|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Apr 1, 2024 12:57:03 GMT
I know one of the head recruitment guys from Hull & asked him a year or so back if Stoke were ever in for Robertson before he went to Liverpool & he just gave me a confused look & said Stoke were never in for him to his knowledge. This deal occurred just after he arrived at Hull but said he thinks he would have remembered if Robertson was ever linked to Stoke or Stoke bound. Make of that what you will. He must've been really out of the loop. Robertson has said it himself that we were interested. www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/11558727/andy-robertson-nearly-joined-stoke-instead-of-liverpool
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Apr 1, 2024 12:57:17 GMT
Mr. Whippy's best customer. I think I might be challenging him for that one
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 1, 2024 12:58:48 GMT
Why not just start a new thread instead of bringing back an enormous one from two years ago? Why? News on different topics comes around intermittently, it’s good practice to keep it all together Why does that matter, though? It's not a medieval chronicle or an encyclopedia that needs to provide a detailed chronological record of all discussions on a topic. It just leads to misleading headlines, confused people responding to OPs from years ago and just generally makes the board a much less pleasant place to use. There was a big argument about this about a decade ago when there was some overzealous merging and it was agreed that it was much better to have free flowing discussions across individual threads rather than being like one of those awful football messageboards where there's one unnavigable thread on every topic. Then it's slowly crept in over the last few years and I feel that it's making the board a much worse place. I think it would be better if any thread older than a week was just anchored and fell off the board. I mean, I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things and I'm just being a bit OCD and grumpy.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 1, 2024 13:08:58 GMT
Why? News on different topics comes around intermittently, it’s good practice to keep it all together Why does that matter, though? It's not a medieval chronicle or an encyclopedia that needs to provide a detailed chronological record of all discussions on a topic. It just leads to misleading headlines, confused people responding to OPs from years ago and just generally makes the board a much less pleasant place to use. There was a big argument about this about a decade ago when there was some overzealous merging and it was agreed that it was much better to have free flowing discussions across individual threads rather than being like one of those awful football messageboards where there's one unnavigable thread on every topic. Then it's slowly crept in over the last few years and I feel that it's making the board a much worse place. I think it would be better if any thread older than a week was just anchored and fell off the board. I don’t understand why you think it makes it unnavigable 🤔 it keeps older reference points in the same place when new news come out, it’s less fragmented and more easily searchable. And you don’t get the board clogged up with repetitive trivia when people decide *their* point deserves a new thread. Anyway this is the dominant practice for this type of messageboard all over the internet now so get used to it 😄
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 1, 2024 16:41:11 GMT
Why does that matter, though? It's not a medieval chronicle or an encyclopedia that needs to provide a detailed chronological record of all discussions on a topic. It just leads to misleading headlines, confused people responding to OPs from years ago and just generally makes the board a much less pleasant place to use. There was a big argument about this about a decade ago when there was some overzealous merging and it was agreed that it was much better to have free flowing discussions across individual threads rather than being like one of those awful football messageboards where there's one unnavigable thread on every topic. Then it's slowly crept in over the last few years and I feel that it's making the board a much worse place. I think it would be better if any thread older than a week was just anchored and fell off the board. I don’t understand why you think it makes it unnavigable 🤔 it keeps older reference points in the same place when new news come out, it’s less fragmented and more easily searchable. And you don’t get the board clogged up with repetitive trivia when people decide *their* point deserves a new thread. Anyway this is the dominant practice for this type of messageboard all over the internet now so get used to it 😄 Three main reasons for me: 1) Proboards forgets where I was on a thread after a while, so if somebody bumps a twenty page thread from five years ago, clicking 'new' just takes me to page 1. If there have been a couple of pages of new stuff, then you then end up wading through lots of irrelevant old stuff to find what everybody's talking about. 2) The problem is doubled if, say, you occasionally browse the Oatcake at work in private browsing and not logged in. Then you really are wading through pages and pages of junk every time. 3) Unless the OP is super diligent like FullerMagic, the thread title will be something totally irrelevant to the new information, just like this one. You consequently have no idea what you're clicking on or why. The worst example is that thread that gets resurrected every time Peter Crouch does something. The title is something like 'Crouch blames foreign players for relegation', but the latest post will be something like 'Peter Crouch says that the men of Stoke-on-Trent hold their beer better than the people of Burnley'. However, everybody misses the new post and piles in assuming that Crouch is going on about relegation again, calling him all sorts of names. You see this sort of thing all the time. And although you say it's the dominant practice, it's actually very old hat. This is the stuff that awful places like West Brom's messageboard were doing 15 - 20 years ago that we thankfully eschewed. More modern platforms like Reddit and Twitter are totally skewed in favour of new posts. On Reddit, for example, a post on an active subreddit will be at the top of the board for 24 hours max before disappearing, no matter who posts on it. Any post older than six months is archived. A non-football board that I occasionally browse has an incredibly analytical set of rules that I wouldn't want replicated here, but posters get warnings and bans if they post on a thread that has disappeared off the front page. I think it makes for a better experience. EDIT Case in point, immediately after this post.
|
|
|
Post by marwood on Apr 1, 2024 16:44:46 GMT
anchors aweigh please!!
(and we'll need a pretty sizeable one)
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 1, 2024 16:44:57 GMT
And he’s right.
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Apr 1, 2024 16:45:40 GMT
I know one of the head recruitment guys from Hull & asked him a year or so back if Stoke were ever in for Robertson before he went to Liverpool & he just gave me a confused look & said Stoke were never in for him to his knowledge. This deal occurred just after he arrived at Hull but said he thinks he would have remembered if Robertson was ever linked to Stoke or Stoke bound. Make of that what you will. He must've been really out of the loop. Robertson has said it himself that we were interested. www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/11558727/andy-robertson-nearly-joined-stoke-instead-of-liverpoolTo be fair players are linked & touted out to different clubs well before a move actually takes place & clubs arent necessarily notified. Agents put the feelers out & players then have options & the clubs actually agreeing transfer fees are usually well down the line. Lad I know started at Hull as head of recruitment in June 2017, Robertson left in the July so by then his move to Liverpool may have been well in progress.. Robertsons people chatting to Stoke wouldn't havent necessarily stuck in his memory once Liverpool were announced as interested and the move took traction and eventually happened. Plus by then his first & main tasking was most likely to be out finding a new left back..
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Apr 1, 2024 17:00:25 GMT
I don’t understand why you think it makes it unnavigable 🤔 it keeps older reference points in the same place when new news come out, it’s less fragmented and more easily searchable. And you don’t get the board clogged up with repetitive trivia when people decide *their* point deserves a new thread. Anyway this is the dominant practice for this type of messageboard all over the internet now so get used to it 😄 Three main reasons for me: 1) Proboards forgets where I was on a thread after a while, so if somebody bumps a twenty page thread from five years ago, clicking 'new' just takes me to page 1. If there have been a couple of pages of new stuff, then you then end up wading through lots of irrelevant old stuff to find what everybody's talking about. 2) The problem is doubled if, say, you occasionally browse the Oatcake at work in private browsing and not logged in. Then you really are wading through pages and pages of junk every time. 3) Unless the OP is super diligent like FullerMagic, the thread title will be something totally irrelevant to the new information, just like this one. You consequently have no idea what you're clicking on or why. The worst example is that thread that gets resurrected every time Peter Crouch does something. The title is something like 'Crouch blames foreign players for relegation', but the latest post will be something like 'Peter Crouch says that the men of Stoke-on-Trent hold their beer better than the people of Burnley'. However, everybody misses the new post and piles in assuming that Crouch is going on about relegation again, calling him all sorts of names. You see this sort of thing all the time. And although you say it's the dominant practice, it's actually very old hat. This is the stuff that awful places like West Brom's messageboard were doing 15 - 20 years ago that we thankfully eschewed. More modern platforms like Reddit and Twitter are totally skewed in favour of new posts. On Reddit, for example, a post on an active subreddit will be at the top of the board for 24 hours max before disappearing, no matter who posts on it. Any post older than six months is archived. A non-football board that I occasionally browse has an incredibly analytical set of rules that I wouldn't want replicated here, but posters get warnings and bans if they post on a thread that has disappeared off the front page. I think it makes for a better experience. EDIT Case in point, immediately after this post. Starting a fresh new thread on Kevin Wimmer with a new article would have had people saying so what, shitbin, not current etc..! For me the player or the article itself wasn't worthy of starting a brand new thread on. But as the article I linked was as recent as the other day so relevant a degree, I thought it be better linked in with a Wimmer thread already in existence to keep it all together for those who were interested in the latest article.. Some prefer this as less clutter and easier to find links and articles, others prefer new threads every time which I know causes admin a headache when it comes to housekeeping etc! Absolutely matters not really but it's there if people want to read it. If they don't, I won't lose sleep over it!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 1, 2024 17:01:40 GMT
Case in point, immediately after this post. So what?? I don't get why that's a problem - if anything I like the fact that a conversation or debate can be revisited. I think the overzealous "old-hat" merging thing you're talking about was slightly different but thanks for the explanation anyway
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 1, 2024 19:50:22 GMT
Yeah, I'm happy to accept that my Howard Beale-style ravings are to do with my peculiar obsession with the vitally important issue of...erm...the way that threads on The Oatcake are structured and not anything of any great import. It's entirely subjective personal preference.
|
|