or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Trying to Understand the Talk About "New SF" and "New SF B&S"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trying to Understand the Talk About "New SF" and "New SF B&S" - Page 2

post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

lol, it been a while sine we had one of these threads. smile.gif

smile.gif

Let me describe something, and you let me know if it makes sense. I'll only talk about MC, since the rest of the site doesn't really interest me enough to spend much time in those sections.

The site has 100K "members" signed up, and I assume gets a lot of lurking drop-ins from Google searches and so on.

Of those 100K members, what proportion of posts are made by the, oh, 200 most active members (even not accounting for you smile.gif )?)

Of new threads started, how many are started by members who make less than, oh, 100 total posts? In other words, people who are oriented to their own needs and demands rather than bringing something to the table themselves? Most threads?

So, then out of the 200 or so most active members, how many start interesting new threads themselves? You know, on Mens Clothing topics?

My point is that while there is a lot of self-congratulation about how "high" volume the site is, when it comes to Mens Clothing, the whole superstructure comes down to just a few guys who can (1) start good threads, (2) make intelligent, knowledge responses about Mens Clothing, and (3) maintain some continuing energy in participating.

This is a small group...far smaller than that 200 number that I'm using above. So, when such a guy gets basically hounded out like Montesquieu by a bunch of shitheads, with nary a presence by a forum mod, it is very disappointing that when this kind of poster chooses to return, his thread and he become the meal du mod du jour.

That's what I'm saying. It became clear to me that the site had somehow become geared to the non-contributor, or contributors following a sanctioned script, and retailers, a while ago. This whole with Monty's thread just reminds me of something I had conveniently forgotten for a few months.

Fok has posted over and over again that he sees no significant change in SF over time: just more people.

Is that what you guys see? Does anyone really agree with him?

So, there's a big disconnect between having a great MC forum and how the site is run today. That's my opinion.
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post


This is a small group...far smaller than that 200 number that I'm using above.

Exactly five. Sad Voxsartoria is no longer with us. He was my favorite. RIP.

Reincarnation.jpg
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

(...)

That's an insightful post, I get what you're saying and I can't really argue some of your points without appearing biased. That said, I think you might consider two other factors -

1) when you've discussed fabrics and fits, et al - eventually you run out of new things to say or see. I know at least one long-timer who just ran out of things to say - well, relevant to MC. Still cares about clothes, though.

2) this is an off-point but I think it leads somewhere relevant: as I understand it, one of the primary debates in linguists is the difference between precriptionists and decriptivists relative to how words are defined. In other words: does word ABC mean what it meant 30 years ago, or do we now accept ABC's common usage which is a bit different from what it used to mean. Replace "ABC" with "style" and now we get to the current tug-of-war in MC. (at least, how I see it).
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrd617 View Post

Sad Voxsartoria is no longer with us. He was my favorite. RIP.

not sure if srs.
post #20 of 34
In my earlier post I deliberately refrained from using specific names, names we hear too often when talk of SF's heyday comes about. I did this because where one excelled, there is no telling who else could/would step in and accept the baton. F. Corbera alluded to this in another post; there is still potential.

I look at members who have 10-20K poasts over two years or so and have to think, what really have those members contributed? Now if you add up all of my posts including all of my personas over ~10 years here, I would probably just breach 10K. But that doesn't mean that I don't personally chip in to help newbs now and again using the collective knowledge I've gleaned over the years, no matter my personal opinion. Problem is, for example, many times when I do so I get reprimanded because "this thread has evolved beyond what the OP intended it for". Poppycock.

I read somewhere where Fok said in an interview with someone, something to the tune of, "our site is so popular that when people get banned, they email me begging to be reinstated", or something. C'mon, son. Did you really look into why they were banned or really know the backstory behind the flameout? I'm not convinced.
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

there is no telling who else could/would step in and accept the baton.

John-Blake-Joseph-Gordon-Levitt-and-Commissioner-Gordon-Gary-Oldman-in-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-.jpeg
post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

smile.gif
Let me describe something, and you let me know if it makes sense. I'll only talk about MC, since the rest of the site doesn't really interest me enough to spend much time in those sections.
The site has 100K "members" signed up, and I assume gets a lot of lurking drop-ins from Google searches and so on.
Of those 100K members, what proportion of posts are made by the, oh, 200 most active members (even not accounting for you smile.gif )?)
Of new threads started, how many are started by members who make less than, oh, 100 total posts? In other words, people who are oriented to their own needs and demands rather than bringing something to the table themselves? Most threads?

agreed. the majority of new threads are made for simple self serving needs, that really could be a question and quick couple replies in one of the many useful running threads that are consistently on the first page.

personally, for me its come to the point that i dont even really look at the new threads that are posted, it just too focking painful. i stick with the ones i am active in, WAYWRN, rock your socks, G&G and a few others. i only saw edmorels thread about pattern matching because it was linked in a different thread i visit.

i guess that pretty much says it. but then again, admittedly, i did start a few like that when i first joined. so maybe it is just inevitable. this really leads back to the age old question of, should there be a post requirement to start a new thread?
Quote:
So, then out of the 200 or so most active members, how many start interesting new threads themselves? You know, on Mens Clothing topics?
My point is that while there is a lot of self-congratulation about how "high" volume the site is, when it comes to Mens Clothing, the whole superstructure comes down to just a few guys who can (1) start good threads, (2) make intelligent, knowledge responses about Mens Clothing, and (3) maintain some continuing energy in participating.

agreed. that is why i dont start threads anymore. 1. i cant start good ones. 2. i am neither intelligent nor knowledgable. i have plenty of energy though.

question is though, why dont these few people who have what takes, start more threads, is it as Thomas said, they have just run out of things to say? i highly doubt it. presumably these people are very active in new endeavors in their lives regarding mens clothing, and new things always lead to new conversations.

