Master Index of Archived Threads


CPF Membership Discussion Thread

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 11:11 AM

Competition for Mets/baseball fan's internet time is at an all-time high. With everyone starting a blog, audio and video being available online, dozens of web-sites - we haven't grown a bit and in fact I guess we've shrunk a tad. Anyone have any ideas to generate some new interest in the joint? (and ya'll are stuck with me so no one stuff a "get rid of KC" in the sug- gestion box or similar type messages please)

metirish Apr 19 2007 11:26 AM

I just did a Google search for .... NY Mets message boards NY Mets fan forums NY Mets fan forum message boards and got through five pages and still didn't see a link to this place....maybe I missed it but I don't think so.... It would help when people do a search that it points them here in the first few pages.

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 11:33 AM

Nice logical start. Not sure how to rectify that, but you're on the money. It ain't on pages 6-10 either.

iramets Apr 19 2007 11:37 AM

Get rid of all these nasty, disagreeable pricks who start arguments and criticize others' points. I bet if you got rid of even one of these assholes for a few months, your subscription rates would skyrocket and never come down.

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 12:06 PM

Forum tone and some bickering are factors for sure. I'm as guilty of that as anyone hence my "you're stuck with me" disclaimer. It's not just that though. Some have opined that it's become boring, stale and too predictable as well. Let's look forward instead of back and come up with some ideas.

metirish Apr 19 2007 12:09 PM

Why not place an AD on the front page of UMDB.

Edgy DC Apr 19 2007 12:30 PM

UMDB, MbtN, and FaFiF all link to us, although not in any particularly highlighted form. Not that we deserve as much. But yes, we have to grow.

Willets Point Apr 19 2007 12:34 PM

Everyone pledge to find one friend/family member/co-worker/random guy sitting next to you at Shea/on the subway who is a Mets fan and currently not posting here and invite him/her to join in and participate.

iramets Apr 19 2007 12:46 PM

Well, to be constructive for a millisecond, you might reach out to peeps who TRY the CPF and decide "Nahh, not for me." I won't know how typical this is until I speak to him, but my Branch Rickey guy (whose technical difficulties aren't the CPF's fault) might have some insight into why he didn't post here, despite my leading him (not literally) by the hand to do so. I suspect others might have even more to say. And of course I'm a freak of nature, so this is meaningless, but I enjoy the give and take, the disagreements about philosophy and strategy and such, and get bored with this place only when everyone's in "We all agree and love each other and never say anything bad about anyone because the world's always sunny and people are all so lovely and everyone's right about every opinion they hold, even the opinions flatly contradictinmg each other and themselves" mode, but hey that's just me. Arguing is fun, and especially so on-line, where I dont have to breathe your beery breath.

ABG Apr 19 2007 12:48 PM

Viral marketing. Someone make an immensely popular video, put it on youtube and then have it close with "cranepoolforum.net" Done. My consulting fee is $27,000.

Centerfield Apr 19 2007 01:07 PM

I've mentioned this before, but I think the longer "all-purpose" threads deters membership. Someone clicking around for the first time will read a thread that is a page or two long, but if too many threads go four pages plus, I suspect that is too much time for them to invest. That, and an FAQ would probably help. What is Shaefer? What is Triple Happiness, who are the MFY's etc.

Willets Point Apr 19 2007 01:08 PM

Good point. Those 50 page threads at SOSH have made me not want to post there because I don't want to read through all that to see if what I want to say was said before.

HahnSolo Apr 19 2007 01:22 PM

Suggestions for the home page to make it a little more inviting to a first-time user: - Something big that says "Mets" - be it an illustration or photo or graphic. Seems like there is room in the upper left, and I think I read somewhere that most web users are first drawn to the upper left when visiting a site. - A descriptive line about what the site is. right now it says The Crane Pool Forum cranepoolforum.com (.net) That doesn't really tell anybody what goes on here. I can't think of one right now, but it could be something like, "Happy Recaps, Schaefer points, and all things Mets discussed here."

ABG Apr 19 2007 01:28 PM

We can be as messengers, communicating the word of the CPF across the internet. Post far and wide (but not at the expense of posting here), and when you do, put the link in your signature.

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 01:28 PM

We've stayed away from making it too Metly up top on purpose but perhaps a little too much so. Getting the word Mets and message board and discussion up would probably help with the lack of google link in addition to what HS says.

Nymr83 Apr 19 2007 01:42 PM

Why do we need new members exactly? I like this place as is, though I'd like to have back some people who seem to have left (Valadius) and I'd like some of our infrequent posters around more (Zvon)

Johnny Dickshot Apr 19 2007 01:51 PM

I'd like to hear more about why you all joined, who you were before you did, etc., and then maybe try and replicate that because there are many who were her from the start. Like Mr. Solo: How & why did you get involved? Or did we know you before? Other things that ought be considered. 1. S-l-o-w performance. In today's fast-moving Intranets, nobody's got the patience for a slow pageload. I know most of these issues have been worked out but who knows how many potentials left the building before then? 2. Is the regisitration too ornery? I sometimes wade into new posting territory but I like to remain discrete until I know whether I like it or not. I definitely don't like sending strangers emails even if they invite me to. I know there's an issue with creepy crawlers and such too. 3. Does it have any meaning? the CPF is all well and good for those who understand it but I'd imagine an outsider would find it more clubby than inviting. (and maybe pompous and elitist too, nttawwt). YSG probably has zero interest in this, but re-naming the room "the Ultimate Mets discussion board" and more closely aligning those brands' look and feel would probably help big-time. 4. Failing that, maybe creating some more culture around it would help. Seems to me successful properties get that way by doing their narrowly focused thing well: Heals OWNED the scoopy news thing if that's what your bag was; NYFS boasts the dorkiest minorleague fans (plus had spring training photos when no one else did); MetsBlog has become the best at aggregating news as it actually happens, etc etc. What does cpf offer/do better/stand for that others don't? Not much really. Perhaps soliciting more attention/participation in events like the song parody contest or Schaefer POTG, and/or creating a few more like it, helps some. 5. Failing that maybe we fold the tents and agree to colonize a better forum? That might be better than the gradual decay, if that's really what's going on here.

sharpie Apr 19 2007 02:00 PM

Asking present members to recruit new members doesn't work, at least for me. Other than Lenny Harris' foray into the Band Ladder Challenge, I like it that this a community of people who I otherwise don't know except through this board. I do think making it easy to post is important. I wouldn't want to send an email in order to join. Some blogs have that simple math thingee where you have to answer what 7 + 4 is in order to post each time in order to keep out spammers. That might not be a good idea here, though, since who wants to add when all you want to say is "and Green singles to right!" Since companies often merge to get bigger, I think JD's idea of a UMD tie might be a good idea, with Yancy's blessing o'course.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 19 2007 02:05 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: YSG probably has zero interest in this, but re-naming the room "the Ultimate Mets discussion board" and more closely aligning those brands' look and feel would probably help big-time. The thought hadn't occurred to me. It might be something to think about. And it probably would drive people here. Johnny Dickshot wrote: What does cpf offer/do better/stand for that others don't? Not much really. Perhaps soliciting more attention/participation in events like the song parody contest or Schaefer POTG, and/or creating a few more like it, helps some. This IS something I've thought about. I currently have Schaefer results appearing on the UMDB box scores for 2006 and 2007 but they're at the bottom of the page and easily overlooked. Edgy had suggested adding a photo of the top vote-getter and some additional text. I liked the idea but haven't acted on it yet. Johnny Dickshot wrote: Failing that maybe we fold the tents and agree to colonize a better forum? That might be better than the gradual decay, if that's really what's going on here. I suspect that if this place were to fall apart I'd get out of the posting business. I never posted anywhere before I came here and I don't know if I'd care to join a new group. If we're fated to become a small niche group, then that's not great, but it's not terrible either.

metirish Apr 19 2007 02:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 19 2007 02:18 PM

Ultimate Mets discussion board"....great name,it was by pure luck that I found the old ezboard,was posting on the ballonNot board with a 56K dial up,no fun was that,did a ezboard search and found you guys....I have thought about inviting a few people here but have been hesitant,I think mainly because they are people that I think would not post here much... While new members would be cool I would hate to see this place over run with new people .

SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 02:18 PM

ABG wrote: We can be as messengers, communicating the word of the CPF across the internet. Post far and wide (but not at the expense of posting here), and when you do, put the link in your signature. FWIW I've mentioned cranepoolforum.com in other peep's KTE's Internet Hub threads, although to be fair it's just the Marlins board, NYYFans.com and the Reds boards, the Reds one is actually where I got the idea for the post down in Permanent Links listing various forums.

Willets Point Apr 19 2007 02:26 PM

I think at peak we've had about 40 active posters here at one time (right now we're probably down to about 20-25). If we could get back to that or maybe up to 50-60 active posters it would make a big difference without necessarily having the place flooded with newbies that overwhelm the vibe. I like a diversity of ideas and opinions, and yes even (cordial) arguments. Right now there's not much being said at all by anyone and a lot of it is pretty generic stuff like news reports or IGT's that read like a game summary on ESPN. And sharpie if we did each invite one person you'd have 24 new strangers to talk with.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 19 2007 02:27 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]YSG probably has zero interest in this, but re-naming the room "the Ultimate Mets discussion board" and more closely aligning those brands' look and feel would probably help big-time. The thought hadn't occurred to me. It might be something to think about. And it probably would drive people here. I'm encouraged that you don't completely hate this idea. You know, all it might take is a few design changes on either or both ends (probably more here than there*). The board itself could keep the same management & all, it'd just be a matter of making them look and "feel" alike. You already do it with the archives. I could stumble onto a cpf archive page without ever having seen the cpf and recognize the UMDB feel to it. The "Cranepool" name could continue; it'd just be the "the baseball forum" section of the "UMDF"). *--Though I would suggest "maximum impact" could come from a simultaneous re-design of both, since I know you said recently you were considering a "new look" for the umdb. This might also better promote the UMDB's many additions & functionalities even if you don't add a co-branded messageboard.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 19 2007 02:37 PM

A "new look" is something I've thought about but don't see happening any time soon. The easiest integration (talking hypothetically) would be a link in the black menu bar on the UMDB that would say "Discussion Forum" and would link here. The top of the CPF pages would/could then be changed so that it looks somewhat seamless. You know, the MBTN could get in on this too. I can think of two reasons I'd be reluctant to do this: 1. I do collect advertising revenue from the UMDB. Not enough to make a profit, but enough to pay for all the expenses. I think that as long as none of the ads ran on forum pages I'd be okay. But advertisers don't want to have their banner on a page that has a thread titled "Willie is a Fucking Idiot" and stuff like that. 2. I'm pretty incognito on the UMDB. There's nothing about "me" at all, while here there is such stuff. And I don't want this place to become a place where people vent about why their memory of Bob Apodaca wasn't posted or some such nonsense.

HahnSolo Apr 19 2007 02:51 PM

]I'd like to hear more about why you all joined, who you were before you did, etc., and then maybe try and replicate that because there are many who were her from the start. Like Mr. Solo: How & why did you get involved? Or did we know you before? I joined almost two years ago. I don't know how I discovered the place (probably from a link or a search engine). I lurked for quite a while to get a feel of the place, and when I thought this would be a cool place to post, I went ahead and did. My first post was in a trivia thread about the 1982 Mets amateur draft. ]3. Does it have any meaning? the CPF is all well and good for those who understand it but I'd imagine an outsider would find it more clubby than inviting. (and maybe pompous and elitist too, nttawwt). I didn't find that at all. For me this was the first Met discussion board I found and stuck with it. If it were clubby and elitist, I would have delurked and not come back. I don't post all that often and I'm usually not at my computer to take part in IGTs, but I also don't feel a lot of pressure to post more, which is cool. As far as some other suggestions: I would keep Crane Pool Forum as the name of the site and add Ultimate Mets Discussion Board as sort of the sub-title. CPF gives it a little personality--I wouldn't want to lose that. I like Centerfield's idea of a faq. It took me a while to pick up on what Triple Happiness meant. But I'm slow.

DocTee Apr 19 2007 03:04 PM

Me likey as is. Nothing wrong with the small membership, so long as it's quality. I found this after visiting the UMDB a few years back. As a transplanted NYer it fills a void in my life, keeping me informed about the Mets and MLB. A FAQ is a great idea, since I ws clueless about LOOGY's for, like, ever. I'm an infrequent-ish poster who has little interest in song parodies or other ephemeral stuff, but read those posts because I appreciate the care and effort that goes into composing them. I worry that a spate of newbies would ruin what is--generally--a good thing.

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 03:09 PM

We're taking the name of this forum to our graves, fellas, it ain't changin'.

iramets Apr 19 2007 03:21 PM

How would having a "membership drive" season go over? Say April 1-May 31st, where you bring down the barriers of needing to see newbies' vaccination records and the requisite note from their moms (and risk a ton of spammers for those weeks or months)* plus during those months we place an outsized banner on the UMDB and MBTN and other trusting fools willing to risk infection for the sake of the good ol' CPF, saying "Discussion board! Free soda if you sign up NOW!!! This means YOU" How about a "Newbie of the Month" contest for that period? I also volunteer to quit the CPF if you really think "Willie is an Idiot" threads drives potential newbs away. I cant see it, but I'l be glad to get off the CPF for a few weeks or months, if you really think that will help. Notice I stayed off for several months, and quiet for a few more, and your membership did not suddenly grow like kudzu, but if you think it will help, I'm gone (at least temporarily). I also found a friend who wishes to join this afternoon, purely coincidental. * easy enough when I'm not the one keeping the Fora spam-free, I know

Johnny Dickshot Apr 19 2007 03:27 PM

I think it goes somewhat beyond just asking to people to join.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 19 2007 03:36 PM

Yes, there's getting them to join and getting them to stay. I don't object to "Willie is an Idiot" by the way, Ira, if you're responding to what I wrote above. It was "Willie is a Fucking Idiot" that I would see as a problem between a much stronger linkage between here and the UMDB. But that would be my problem, not yours. I wouldn't suggest we start self-censoring around here. This forum has been pretty free-wheeling and that shouldn't change.

SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 03:43 PM

Kid Carsey wrote: We're taking the name of this forum to our graves, fellas, it ain't changin'. Could be an addendum name, CranePool Forum: Mets and other stuff!

Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 03:48 PM

Yeah, it was brought up somewhere above. A better "description" is a good idea for informative and search engine spider reasons.

SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 03:52 PM

Willets Point wrote: Good point. Those 50 page threads at SOSH have made me not want to post there because I don't want to read through all that to see if what I want to say was said before. To each their own, but I actually like the 10 plus page IGT, it kind of feels like you are watching intently with friends at someone's house, where you are watching every pitch and commenting on every play. Oh sure there may be side discussions and some fun going on, but the focus is on what you are watching. While the slower paced threads here which stretch to 3 or 4 pages (and generally thats due to large Kaboom images) feel like watching a game at a sports bar. That kind of atmosphere lends itself to looking up at the game every so often while you are chatting about other things, and before you know it entire half innings have flown by. But like I said, to each their own, and that is kind of why I've been shying away from posting in IGTs this season. I do have a tendancy to go with the PBP style, which I know is annoying to those on this board.

SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 03:55 PM

="HahnSolo"] ]I like Centerfield's idea of a faq. It took me a while to pick up on what Triple Happiness meant. Nobody asked me, but I could whip up an FAQ for this place. Be a good thing to have with all the acronyms and such, and a history of why we use references to beers no longer brewed. Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 04:06 PM My suggestion for the FAQ's is for us to build a thread and then I'll pluck the stuff from there and build a page. Since you volunteered, please start one asap. SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 04:18 PM Should I start the thread in Permanent Links? Seems like that is where the FAQ should go as that is where the "Who Is Who" thread resides. Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 04:25 PM Nah, do it the NBF. It's for information gathering purposes, not for having a thread somewhere purposes. Didn't LF/FK work up a rather extensive listing sometime back? Maybe it's archived or he has it in a file on a computer somewhere. Edgy DC Apr 19 2007 04:33 PM Let's elect some new adminstrative blood. Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 04:36 PM Four (sometimes five) isn't enough? Frayed Knot Apr 19 2007 04:43 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 19 2007 04:49 PM In all, I don't mind a small-ish board but things get stale w/o new blood every once in a while and I certainly don't want to discourage newbies. If we insist on closing the door behind us the only way to go is down. Plus nothing we do is going to suddenly cause a flood of outsiders who are going to totally change the nature of the board. And it they do who says change is bad? Various thoughts on things already mentioned: - I've worried (and asked) more than once about the possibility that the registration process is, if not specifically keeping people out, then at least discouraging them from joining up. Maybe with Ira's friend it was simple lack of computer-ease, but there was that one guy complaining a while back that he received an immediate "Banned" message and maybe others have run into other problems or roadblocks that we don't know about. And, if nothing else, the e-mail seems like a 'ya gotta ask permission first' kind of step. - I've also tried to nudge folks away from the multi-purpose/multi-page threads - although mainly because I think they're boring and stifle creativity not because I was thinking about lurkers. I'm not talking about the IGTs that Rogers mentions (those are the perfect places IMO for having one seemless thread) but other threads that occasionally intimidate folks into thinking that there are strict rules about where & how & when to post. Somehow this place which has few rules (aside from our goofy PotG & year-end votes) has gotten the rep of a place that has many. - Better and/or more obvious links to and from other sites is the easy answer but of course I don't run any of those so it's easy for me to say. btw, why don't we have a link [u:2d2dbbfa89]To[/u:2d2dbbfa89] FaFiF up top here next to UMDB & MBtN? - and, yeah, the main page could probably look more inviting and/or Met-related but I have no suggestions as to how. Other than that, I've always just assumed that people don't like us elitist pig-swine very much ... but I'm used to that by now. Frayed Knot Apr 19 2007 04:47 PM ]Didn't LF/FK work up a rather extensive listing sometime back? Maybe it's archived or he has it in a file on a computer somewhere Not in years. I actually wrote the majority of the one for the old MoFo that still existed there (hopelessly out of date) until very recently - but that was the only time. Kid Carsey Apr 19 2007 04:48 PM Re-thinking, I think Edgy just slammed me. I'm gonna work on a few things and stay out of the discussion until Monday. Edgy DC Apr 19 2007 04:56 PM Nope. I slammed myself. It's hardly a secret that homey is burned out. SteveJRogers Apr 19 2007 05:03 PM Frayed Knot wrote: ]Didn't LF/FK work up a rather extensive listing sometime back? Maybe it's archived or he has it in a file on a computer somewhere Not in years. I actually wrote the majority of the one for the old MoFo that still existed there (hopelessly out of date) until very recently - but that was the only time. Ahh, too bad, I was hoping to update it this summer, but never got around to saving it on my PC before their DB crashed. Maybe Joe or someone there still has it. Tell you how old it was, there was no mention of Scott Kazmir who has long since been dubbed "Jesus" based on the amount of talk about the trade and it's aftermath on the board. Even to this day it ranks as the worse in Met history in some poster's eyes based soley on Kazmir's potential. Also there were several references to long since gone posters such as Edgy and Baseball/Cookie Mom so it really was in a need of an overhaul! Frayed Knot Apr 19 2007 05:13 PM I'm guessing that was done in 2000 sometime. I'm sure they made some additions since then but apparently not many and it wasn't accompanied by a purge of old material. It was started the same way as is being suggested here: by taking suggestions via a thread and editing it into a usable form so I don't want to take all credit for it, I was just the self-appointed editor. Gwreck Apr 19 2007 10:21 PM I wound up joining the CPF mostly due to the positive experience I had with having a very active role in an online group which discussed the music of a major rock artist. Through that group I wound up meeting quite a few people who remain good friends and countless others who I inevitably wind up seeing at various concerts here and there. For years I didn't feel a particular need to do Mets "stuff" online because living in NY presents plenty of opportunity to stay abreast of what's happening. I will admit that it took me (literally) years of lurking before I ever registered and posted. I believe I started reading in the middle of the 2002 season, and I finally registered and posted right after the EZ Board crash - so about June 2005. I can't remember how I found the place, although I suspect it may well have been through MBTN. I could recognize right from the start that this was a community dedicated to serious, intelligent discussion of the Mets, and that's what kept me coming back. Figuring out all of the little quirks of the place -- the inside jokes, the funny acronyms, the manner of discussion, what the deal with the rankings was -- was an enjoyable challenge to me. I can look back fondly on the realization that I "got" the place enough to make me want to contribute. I do realize that this is probably not the typical response but I cannot stress enough that what sets Cranepool apart is how intelligent the level of discourse here is. I say that not to disparage other places -- I'm sure there are plenty of smart people there too -- but perhaps the best way of describing what sets us apart is our impressive signal-to-noise ratio. Simply put, I just don't see dumb people here posting. IMO, that sets CPF apart from most online groups/forums (of all topics). Nymr83 Apr 19 2007 10:40 PM yeah, another thing i like here is that threads don't disappear like lightning and there arent 50 threads on a topic (with the exception of that one time where we seemed to have a half dozen "manny to the mets?" threads) thats very important in being able to have a discussion. Benjamin Grimm Apr 20 2007 06:33 