Filter out Articles

[torts]

no offense to any of the authors, but I am literally only here for the forum.  Is there any way to have articles in its own section?  If I paid money can I hide articles?  

[Axman59]

If only they started those threads with the word "Article" you could skip right past them and your nightmare would be over...

 

[gypcasino]

It was kind of addressed here 

 

[Axman59]

Torts walks into a Costco and asks if they can remove the electronics and home goods sections because he's just there to buy food.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

13 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

Torts walks into a Costco and asks if they can remove the electronics and home goods sections because he's just there to buy food.

If we're going to be honest, the articles are more-or-less the fidget spinner section of this place. They kill time if you're bored, but from what I've seen, other than one here and there, they don't add much value to the site itself. Especially those that basically recap recently completed series or sum up personnel moves.

[Hopper]

I agree, the forums are not the place to post the articles when there is already a designated section for them.

I agree with torts.

[Robocaller]

7 hours ago, torts said:

no offense to any of the authors, but I am literally only here for the forum.  Is there any way to have articles in its own section?  If I paid money can I hide articles?  

They're all labeled Article. How hard is it to not click on them?

 

[patrickgpe]

I agree, you can skip right on my. I do agree it would make sense to put them in their own forum. There is value in that they can be discussed in the forums if necessary. I won’t get too upset either way though. 

[torts]

I could complain about ads instead ?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Right here is the absolute perfect example on an article that is pointless and simply just takes up space on the forum:

Brock, many of the changes you've made are awesome. But a lot of the articles are pretty redundant.

[Axman59]

2 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Right here is the absolute perfect example on an article that is pointless and simply just takes up space on the forum:

Brock, many of the changes you've made are awesome. But a lot of the articles are pretty redundant.

 

Then skip it. Is it really that hard? The people who run this site are trying to create additional content for people to discuss and they get nothing but complaints. I find the criticism of these articles to be disrespectful. If you don't think they add any value DON'T CLICK ON THEM.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

1 minute ago, Axman59 said:

 

Then skip it. Is it really that hard? The people who run this site are trying to create additional content for people to discuss and they get nothing but complaints. I find the criticism of these articles to be disrespectful. If you don't think they add any value DON'T CLICK ON THEM.

I have been quite effusive in my praise of the positive changes Brock has made to this site, and he has been more than open to constructive criticism as well.  If someone feels that an article(s) (that was likely paid for) adds little to the site itself, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to give their opinion on it. Once something appears as an "article", and it is paid for, it is open to critique. Journalism 101. 

[Hopper]

1 hour ago, Axman59 said:

 

Then skip it. Is it really that hard? The people who run this site are trying to create additional content for people to discuss and they get nothing but complaints. I find the criticism of these articles to be disrespectful. If you don't think they add any value DON'T CLICK ON THEM.

Relax man, Brock is open to opinions about content on this site.

As strongly as you feel about "JUST DON'T CLICK ON THEM" others feel just as strongly about getting the articles off the forums.

They just clog up the forums in my opinion.  There is already a spot for them, so why have them appear in two places?  People who want to read them know where to find them.

[NBBrewFan]

1 hour ago, Hopper said:

Relax man, Brock is open to opinions about content on this site.

As strongly as you feel about "JUST DON'T CLICK ON THEM" others feel just as strongly about getting the articles off the forums.

I agree that we should give feedback, but this was already brought up in an earlier thread.  I think the first mod to see it should have locked it with a link to the previous discussion (IMHO), or rolled them together.

I just ignore the Articles unless I see something I want to look at, but I also use a laptop and not a phone or tablet (both of which are nightmares to use for me).

[NBBrewFan]

3 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Once something appears as an "article", and it is paid for, it is open to critique.

That's reasonable, I've left plenty of disagreement comments to specific articles.  I don't complain about the general use of articles when there is no obligation to read them like the ads, which are 100 times more intrusive.

[Robocaller]

you naysayers do realize that generating clicks generates $ for the site, right? So do you want it to fail? Or would you rather pay $50 a year?

[torts]

I'm debating on paying to dump ads (and articles ), I visit this forum 90% on mobile, and the ads are unbearable (see Simmons above).  

I don't remember seeing the other post (probably because of the articles).  I work in the UX/continuous improvement world, and I see this ask as nothing more than that.  Hell, we "complained" about dark mode and that came within weeks!

[Hopper]

If you will notice, the articles generate almost no discussion, they just sit there, clogging up the actual discussion topics.

Ok, that is all I will say about it, carry on.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I just wanted to pop in and say I’ve been watching this thread and taking opinions into consideration. With a long off-season in front of us, we have time to figure out some things, the off-season tends to be when I do the most work on updating/upgrading the site. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

By the way, moving this thread to the site forum. Meant to do it several days ago and promptly forgot about it. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 9/21/2022 at 12:18 PM, NBBrewFan said:

I agree that we should give feedback, but this was already brought up in an earlier thread.  I think the first mod to see it should have locked it with a link to the previous discussion (IMHO), or rolled them together.

I just ignore the Articles unless I see something I want to look at, but I also use a laptop and not a phone or tablet (both of which are nightmares to use for me).

I appreciate your support but this thread is really okay with me. I *want* people to voice both their support and complaint about the site format. That’s what makes the site better. I can’t do the work I do without people ******** and moaning when I get it wrong. ?

[SeaBass]

The articles don't bother me much, I rarely read them but every once in a while I do. I don't really find it too hard to ignore them just like any other posted topic I don't care to read.

That said I don't often visit this site on my phone, I nearly always use my ipad or computer. Those have larger screens and I can easily see many topics without having to scroll. I'm sure the experience is different on smaller screens.

[Outlander]

With the season almost over I actually think the articles can generate discussion. Just stay away from fact based transaction articles. If they make a move and there is opinion and analysis involved great but stay away from an article about Pablo Reyes being DFA a couple days after the fact.

[SeaBass]

On 10/3/2022 at 3:56 PM, Outlander said:

With the season almost over I actually think the articles can generate discussion. Just stay away from fact based transaction articles. If they make a move and there is opinion and analysis involved great but stay away from an article about Pablo Reyes being DFA a couple days after the fact.

Maybe this isn't what people want to hear but would it be more digestible if the transaction articles were simply labeled "Transaction" rather than "Article"? Or "Roster Moves", something along those lines.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

11 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Maybe this isn't what people want to hear but would it be more digestible if the transaction articles were simply labeled "Transaction" rather than "Article"? Or "Roster Moves", something along those lines.

And also didn't show up on the forum a day to two days after there was an actual discussion thread started on the same transaction.