or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see - Page 22

post #316 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
SF became popular -- and drew posters like Manton, Dopey, RJ, Medwards, Vox and, yes, even Foo -- because it was the best place on the internet to discuss men's clothing.
And few of them are still here. Well, some are here under a new identity ... and at least one continues to have the same personality.
post #317 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
...

Thanks. I didn't repost yours, but I think that we agree on many issues. We think of Styleforum as a community with a distinctive character. This is not unlike a brand, but it's also not the same. The main Men's Clothing and Streetwear&Denim boards, as well as the B&S forums, are the most popular. We intend to keep it that way, and our work . On the other hand, we also recognize that digressions and diversions enhance, rather than detract from, the Styleforum experience. Think of it as the interesting piece in the window that catches your eye, but that you will never buy.
post #318 of 357
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but some moratorium on people's signatures would be great. I'm tired of seeing size 20 font signatures in bright orange linked to some eBay store. How about restricting signatures to be plain text -- links are fine, I just do not want to see large and jarring fonts that are nothing more than advertisements. And quite honestly, it makes reading threads that much more difficult.
post #319 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlin View Post
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but some moratorium on people's signatures would be great.

I'm tired of seeing size 20 font signatures in bright orange linked to some eBay store. How about restricting signatures to be plain text -- links are fine, I just do not want to see large and jarring fonts that are nothing more than advertisements.

And quite honestly, it makes reading threads that much more difficult.

You can disable signatures under your User CP and then "Edit Options"
post #320 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwilkinson View Post
You can disable signatures under your User CP and then "Edit Options"
Yes, thank you, but that seems to be an all or nothing proposition. Some of the more... mature members, if you will, tend to have relatively interesting ones -- I'm just tired of some posters whose two line posts are nothing more than selling platforms for their stores through their sigs.
post #321 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlin View Post
How about restricting signatures to be plain text -- links are fine, I just do not want to see large and jarring fonts that are nothing more than advertisements.

Good idea. Standard typeface, grey, 8 pts.
post #322 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
Rather than turning SF into a more general purpose forum and, thereby, sinking into the general background noise that is the internet, you should be seeking to sharpen the SF brand.

...

SF became popular -- and drew posters like Manton, Dopey, RJ, Medwards, Vox and, yes, even Foo -- because it was the best place on the internet to discuss men's clothing. (I don't spend that much time in SW&D but I assume there is a similar dynamic there.) If you lose that focus, you blur your brand and lose the very thing that made you a success in the first place. You will also become harder to distinguish from thousands of other sites and will find it much more difficult to attract and hold the high-quality posters that were an integral part of SF's success.

I agree with all of this. Well, maybe aside from the "brand" part. That word is overused, and seldom used correctly, in casual discourse.

SF should be about the clothes. Period. The other stuff can and should stay. But it should not overwhelm the focus of the board. All too often, I've seen forums with a distinct niche or identity try to elevate the auxiliary content, thereby diluting the core value. Do not place the value-add above the core value. This is sort of why Esquire today is a pale shadow of its former self; it became less about clothing and more about "lifestyle" in an attempt to keep up with GQ and a handful of lesser peer magazines. What does Esquire stand for today? Certainly very little that is readily distinguishable from its peers.
post #323 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
On the other hand, we also recognize that digressions and diversions enhance, rather than detract from, the Styleforum experience.
That is absolutely true and it is a great feature of SF. It also fits in excellently with the brand model. Branding is partly about creating a consistent, well-defined impression but it is also about creating a sense of identification. Some brands go to great -- and often unsuccesful -- lengths to create this by sponsoring clubs, etc. A great many major brands would kill for the kind of brand loyalty and identification SF has. Things like inside jokes -- up to a point -- enhance the experience by creating a forum culture. This is how e-friends are made. But you have to watch the signal-to-noise ratio. For example, your decision to limit NSFW pictures to DT was an excellent move. The meme of posting pictures of women in trainwreck threads is amusing. You have to be careful, however, that you don't begin attracting people to SF who are more interested in looking at porn than at men's clothing . . . OK, that doesn't sound right at all, but you know what I mean . . . Anyway, once the digressions and diversions start taking over the forum, your brand is becoming seriously diluted, perhaps irreparably. Anyway, good luck. SF is a unique place on the internet and, with good management, I am sure that its best days are ahead of it.
post #324 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Carlos View Post
This is sort of why Esquire today is a pale shadow of its former self; it became less about clothing and more about "lifestyle" in an attempt to keep up with GQ and a handful of lesser peer magazines. What does Esquire stand for today? Certainly very little that is readily distinguishable from its peers.

Was Esquire ever primarily a clothing magazine? I think we may have a distorted view of it because of our interest in clothes--the Fellows illustrations and all that. I can remember it from the early '50s, and I think it was always a men's lifestyle magazine with some emphasis on clothes. There were quite a few spreads of sexy girls, either from illustrators like Petty and Vargas, later with photos as well. There were also lots of cartoons, often featuring sexy, scantily clad girls. I have heard it said that when he founded Playboy, Hugh Hefner was trying to do little more than re-create the "old" Esquire with more skin. Esquire's sister publication Apparel Arts was much more the clothing magazine.
post #325 of 357
^ In an old Honeymooners episode Ralph and Ed are at the barber shop and Ed picks up a magazine and says. "Hey, Ralph. Esquire, va-va-va-voom!" It was a "girlie" mag.

Art Carney later released a novelty tune called "Va Va Va Voom."

lefty
post #326 of 357
How about moving every shoeshine thread into one giant: Shoeshine & Shoe Care - Everything You Wanted to Know Seems to work very well for RM Williams boots. SF does not need another shoeshine thread... ever! Matt, I'm guilty of being a dickhead in a thread or two (might have been three). Forgiveness is begged Lear
post #327 of 357
Can we have a forum for the pre-pubsecent kids to ask stupid relationship questions? We can call it "Got Game?" and let all the idiotic relationship threads go there. Maybe also dump the "appreciation" threads which are admittedly amusing, but generally tasteless.
post #328 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki View Post
Can we have a forum for the pre-pubsecent kids to ask stupid relationship questions? We can call it "Got Game?" and let all the idiotic relationship threads go there. Maybe also dump the "appreciation" threads which are admittedly amusing, but generally tasteless.

No. We've learned our lesson from Dumb Threads. The stupidity is not only not contained there, but actually tends to leak out. We'll probably keep it, because it does serve it's purpose, but we are not adding more deliberately dumb subforums.

We are going to be creating a business and careers subforum, something for which there has been considerably demand.

As for Styleforum being diluted - I wouldn't worry about that too much. I am one of the two partners here, and my singular obsession in life has been clothing and accessories. I like fine food and drink, sports, and do enjoy my t.v., but men's clothing and fashion has been my passion since I was in grade 4 or 5.
post #329 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
As for Styleforum being diluted - I wouldn't worry about that too much. I am one of the two partners here, and my singular obsession in life has been clothing and accessories. I like fine food and drink, sports, and do enjoy my t.v., but men's clothing and fashion has been my passion since I was in grade 4 or 5.

You were the only 10 year old to be rocking the Tommy Hilfiger jeans and bedazzled jean jacket! Oh and I can't forget the LA Gear light-up sneakers
post #330 of 357
Yo fok- did you wear Z. Cavariccis? You can tell uncle Matt.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see