AM ="Gwreck"]I do realize that this is probably not the typical response but I cannot stress enough that what sets Cranepool apart is how intelligent the level of discourse here is. I say that not to disparage other places -- I'm sure there are plenty of smart people there too -- but perhaps the best way of describing what sets us apart is our impressive signal-to-noise ratio. Simply put, I just don't see dumb people here posting. IMO, that sets CPF apart from most online groups/forums (of all topics). There is much wisdom in what Gwreck says. Ideally, if we got some new blood it wouldn't be much more than a dozen or so regulars and maybe another dozen or so irregulars. I don't spend any time on other Mets boards, but I sometimes do follow a link back from the UMDB referrer logs so I have seen what some of our "competitors" look like. And there really is a lot of noise. I wouldn't want to see that happen here. I especially hate when the signature lines are full of colors and graphics and completely overwhelm the actual posts. Sites like those are simply unreadable. LET'S GO METS! =red]ALL THE WAY IN 2007! =green]YANKEES SUCK! Frayed Knot Apr 20 2007 10:33 AM I've mentioned before that I'm not a big on having a lot of rules here, but a ban on overly large avatars and cluttered multi-media sig lines that turn some boards into looking like electronic kindergartens (see example above) is one of the rules that I'd not only get behind but insist on. holychicken Apr 21 2007 07:59 AM Hey guys, I am doing my part to increase membership. I am inviting a guy from another board I post on who seems like he would fit in here. Just thought I would give a heads up so you aren't too mean to him just because I brought him along. :) silverdsl Apr 21 2007 09:38 PM I'm not sure the opinion of a yucky Yankee fan counts for much, but even though I have less time for posting on forums these days I try to stop by at least once a day. However, I'm definitely posting less than I used to. I'm not sure exactly why but more than in the past I worry that something that I say is going to be misinterpreted because I'm a Yankee fan. There's also been times that I've come here specifically looking for what y'all are thinking on some topics, and I've had trouble finding those discussions. I don't always have the time to poke around a lot of threads where the title isn't always crystal clear as to what the topic is or it's many pages of discussion. If that's a problem for me who has been coming by regularly for years, then it's likely a problem for others. In addition, while I think the lengthy, multi-page threads have their use, it gives the impression to those who stop by that a forum isn't very busy when there's only a limited amount of active threads, even if there's a lot of discussion within those threads. People are drawn to forums where it seems like there's a lot of activity because they feel they need to jump in with everyone else. Rockin' Doc Apr 22 2007 06:29 AM Silver, it is always a pleasure to have you stop by and visit with us. I only wish you could post more often. I think it is good to hear the views of intelligent fans from other teams such as yourself (Yankess) and Annie (Astros). I do understand, however, that this can not be the easiest place for you to be an active member when most here despise your chosen team and refer to most of the fans as being arrogant bandwagon idiots (or worse). I admire your calm resiliency over the years and hope you will continue to contribute to the Crane Pool as your schedule allows. metsmarathon Apr 22 2007 10:22 PM overly clever thread titles can be a hindrance at times... ABG Apr 24 2007 09:37 AM One of the problems I see is that people who come here ostensibly are comign to discuss the current state of the team. If you look at the main page right now, there are 25 threads. And ONE (the 22nd thread down) is on the current state of the team (Ramon Castro). The rest are devoted to game threads, player of the game polls, minor league team threads, multiple threads about other teams, and endless endless endless minutae. Its actually kept me from engaging, because I frankly don't give a crap who the 243rd Met to appear was. Edgy DC Apr 24 2007 10:06 AM Good point. Start a thread on the loop in David Wright's swing, the albatross that is Julio Franco, the awarding of Carlos Beltran as Player of the Week, whether you think the ambiguous roles in the bullpen will be cleared up. Everybody's got to take their own initiative in developing this place's culuture. Willets Point Apr 24 2007 10:13 AM Yeah, if you want a thread on x, start a thread on x. Waiting for someone else to start on for you is a no-win. ABG Apr 24 2007 10:37 AM Willets Point wrote: Yeah, if you want a thread on x, start a thread on x. Waiting for someone else to start on for you is a no-win. Its not a question of me starting the thread, its a question of the appearance of the board to casual viewers. So I start a thread on David Wright. History shows me that it will get buried under an onslaguth of POTGs, IGTs and minutae-related threads. The complaint isn't that there aren't enough threads on the current Mets, but that they get no play. As a casual viewer, I'd wonder what the hell this board is about. ABG Apr 24 2007 10:39 AM Seriously. Let's say I'm a well-read, intelligent Mets fan who just wants to talk about what's going on with the team and I happen by. Where's the thread on the main page for me to post in? Willets Point Apr 24 2007 10:45 AM Kind of a chicken or the egg situation. I see it as once active members like yourself are now reluctant to start and continue those types of thread and thus the first page is dominated by IGT's, POTG's and fluff, not the other way around. ABG Apr 24 2007 10:51 AM Willets Point wrote: Kind of a chicken or the egg situation. I see it as once active members like yourself are now reluctant to start and continue those types of thread and thus the first page is dominated by IGT's, POTG's and fluff, not the other way around. Well, my reluctance is based in the fact that experience has taught me any discussion of the current Mets will end up in a pissing match with insults hurling. Come to think of it, maybe the trend towards simple, non-controversial things like POTG polls, "Who was the 234th Met to single?" threads, etc is a (over)reaction to past issues. Edgy DC Apr 24 2007 10:56 AM Yeah, if you don't assert yourself, I can't help. This place will reflect the most assertive folks. Gwreck Apr 24 2007 11:11 AM In fairness, I've seen a fair bit of meaningful discussion within the IGTs as well. Also, for what it's worth, right now there aren't exactly a bevvy of interesting topics going on with the team: -No roster changes happening -Starting pitching is performing very well -Bullpen is great, Sunday blowup notwithstanding -etc. metirish Apr 24 2007 11:17 AM Sounds like we need a scandal. ABG Apr 24 2007 11:19 AM ="Gwreck"]In fairness, I've seen a fair bit of meaningful discussion within the IGTs as well. Also, for what it's worth, right now there aren't exactly a bevvy of interesting topics going on with the team: -No roster changes happening -Starting pitching is performing very well -Bullpen is great, Sunday blowup notwithstanding -etc. The problem is that the discussion IS happening in those threads. Again, I'll use the newbie argument, since this thread is about broadening the appeal of the forum. If