11-27-2012, 09:36 AM
Here is a poll for the recruiting question. I'll leave it up for seven days. Keep in mind that this class is likely to be half the size of last year's, so there's not a lot to track.
Poll: How should we handle running recruiting discussions? - You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Keep them on the main board as they were originally were
52.38%
22
52.38%
Keep a thread at the top of the main page
11.90%
5
11.90%
Link discussions from the main board to a recruiting board, but don't move them
11.90%
5
11.90%
Have a separate recruiting board and link a notice to it at the top of the page
14.29%
6
14.29%
Have a separate recruiting board
9.52%
4
9.52%
* You voted for this item.
Show Results
Recruiting board
11-27-2012, 10:04 AM
Could you do a 6th option of having them linked on the main page AND on a separate recruiting section? I think having them on the main page will drive more ongoing discussion. At the same time, having them grouped together in an easy to find place would be helpful for someone trying to catch up on the the recruiting news for the past year.
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
Could you do a 6th option of having them linked on the main page AND on a separate recruiting section? I think having them on the main page will drive more ongoing discussion. At the same time, having them grouped together in an easy to find place would be helpful for someone trying to catch up on the the recruiting news for the past year.
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
11-27-2012, 10:51 AM
(11-27-2012, 10:04 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
I never thought about that, but you are right - I will bring this topic up.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
(11-27-2012, 10:04 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
I never thought about that, but you are right - I will bring this topic up.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
11-27-2012, 11:06 AM
(11-27-2012, 10:51 AM)Robbie link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=7028.msg53615#msg53615 date=1354035856]
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
I never thought about that, but you are right - I will bring this topic up.
[/quote]
Technical answer:
http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...-announced
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...-announced
note that the number after /id/ in the URL is different - that means that the author (or an editor) cut and pasted the content before posting - and it is no longer considered the same item in our content management system - so there is no way for the comment system to match up the items, and therefore the comments will be non-connected.
Not saying that this is a good answer (you should not use a technical justification for failing to satisfy a user need - basic design principle) - but it does explain why I do not expect to see it fixed easily.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
(11-27-2012, 10:51 AM)Robbie link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=7028.msg53615#msg53615 date=1354035856]
This is one of the problems I had with the execution of the Stanford board at ESPN. They post the articles on both the Stanford and Pac12 sections, but when you click on the articles, they have separate comments for the one linked on the Stanford-specific site vs. the one on the Pac12 site. So you don't get the critical mass to have a fruitful conversation because the commenters get divided.
I never thought about that, but you are right - I will bring this topic up.
[/quote]
Technical answer:
http://espn.go.com/blog/stanford-footbal...-announced
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...-announced
note that the number after /id/ in the URL is different - that means that the author (or an editor) cut and pasted the content before posting - and it is no longer considered the same item in our content management system - so there is no way for the comment system to match up the items, and therefore the comments will be non-connected.
Not saying that this is a good answer (you should not use a technical justification for failing to satisfy a user need - basic design principle) - but it does explain why I do not expect to see it fixed easily.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
11-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Robbie - why can't you just have the same URL clicked for the full article with comments when you click on either the Stanford blog version or the Pac12 blog version?
11-27-2012, 01:55 PM
FB-
Not Robbie, but I think the answer is that the two blog posts are actually separate documents; the user simply cut and pasted the content from one blog to the other. That creates two separate nodes, each of which has an individual comment stream attached.
The ideal would be for the writer to be able to tag each post with the blog stream in which the post should appear (in other words, write it once and then check off boxes saying this post should appear in both the "Stanford" stream and the "Pac-12" stream). There may be technical or execution problems (read as: relying on posters to follow through in classifying their posts), but at first glance that doesn't appear to be a major roadblock.
Of course, I'm not internal at ESPN.com, so my opinion is just that of a webdude.
VG
Not Robbie, but I think the answer is that the two blog posts are actually separate documents; the user simply cut and pasted the content from one blog to the other. That creates two separate nodes, each of which has an individual comment stream attached.
The ideal would be for the writer to be able to tag each post with the blog stream in which the post should appear (in other words, write it once and then check off boxes saying this post should appear in both the "Stanford" stream and the "Pac-12" stream). There may be technical or execution problems (read as: relying on posters to follow through in classifying their posts), but at first glance that doesn't appear to be a major roadblock.
Of course, I'm not internal at ESPN.com, so my opinion is just that of a webdude.
VG
FB-
Not Robbie, but I think the answer is that the two blog posts are actually separate documents; the user simply cut and pasted the content from one blog to the other. That creates two separate nodes, each of which has an individual comment stream attached.
The ideal would be for the writer to be able to tag each post with the blog stream in which the post should appear (in other words, write it once and then check off boxes saying this post should appear in both the "Stanford" stream and the "Pac-12" stream). There may be technical or execution problems (read as: relying on posters to follow through in classifying their posts), but at first glance that doesn't appear to be a major roadblock.
Of course, I'm not internal at ESPN.com, so my opinion is just that of a webdude.
VG
Not Robbie, but I think the answer is that the two blog posts are actually separate documents; the user simply cut and pasted the content from one blog to the other. That creates two separate nodes, each of which has an individual comment stream attached.
The ideal would be for the writer to be able to tag each post with the blog stream in which the post should appear (in other words, write it once and then check off boxes saying this post should appear in both the "Stanford" stream and the "Pac-12" stream). There may be technical or execution problems (read as: relying on posters to follow through in classifying their posts), but at first glance that doesn't appear to be a major roadblock.
Of course, I'm not internal at ESPN.com, so my opinion is just that of a webdude.
VG
11-27-2012, 02:19 PM
(11-27-2012, 01:24 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Robbie - why can't you just have the same URL clicked for the full article with comments when you click on either the Stanford blog version or the Pac12 blog version?
I agree wholeheartedly that is the right answer - I just stared advocating for that. The problem is that if a writer enters the same text into the content system twice we (as programmers) have no way of knowing that it is the same object. What we would need to do is change the content system so that the writer can publish the same text in two different locations at the same time, without having to resort to cut-and-paste.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
(11-27-2012, 01:24 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Robbie - why can't you just have the same URL clicked for the full article with comments when you click on either the Stanford blog version or the Pac12 blog version?
I agree wholeheartedly that is the right answer - I just stared advocating for that. The problem is that if a writer enters the same text into the content system twice we (as programmers) have no way of knowing that it is the same object. What we would need to do is change the content system so that the writer can publish the same text in two different locations at the same time, without having to resort to cut-and-paste.
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
--- John Cage
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »