Expect some new faces- The Parker/Squire's Board goes subscription only

originally posted by Kay Bixler:

And those worried about not being able to retrieve old content, does that content have any measurable value?
Click to expand...
I miss a lot of content that I lost on another board, and I'm sympathetic to folks who've been ripped off by Squires and Parker.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:

And those worried about not being able to retrieve old content, does that content have any measurable value?
Click to expand...

Do you think the old notes or discussions on Wine Therapy were of any value? Do you miss them as a resource?

Seriously, there's some myopic vision here. With over 15,000 registered participants, there were some very nice and knowledgeable people over there and plenty of interesting discussions. In fact, a good number of people that post here also posted there at one point or another.

Honestly, the constant put downs of other boards and their participants, the general intellectual superiority complex and exclusive rather than inclusive attitude here makes me participate far less than I normally would given that most of my friends are here.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
But how were they ripped off?
Click to expand...
People became accustomed to having access to things they'd written, things people had written in response, and so on. Then they put up a wall, and say, "we're keeping all this and you can't see it anymore. Nor can you remove your content, it's ours."

It's unpleasant. If I had ever posted over there I'd be pissed, and I feel a bit for peoples' loss.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
In all seriousness, does anyone (besides Brad) really care about this?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I know you and many other members here have never gotten involved over there and I certainly have experienced its short-comings.
But I care for two reasons; first, I have made a good number of friends and acquaintances there - not having a continuing point of contact with them will be missed. Yes, I could establish it elsewhere or in an alternative manner but this was comfortable and easy, neither of which is to be simply dismissed.
And second, IMO any place where people are talking about wine and the community/environment/life-style that accompanies it, is a good thing - one less point of contact for us all diminishes opportunities.
One man's opinion.
Best, Jim
 
This bored does a lot of self-policing through tone and the fact that it allows people like me and all the rest of you too numerous to list, endless thread drift on topics ranging from physics through philosophy to economics and vaccination. I'll guess most of the ebob people wouldn't like it here and will move on to some other forum policed more or less like the Parker board was. I don't think that's a bad thing though we could use some more people whose taste in wine varied more just to remind us that there's a big bad world of CA cab, Aussie syrah, bordeaux and oak aged Argentinian malbecs out there.
 
One could do without the emoticons, the pictures of women with their tits hanging out, the threads about wives making sangria with Petrus, the threads where people just post "+1" or respond to a complex question by giving a list of three wines-of-the-year.

Though I think more of Wine Disorder needs to be written in verse.
 
Regarding their ToC, I'm certain everyone agreed when they signed on that the forum owned whatever they said in perpetuity, etc. That, of course, is different from being unable to retrieve said content for one's own uses. I suspect the ownership will be disinclined to be helpful in this regard, but I guess we'll find out. Probably they'll respond with some variation on "sure...pay the subscription fee, then you can look at all your own stuff." And they've got that right, though it doesn't make them any less douche-y.

Eden, I think that while Squires is certainly a problem, the actual source of a lot of what soiled the waters over there was the guy with his face on the front page, and Squires was just the slightly worse cop to his silent bad cop. He could replace Squires with Florida Jim tomorrow and the only difference in terms of how the forum worked would be that his moderator would now disagree with his decisions. But he'd still make them, I think, whatever FJ said.

Another reason to close so quickly was, I think, to avoid having to discuss the issue in public, which wasn't going to go well for them. They'll still have to, of course, and if they had any sense they'd realize that -- their first month back is, unless they get really heavy-handed with the moderation again, going to be nothing but complaining about the change -- but they've long proven that they don't.

Jack's right about why they did this, and it's also a doubling down on the bet that the one and only thing that supports the forum is access to Parker, and that people will want that enough to pay for it. I think they might have won that bet even five years ago. Now, I think they lose it. I think WB wins big from this, and did I not know better I'd swear Parker was a stealth investor in CellarTracker Grape Stories, because this is only going to help Eric as well. In they end, they just couldn't figure out how to play, and rather than finding someone who could tell them how, they essentially gave up on trying. The WA brand is dead with Parker anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter anymore. Let him be King of the Forbidden City if he wants, while everything outside the gates is different.

As for the content...what SFJoe said. There's a reason I don't put anything in just one place anymore. Which reminds me...I really should pluck a few key posts from the old WLDG archives before that goes away, which I have certain reasons to believe isn't far into the future.

And as for newbies, let 'em come, I say. I think that Disorder operating as it usually does will fairly quickly weed out anyone who isn't going to thrive, and a little new blood wouldn't kill us.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
In all seriousness, does anyone (besides Brad) really care about this? That an Internet message board dedicated to wine and populated by lawyers has gone subscription only?

And those worried about not being able to retrieve old content, does that content have any measurable value?
Click to expand...
Measurable value? Ha! That's a tricky one. Quantifiable, yes, but measurable...maybe not. Sentimental and useful? Definitely.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
ContaminationOne could do without the emoticons, the pictures of women with their tits hanging out, the threads about wives making sangria with Petrus, the threads where people just post "+1" or respond to a complex question by giving a list of three wines-of-the-year.

Though I think more of Wine Disorder needs to be written in verse.
Click to expand...

+1
 
originally posted by Thor:

.... Eden, I think that while Squires is certainly a problem, the actual source of a lot of what soiled the waters over there was the guy with his face on the front page, and Squires was just the slightly worse cop to his silent bad cop. He could replace Squires with Florida Jim tomorrow and the only difference in terms of how the forum worked would be that his moderator would now disagree with his decisions. But he'd still make them, I think, whatever FJ said.

....
Click to expand...

Leaders have a lot of power to set tone by example, and the example Bob set was often personal and peevish - a shame, when you consider the potential his popularity created. There were some eminently reasonable writers on the board, though, whose example and discussion I'll miss ... take that guy with the Arsenal avatar, for example.
 
If difficult newbies show up, I will find something in their posts to connect to aesthetics, and then Jonathan and Oswaldo can get on the thread and tear each other to pieces. We'll be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top