you happen by here, are you going to dig through an IGT thread (if you even know what that means) to discuss the team? I'll throw out a proposal: Move all the IGTs and POTG threads to separate specific forum, even while the games are going on. They've been kept on the main board so that they get play--but I think the problem is they are getting too much play at the expense of broader topics that would appeal to new posters. Post a note on the top of the page inviting everyone to check out the new place for IGTs. soupcan Apr 24 2007 11:28 AM ="ABG"]I'll throw out a proposal: Move all the IGTs and POTG threads to separate specific forum, even while the games are going on. They've been kept on the main board so that they get play--but I think the problem is they are getting too much play at the expense of broader topics that would appeal to new posters. Post a note on the top of the page inviting everyone to check out the new place for IGTs. I'll second that emotion. Willets Point Apr 24 2007 11:32 AM No way. There are already too many dead-as-a-doornail subfora here. I personally like this place best when everything -- including non-baseball stuff -- was discussed all in one forum. Then, no threads were overlooked by not being in the popular forum and discussions and ideas bounced off one another in a fun and intelligent way. I just cannot support further subdividing and compartmentalizing the Crane Pool because I think it just leads to stagnation. ABG Apr 24 2007 11:37 AM Willets Point wrote: No way. There are already too many dead-as-a-doornail subfora here. I personally like this place best when everything -- including non-baseball stuff -- was discussed all in one forum. Then, no threads were overlooked by not being in the popular forum and discussions and ideas bounced off one another in a fun and intelligent way. I just cannot support further subdividing and compartmentalizing the Crane Pool because I think it just leads to stagnation. I think by its very nature an IGT/POTG forum would be active when you wanted it to be (during and immediately after games) and inactive when you wanted it to be (all other times). Right now, the IGT and POTG threads are canibalizing discussion and taking up the board. It's a simple fix that works on other forums. Frayed Knot Apr 24 2007 11:38 AM ]The problem is that the discussion IS happening in those threads (IGTs) ... They've been kept on the main board so that they get play--but I think the problem is they are getting too much play at the expense of broader topics that would appeal to new posters. This has been part of my ongoing complaint: that folks here are reluctant to open a new thread when a topic comes up in say an IGT or elsewhere - acting as if there's some sort of thread protocol preventing it. But there isn't. No one should feel that they need permission to open any thread on any topic they want rather than searching for the best existing thread to find out where what you want to talk about "belongs". You people have permission to do pretty much anything you want. We shouldn't need to rearrange topics or open new forums just so folks don't feel they're breaking non-existant rules. ABG Apr 24 2007 11:51 AM Frayed Knot wrote: ]The problem is that the discussion IS happening in those threads (IGTs) ... They've been kept on the main board so that they get play--but I think the problem is they are getting too much play at the expense of broader topics that would appeal to new posters. This has been part of my ongoing complaint: that folks here are reluctant to open a new thread when a topic comes up in say an IGT or elsewhere - acting as if there's some sort of thread protocol preventing it. But there isn't. No one should feel that they need permission to open any thread on any topic they want rather than searching for the best existing thread to find out where what you want to talk about "belongs". You people have permission to do pretty much anything you want. We shouldn't need to rearrange topics or open new forums just so folks don't feel they're breaking non-existant rules. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. People naturally do two things: 1-Gravitate towards the main board 2-Post within the thread where they see a topic. Lets not fight nature and expect people to pull out a topic for a thread and start a new one in the same forum. If threadworthy discussion comes up in an IGT in a separate forum, someone's much more likely to post a new thread on the main board where it will get seen. I'd also suggest locking gamethreads after a certain amount of time passes. Want to go back and talk about something that happened in a particular game? Start a thread on the main board! See how that works? Willets Point Apr 24 2007 11:57 AM I could move IGT's to the IGT archive the morning after the game. I'd have no problem with that. POTG's are a different animal as Yancy has had trouble with people participating at times and visibility for POTG threads is generally helpful for that. I would defer to Yancy on that issue. Benjamin Grimm Apr 24 2007 12:01 PM I'd prefer to keep them active. I DO, however, move them into the POTG forum within a day of the voting closing. So there are never any more than four active at any given time. Willets Point Apr 24 2007 12:05 PM That's true, you're very good about that. And that reminds me I need to vote in last night's game. metirish Apr 24 2007 12:11 PM They should stay active at Yancy's discretion ,even though I watched the games over the weekend I didn't get to vote for most of them until yesterday and today. Gwreck Apr 24 2007 12:28 PM Willets Point wrote: No way. There are already too many dead-as-a-doornail subfora here. The book club could probably be shut down. But aren't almost all of the other subfora archival stuff? I count 10 archives, plus rankings and song parody contest forums, which are really archival as well. I don't see that many extra subfora that aren't archival. Willets Point Apr 24 2007 12:34 PM Gwreck wrote: The book club could probably be shut down. Working on that as soon as I get approval from the other admins. Frayed Knot Apr 24 2007 02:04 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 24 2007 02:32 PM ]People naturally do two things: 1-Gravitate towards the main board 2-Post within the thread where they see a topic. Lets not fight nature and expect people to pull out a topic for a thread and start a new one in the same forum. If threadworthy discussion comes up in an IGT in a separate forum, someone's much more likely to post a new thread on the main board where it will get seen Mainly I'm just against creating more rules - and telling folks that they need to go to this sub-forum if they want to discuss the ongoing game but then back to the main one in order to discuss some topic that results from it just creates more confusion IMO. I also don't see how it solves anything. I have no problem stowing the PotGs as soon as they're complete (that apparently already happens) but the IGTs are living breathing threads that should be allowed to die out when they run out of steam. My only complaint in the whole process is that sometimes we get too married to them and that somehow a vibe developed around here that this place has strict posting rules which causes peeps to be leery to start something on their own. I don't get quite how & why that happened but (echoing Edgy above) I feel like the good witch