to move a bad thread off the first page).

[FlightRick]

I don't understand the complaining about stupid threads. The internet is fantastic for 1000 reasons, one of them is that true market principles apply to thread creations. If the thread is worthless, it quickly plunges to the bottom as superior postings generate interest and discussion and stay at the top.

If "true market principles" applies, then there'd be two major differences with how the internet operates versus the way it does now:

(1) You'd require "capital" (i.e. ideas, intellignece) before launching your "start-up" (thread). The internet does not require you have either. Any fricking clown of subnormal intelligence has the same exact tools and opportunities as somebody who might have something worthwhile to contribute. On the internets, EVERYbody has rich parents who'll loan you $500,000 to buy your own bar, as long as it keeps you from moving back in with them. Viva la unjustified senses of entitlement!

(2) Once somebody failed miserably with their first "start-up" (thread), they'd fade away and take a long time before they mustered up the resources to try another one. If they ever tried another one. Not so here, where you can try, fail, and generally make an ass of yourself in public as many times per day as you want with pointless threadstartery (and pointless posting of vapid replies), without the looming threat of bankruptcy or other public humiliation.

If fact, the way things are structured now, posting is incentivized ("you must have X number of posts before receiving benefit Y"). With no negative incentivization for Idiotic Posting (be it a loosening of the rules to allow for outright mockery and personal insults of dumb posts/posters, or some sort of top-down moderation in which awful threads/posts are deleted and users suspended), the motivation for members to police the quality of their own posts/threads is greatly reduced, too. So say hello to even more poorly-punctuated one-line stupidfests that contain more emoticons than cogent thoughts! And granted, at some level "market forces" will move those threads down the page.... but it hardly matters when there are enough of them present that they kind of gum up the works and make it tougher to find the quality than it needs to be.

All that said: this is not a new problem, it's not unique to RedsZone, and it's not gotten all that worse just because they changed the rules a week ago. So I'm not sure it bears too much further discussion. And if it does, isn't that what the "Comments and Feedback" section is for?

[RedEye]

So say hello to even more poorly-punctuated one-line stupidfests that contain more emoticons than cogent thoughts! And granted, at some level "market forces" will move those threads down the page.... but it hardly matters when there are enough of them present that they kind of gum up the works and make it tougher to find the quality than it needs to be.

What a great sentence and a great post in general!

I also just realized that I should have obeyed my own instructions and read the entire thread before posting my (hackneyed and less well-articulated) thoughts on the subject. Oh well... at least I didn't start a whole new thread!

[Sean_CaseyRules]

I don't understand the complaining about stupid threads. The internet is fantastic for 1000 reasons, one of them is that true market principles apply to thread creations. If the thread is worthless, it quickly plunges to the bottom as superior postings generate interest and discussion and stay at the top. If your gripe is that other threads are getting in the way of quality, this one does that too.

That's why I have little understanding of the structured hierarchy at this site. Rather than allowing good posts and bad posts to be rated by market principles on one collective board, with the good posts staying up top and the bad ones getting pushed away, this site relies on an inefficient popularity contest. While the goal is to have the highest quality posts (and don't get me wrong, the site owners can do whatever they want), the irony is that it forces good conversation into multiple places, bars people from responding to posts in ORG where they have something of value to say (or forcing the creation of a parallel Sun Deck thread), relegates strong posters to second class status, and generally stifles the quality of the site.

Its not that at all I don't think. I think he is trying to help people who want to make it up to the ORG by helping them with their posting and maybe show something to Boss or whoever that they can contriubute good posts to the site.

[Natty Redlocks]

I don't understand the complaining about stupid threads. The internet is fantastic for 1000 reasons, one of them is that true market principles apply to thread creations. If the thread is worthless, it quickly plunges to the bottom as superior postings generate interest and discussion and stay at the top. If your gripe is that other threads are getting in the way of quality, this one does that too.

That's why I have little understanding of the structured hierarchy at this site. Rather than allowing good posts and bad posts to be rated by market principles on one collective board, with the good posts staying up top and the bad ones getting pushed away, this site relies on an inefficient popularity contest. While the goal is to have the highest quality posts (and don't get me wrong, the site owners can do whatever they want), the irony is that it forces good conversation into multiple places, bars people from responding to posts in ORG where they have something of value to say (or forcing the creation of a parallel Sun Deck thread), relegates strong posters to second class status, and generally stifles the quality of the site.

I really like this post, just because I really like it any time someone talks about letting market principles do their thing. But the reality is that the guys who run the site have a vision for it, and when they just left people alone to do as they pleased, the site got away from that vision, so it's not difficult to understand why they did it.

Ironically, between you and FlightRick, this thread contains some of the highest quality posts on the entire site right now.