i am though considering a new thread, maybe ill PM you for your opinion of its value.
Quote:
This is a small group...far smaller than that 200 number that I'm using above. So, when such a guy gets basically hounded out like Montesquieu by a bunch of shitheads, with nary a presence by a forum mod, it is very disappointing that when this kind of poster chooses to return, his thread and he become the meal du mod du jour.
That's what I'm saying. It became clear to me that the site had somehow become geared to the non-contributor, or contributors following a sanctioned script, and retailers, a while ago. This whole with Monty's thread just reminds me of something I had conveniently forgotten for a few months.
Fok has posted over and over again that he sees no significant change in SF over time: just more people.
Is that what you guys see? Does anyone really agree with him?
So, there's a big disconnect between having a great MC forum and how the site is run today. That's my opinion.

this is the part where i am unsure. was the monty thread mis handled? i never saw it, and its not really my place to say. is it a shame though that he got all kinds of shit from useless posters though. i can say that much.

lastly, while it might be true "that the site had somehow become geared to the non-contributor, or contributors following a sanctioned script, and retailers, a while ago..." i am not sure that that was a conscious decision of the moderators of the forum, or just something that happened with the great influx of "members who make less than, oh, 100 total posts? In other words, people who are oriented to their own needs and demands rather than bringing something to the table themselves."

either way, there should be some pro active attempt to redirect where things are headed. just my opinions. let me know if any of that rings true to you.
post #23 of 34
Challenge for the OP, IS and anyone else who is interested:

Do a search focusing on earlier threads. You can use your favorite brand, topic, member, etc. as the search terms. Spend some time reading thru those threads you find and take note of the participants and what they posted. I'd bet that if you did this in sincerity and then came back to 2012 you will see what we're saying.

I almost think that some of those threads should be put in a list and frontpaged on a weekly basis. I think Fok's contest thread would take off (at least on the MC side) and the bonus would be that newer members should get a sense of SF's history. This may very well change the tone of today.
post #24 of 34
I agree with a lot of what's been said. Vox (F. Corbera now, for all you newbs) and Nore (BigBris) hit on a lot of good points. It's hard to pick out a particular change that most captures the forum's decline, but if forced to, I'd say it's been the shift from being a consumer-oriented meeting place to an outlet for vendors to hawk their wares. This used to be the kind of place that empowered consumers of men's clothing--which was particularly useful for those of who buy bespoke, as opaque as that market is. You could come here to get the inside track, learning from the experiences of fellow customers and clients. Now, vendors are everywhere (including former regular members) leading discussion and the forum management even puts out its own original content. This has a chilling effect on discussion, as some participants are consequently deemed more equal than others. A similar dynamic destroyed AskAndy (another story for another time).

So, yes, I liked it better when a vendor (be it a store manager or tailor or craftsmen of whatever sort) knew that it was a little dangerous to set foot here, because he'd be taken to task and perhaps forced to provide better service and better products. Now, we treat them like gods whose presence we should be grateful for. And the forum sucks. Coincidence?
post #25 of 34
I have to do a grand edit after seeing Foo's join date. I've been here almost 6 years, not 10. Somehow I was thinking 3/2003 in lieu of 3/2007. My apologies.
post #26 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

Challenge for the OP, IS and anyone else who is interested:
Do a search focusing on earlier threads. You can use your favorite brand, topic, member, etc. as the search terms. Spend some time reading thru those threads you find and take note of the participants and what they posted. I'd bet that if you did this in sincerity and then came back to 2012 you will see what we're saying.
I almost think that some of those threads should be put in a list and frontpaged on a weekly basis. I think Fok's contest thread would take off (at least on the MC side) and the bonus would be that newer members should get a sense of SF's history. This may very well change the tone of today.


I had been looking at old posts more recently, but will start paying more attention to who had been posting.  This has been very insightful to say the least.

post #27 of 34
sigh
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

I agree with a lot of what's been said. Vox (F. Corbera now, for all you newbs) and Nore (BigBris) hit on a lot of good points. It's hard to pick out a particular change that most captures the forum's decline, but if forced to, I'd say it's been the shift from being a consumer-oriented meeting place to an outlet for vendors to hawk their wares. This used to be the kind of place that empowered consumers of men's clothing--which was particularly useful for those of who buy bespoke, as opaque as that market is. You could come here to get the inside track, learning from the experiences of fellow customers and clients. Now, vendors are everywhere (including former regular members) leading discussion and the forum management even puts out its own original content. This has a chilling effect on discussion, as some participants are consequently deemed more equal than others. A similar dynamic destroyed AskAndy (another story for another time).
So, yes, I liked it better when a vendor (be it a store manager or tailor or craftsmen of whatever sort) knew that it was a little dangerous to set foot here, because he'd be taken to task and perhaps forced to provide better service and better products. Now, we treat them like gods whose presence we should be grateful for. And the forum sucks. Coincidence?

Let's not get things twisted.

Actually, you guys can complain about vendors all you want, and many do. Unlike Andy, we have a very strict policy of not endorsing any vendor for any type of compensation, in cash or in kind. Advertisers pay for a space, and they have control over their affiliate threads, and that's it.

The original content is something that members asked for, and that we put out, at considerable expense. If you don't enjoy it, we would be happy to save ourselves lots and lots of cash.
post #29 of 34
count me in as one who likes the original content..
post #30 of 34
I like the original content too. But not as a substitute for the conversation that brought me here. There are all sorts of blogs and sites and Tumblrs that have interesting content that I don't read. Very hard to distinguish yourself in that arena these days.

No reason we can't have both, but I think the forum portion of the forum is still the lifeblood of the forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Trying to Understand the Talk About "New SF" and "New SF B&S"