in 'Wizard of Oz' telling folks that they've had the power to fix things all along. Edgy DC Apr 24 2007 02:06 PM By the way, good posting day. sharpie Apr 24 2007 02:30 PM I don't have any problem with the subfora. Don't shut down the book club or the Red Light forum or any of them. They are useful for keeping stuff out of what seem to be the two main fora. metirish Apr 24 2007 02:33 PM Wasn't the Book Club thread in the NBF before?,I used to remember it being popular at one time. Willets Point Apr 24 2007 02:50 PM ="sharpie"]I don't have any problem with the subfora. Don't shut down the book club or the Red Light forum or any of them. They are useful for keeping stuff out of what seem to be the two main fora. See, there's my question. Why do we want to keep stuff out of the two main fora? Willets Point Apr 24 2007 02:53 PM metirish wrote: Sounds like we need a scandal. Breaking news: Lastings Milledge was caught sleeping with Lisa Loeb. Milledge's current girlfriend Sandra Oh has given him a beatdown and broken his nose and he may have to go on the DL. Kid Carsey Apr 24 2007 06:31 PM Seems like no one agrees on anything re-reading some of this thread. Maybe we should all just start blogs. Edgy DC Apr 24 2007 06:32 PM ABG wrote: One of the problems I see is that people who come here ostensibly are comign to discuss the current state of the team. I come to find footage of Wally Backman at Benihana, but it takes all kinds. Lundy Apr 25 2007 06:01 PM One odd problem that I've seen here is that you have to be logged in to see HTML codes and such. This is fine, but the nice tables that Edgy and others make will look like HTML gibberish to the unregistered newbies. Can it be fixed so that all posts look the same, whether or not you're logged in? Kid Carsey Apr 25 2007 06:25 PM No, but I guess it would be a good question to answer in the FAQ's. A Boy Named Seo Apr 29 2007 02:32 PM I dig the new look up front. Always wondered, why the baby blue as the background color? Is white too bright? The default '[url=http://www.phpbbhacks.com/templatesdemo/index.php?s=1]subSilver[/url]' template in phpBB is really clean and if anything, a little boring. But blue and orange is still present and it doesn't look as Eastery to me. Great work all around. Kid Carsey Apr 29 2007 03:32 PM Thanks. I don't remember how baby blue got settled in to. When I first started experimenting with this we were kinda without a home with ezboard all whacko and it just kinda evolved little by little as I recall. I like the not looking too Metlyness ... I know a lot of people think differently. If anyone would like to make or find pictures, I'll be happy to cycle them every couple of days. I'll probably make a few more too. The only thing I ask is that be exactly 325 x 120. Edgy DC Apr 29 2007 03:56 PM You may remember a tan background at the old place. I initially was working with orange and blue and it was harsh on the eyes, so I tried to work from a more neutral pallette of tans and grays and eggshell off-whites. In expanding our theme, I eventually covered the gray background with tiles of a photo cranes flying across a light blue sky. That light cyan was there for a while and I think triggered Kase to choose a sky blue for this place. Iubitul Apr 29 2007 04:02 PM Kid Carsey wrote: If anyone would like to make or find pictures, I'll be happy to cycle them every couple of days. I'll probably make a few more too. The only thing I ask is that be exactly 325 x 120. This is an offer that more than a few of us will have to take you up on... Iubitul Apr 29 2007 04:03 PM Kase - what's the hex of the background color? A Boy Named Seo Apr 29 2007 04:22 PM 99CCFF I looked it up a bit ago. Iubitul Apr 29 2007 04:36 PM A Boy Named Seo wrote: 99CCFF I looked it up a bit ago. Thanks - I was being lazy... cooby May 06 2007 01:38 PM ="ABG"] ="Gwreck"]In fairness, I've seen a fair bit of meaningful discussion within the IGTs as well. Also, for what it's worth, right now there aren't exactly a bevvy of interesting topics going on with the team: -No roster changes happening -Starting pitching is performing very well -Bullpen is great, Sunday blowup notwithstanding -etc. The problem is that the discussion IS happening in those threads. Again, I'll use the newbie argument, since this thread is about broadening the appeal of the forum. If you happen by here, are you going to dig through an IGT thread (if you even know what that means) to discuss the team? I'll throw out a proposal: Move all the IGTs and POTG threads to separate specific forum, even while the games are going on. They've been kept on the main board so that they get play--but I think the problem is they are getting too much play at the expense of broader topics that would appeal to new posters. Post a note on the top of the page inviting everyone to check out the new place for IGTs. I couldn't agree more. Today is a good example, a lot of good stuff is getting buried by weekend voters. (no offense to them) If you're afraid the POTG and IGT specific forum will be overlooked, simply move it up just below the main Mets thread. It'll get seen by the folks who want to look at it Kid Carsey May 06 2007 02:12 PM I think you're both way off track if you think it's affected if new people post or not. Feel free to bitch about it if you two don't like it, but this started out as a discussion on new members and a lot of it turned into the nit pick thread and spawned a few others. I'm not citing specifics, I don't want revisit all that, and I just started ignoring it and moved on. If people aren't willing to read (& post less) and look at the first page close enough and decide what they want to contribute to and what not ... they can find somewhere else to post. If they haven't been here for three days and are turned off that daily contributors are taking the time to vote and post and whatever and they miss something on page two ... uh, too bad. Go read from where you left off last time. There are unlazy people here who dont post for days and then drag something up from a Thurs on Mon morning because the do just that. It's a message board, not a chat room. (these are my thoughts and do not necessarily express the views of the cpf admin staff or the alledged woof woof dogs we have as pets) cooby May 06 2007 02:19 PM Whatever. I guess it's not worth putting forth ideas here. Kid Carsey May 06 2007 02:24 PM It's not that at all, and you touse have a stone or two in your shoes is the way I see it from over here. If someone is interested in reading and participating, they should be able to adapt like the others. If that means culling an idea or two from an IGT or two, that means you need to take the time to read them. If having someone (like me for example because this is how I sometimes do it) bump three voting threads at a time ... is that a crime? I don't think I'm the one being closed minded here. Nymr83 May 06 2007 02:29 PM ]If people aren't willing to read (& post less) and look at the first page close enough and decide what they want to contribute to and what not ... they can find somewhere else to post. Amen. I hate when people just start posting random crap, especially if there is already a discussion on it. I'd be pissed if the IGTs moved, it would just be stupid to have to go back and forth between forums durig a game if you are in the IGT and also posting other baseball stuff. I wouldn't really care if the POTG threads moved, but i don't see any reason for it. the argument seems to be "we'd get more people if we turned into a generic espn.com message board where threads scroll by too fast to read, everyone starts a new thread to discuss old topics, etc" I don't want to be that board cooby May 06 2007 02:47 PM ="Kid Carsey"]It's not that at all, and you touse have a stone or two in your shoes is the way I see it from over here. If someone is interested in reading and participating, they should be able to adapt like the others. If that means culling an idea or two from an IGT or two, that means you need to take the time to read them. If having someone (like me for example because this is how I sometimes do it) bump three voting threads at a time ... is that a crime? I don't think I'm the one being closed minded here. It was just a friggin suggestion, sorry it was so late. I'll keep my ideas to myself. Kid Carsey May 06 2007 03:12 PM I'll answer the angry reply when this gets to page two to demonstrate how easy it is to read a few days back and catch up. That's really the jist of where I'm going here. Talk to ya Wed or Thurs re: this. metirish May 06 2007 08:44 PM I FAQ link isn't working,at least not for me. iramets May 06 2007 09:09 PM metirish wrote: I FAQ link isn't working,at least not for me. It's a dummy link, I think, for now. Dummy. metirish May 06 2007 09:11 PM Of course that should say "I think the FAQ link isn't working".. Dummy iramets May 07 2007 03:58 AM Isn't "Dummy" a fun word? Dummy, dummy, dummy. You're a dummy. Don't flog the dummy too much. It's a dummy link. Benjamin Grimm May 07 2007 08:11 AM The top banner is still a work in progress. The FAQ link is going to become an actual link. There will also be two additional links added: one for Schaefer voting rules and results, and another for the Archives. Iubitul May 07 2007 08:54 AM iramets wrote: You're a dummy. I heard that in Fred G. Sanford's voice. I watched entirely too much TV in my formative years... Benjamin Grimm May 20 2007 08:49 AM Check out the new and improved Schaefer link on UMDB Mets box scores: http://www.ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=7269 The Schaefer box will appear on each box score as soon as the votes for that game are tallied. We lost detailed votes for 2005 thanks to ezboard, so only (regular season) box scores from 2006 and later will include Schaefer points. Johnny Dickshot May 20 2007 09:24 AM fan-tastic. Edgy DC May 20 2007 10:58 AM Totally. Edgy DC May 26 2007 08:11 PM Print a bunch of these out on card stock and give one to every lively engaging Met fan you see: Any improvements by graphic dudes is welcome. And what I said to DocTee is quite serious, anybody stepping up as membership chair is welcome. It's no secret that I'm well past burned out, so I'll interpret any mild interest in new leadership as rabid. Elster88 May 26 2007 08:22 PM I wonder if the part about the Ramones is turning people off. Edgy DC May 26 2007 08:35 PM Who ever got turned off by the Ramones? Benjamin Grimm May 27 2007 06:09 AM Elster88 wrote: I wonder if the part about the Ramones is turning people off. It's definitely misleading. When do we ever talk about the Ramones? I'd replace it with "the Mets, baseball in general, and the world at large." Edgy DC May 27 2007 06:18 AM How about those Ramones? Weren't they great? Kid Carsey May 27 2007 06:52 AM E88: >>>I wonder if the part about the Ramones is turning people off.<<< YSG: >>>It's definitely misleading. When do we ever talk about the Ramones? <<< I think we're picking nits again, If there's anything Edge and I have learned over the years is that you're never going to make the whole room happy. It's impossible to do and and dumb to even try. And Elster, I'm not being an asshole here, but you have an avatar of Mr. Per- fect, Curt Henning. Maybe people find West Texas Rednecks a turn off? The Ramones were wresting fans ... The Crusher, CJ Ramone on vocals. :-) Iubitul May 27 2007 06:55 AM I think the slogan is just right, and captures the CPF perfectly. Elster88 May 27 2007 10:19 AM ="Kid Carsey"]E88: >>>I wonder if the part about the Ramones is turning people off.<<< YSG: >>>It's definitely misleading. When do we ever talk about the Ramones? <<< I think we're picking nits again, If there's anything Edge and I have learned over the years is that you're never going to make the whole room happy. It's impossible to do and and dumb to even try. And Elster, I'm not being an asshole here, but you have an avatar of Mr. Per- fect, Curt Henning. Maybe people find West Texas Rednecks a turn off? The Ramones were wresting fans ... The Crusher, CJ Ramone on vocals. :-) It's possible that people are turned off by Curt Henning, despite his good-looks and charm. But I think it's much more likely people would use the forum slogan as an indication of what the forum is like rather than the avatar of a random poster. And not to point out the obvious, but I was joking around. Though now that I think of it, I do agree with YSG, why pick such a random thing as the Ramones? I don't think it's necessarily picking nits, it is sitting up there for all to see. Edit: I stopped watching wrestling 15 years ago, not that it really matters. Batty31 May 27 2007 06:38 PM Edgy DC wrote: How about those Ramones? Weren't they great? YUP!! Edgy DC May 27 2007 07:55 PM See? We're talking about the Ramones. Joey was tall, wasn't he? Really tall. And CJ was, like, really short. Batty31 May 27 2007 08:33 PM I really miss, Joey. :( Edgy, did you see the ad for Docs with Joey dressed as an angel? It was in the news the other day. The ad agency is in hot water for the ads. Edgy DC May 27 2007 09:16 PM I'm not sure I want to see it. Rockin' Doc May 27 2007 10:04 PM It might be enlightening to get input from the newest (active) members of the forum. I think it would be helpful to hear how these members found the site, what prompted them to actively take part, and most importantly, what they thought we could do as a forum to make it better and more welcoming to new posters. I think bfmc1, attgig, patona314, and Mr. Zero are the newest members that have actively participated in discussions with any regularity. Whether they chose to do it in this thread or in an e-mail to the admins, I believe it would be great if they would be willing to offer some insight and perspective regarding the site. I by no means wish to put anyone on the spot or make them feel uncomfortable, but I think we need to attract more new members such as those listed above in order to keep this site vital. DocTee May 28 2007 08:01 AM In addition to Faith and Fear, there seem to be a number of high-quality Mets blogs out there-- the Ed Kranepool Society is one and I came across another this weekend (of course, the name escapes me now)...perhaps an e-invite to their authors/mods? Edgy DC May 28 2007 08:04 AM Wherever you read regularly, make contacts, and spread the word. I interviewed the Kranepool guy and invited his ass by. He may have posted once or twice, but I'm not sure. DocTee May 28 2007 10:02 AM Of course-- wasn't suggesting that someone else do the dirty work, just wondering if there was a stock e-invite, akin to the one KC (?) uses to get Frank Thomas and other notables here. Rockin' Doc May 28 2007 10:32 AM I think our invites generally includes begging and pleading. And it never hurts if the invitee happens to have a product (book) to hawk to the membership.