nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Policy question

PerroGrande

With the announced changes, I was wondering what is allowed now wrt outside links. I noticed the moderators removed the youtube link on the story comparing McConkey to Dee Dowis. Are all youtube or outside links forbidden, or just those that might be viewed as competition to Dawgnation stories?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

dawgnms

Unfortunately as of right now it is ALL outside links. It is still being discussed, you can email BJ directly if you wish his email is in his announcement.

PerroGrande

https://forum.dawgnation.com/discussion/comment/551535#Comment_551535

Will do, and thx for the guidance.

JimWallace

I'm not sure what derogatory comments towards groups of people means in terms of the hated Gators and such. In my opinion, we are engaging in good clean old fashioned traditional college football hate as opposed to actual hate. What's the policy in that regard?

Go, Dawgs!

Kasey

https://forum.dawgnation.com/discussion/comment/551552#Comment_551552

I think they mean some of the personal attacks between forum members. Which happens from time to time.

AvgJoe

To the powers that be,

I understand that to a lot of folks, especially behind the scenes, this is a business and thus your livelihood. I also understand that we are getting essentially a free product with the revenue being generated by ads and as such engagement metrics (clicks, views, etc..) are important. Links to external content obviously don't do much for the old revenue stream.

Now, I think for the most part there is little need/desire to seek outside content. BA's show is immensely popular and Jeff's articles are top notch. That isn't just my opinion, the numbers back me up. But there have been a couple of content streams that have underperformed, in quality and in engagement. This is all somewhat transparent as we are allowed to see comment and view metrics on most forum posts. It has also been openly discussed on the forums including constructive feedback for those respective streams. However, the feedback seems to have been ignored and yes even I've noticed an uptick in outside content beyond the typical ornamental Dawg meme.

It seems like two approaches were considered to this issue. Ban outside content or improve the underperforming content and thus reduce the need/desire to share outside sources. I'm assuming the new policy means that the former was chosen.

To me this will only work as a temporary solution as it addresses the symptom but not the disease. Ultimately ad revenue is generated because of exposure to an audience. In the long run, bad content will still drive away some of that audience.

Please understand, I'm not trying to twist your arm about outside content. I understand this is your business and livelihood. Plus, your house, your rules. However, I am imploring you to help us fix the problematic content.

Thanks for all the good hard work you do,

A Fan

cincydawg

I don't post much, but I do check out the forum most days, so I wanted to add an opinion on this.

I spent several years working for a niche publishing company in Cincinnati. During my time there we put a lot of our focus on developing communities around our niche publications. The topics ranged from sports cards, graphic design, old cars, hunting, writing, scuba diving, and a lot more. The company was called F+W Media. It's out of business now, but that is because it was bought and sold by PE firms who had no experience in or love for publishing - not because F+W couldn't build communities. We were good at that.

I have two thoughts based on comments I've seen recently:

Need for a Moderated Forum

First thing we learned is that it's crucial to have mods and good ones. Leaving a forum unmoderated can result in a toxic environment where the people who like to fight get what they want and the people who don't leave. I don't see a lot of toxic behavior here, but I'm sure the moderators have had to council or remove people at times. Disagreements happen, but as long as people are basically civil and eventually let it go rather than restate the opinion ad nauseum then it's typically good for a forum. Aside from my next point, you seem to be doing a good job here.

Outside Links

I think someone is making a mistake by blocking outside links, and not a small mistake. I'm not even sure what the goal is here - apologies if that has been explained and I missed it. But here's the thing...

This site is great, but it's just a small fraction of the relevant content people are going to want to discuss. Do you want to limit the discussions to DawgNation content? If so, my message for you is going to be blunt. Someone is going to kill the forum with that decision. It's too narrow, restrictive and users are going to migrate to less restrictive place to discuss UGA sports. You might as well shut the forum down today because that's where it's headed if this is the directive.

If you're OK with discussions around other content, but the issue is linking to it...that's just weird. You're just putting an undue burden on users to go find something on their own when it should be easy. This wouldn't be as bad as trying to restrict discussions on outside content, but user interface matters. Don't make someone go searching the internet to figure out what a post is talking about. Some people won’t bother and now the discussion is less active and so is your forum. You're also going to frustrate users who post an interesting link only to have it blocked. As a longtime reader of DawgNation I have some loyalty, but if I were new to this forum and was told I can't link to a good outside article...I'd probably leave and end up loyal to another forum.

If the issue is some links are self-promotional (or something of that nature), then you're using a chainsaw when you need a scalpel. State a policy, one that acknowledges the rest of the internet contains some good topics for discussion here and remove anything that attempts to misuse your traffic. I'd also be as relaxed as possible enforcing it, but it's OK to remove blatant abuses.

In closing

This post is intended respectfully. I only added in because I have some relevant experience. In full disclosure, this isn't what I do anymore - so I'm not a guru or anything, but I'm confident my advice is good in this instance.

In the spots where I'm blunt, it's because someone is making a big mistake and I want to make sure the point lands.

I do enjoy the site so thanks for the hard work and dedication.

Teddy

@cincydawg The mods have asked and raised these same questions/concerns to the powers that be as well. We're awaiting more clarity at this time.

CondorFacts

I honestly thought that one of the reasons this forum was here was to give the staff writers insight into what the fanbase was talking about/interested in. Why would you want to take that away by slowly declining the userbase? I'm sure there are more factors than that, though.

Gurleyman

Its my perspective as well that this will be a bad move as well. Dawgnation wants traffic and im sure to some degree this will hurt traffic. The only thing in my opinion that will provide a solid floor is there is some of if not the best content surrounding the dawgs being provided by BA, Jeff, Conor and Mike (apologies if i missed anyone) through podcast and youtube videos.

Im my opinion, and its not an expert one, the forum regulation is becoming annoying (and know some will say "then leave" - thats fine I might). I understand taking down payed articles, i also understand blocking folks that slander others. I dont understand removing or closing posts because the content is off topic, or portrays a qb contraversy, or doesnt align with the measage the masses want to hear. This used to be a much more open forum. It's annoying to see things controlled at this level.

Just my 2 cents, certainly i am sure there was thought put into these decisions.

cincydawg

Thanks for the reply @Teddy. I'm sure whoever come up with this has good intentions. I just wanted to add my 2 cents because I have some experience here.

I've always wondered if hiding the football threads from users who aren't logged in hurts new user acquisition. I wouldn't read the note at the top before looking for threads of interest. I'm guessing some folks don't see any football threads and just move on. Anyway, I'll stop critiquing and go back to lurking. Thanks again.

markrichter

https://forum.dawgnation.com/discussion/comment/553923#Comment_553923

I dont think the userbase can decline much more. It is almost to ghost town levels since many left for other sites.

Teddy

https://forum.dawgnation.com/discussion/comment/553946#Comment_553946

I agree, the note to sign up to view all recruiting/football threads on the homepage sticky could be more prominent and a little more clear in its instructions. We mods don't control that. But to answer your question, sign-ups skyrocketed when visitors were asked to signup to view all recruiting/football threads. I think DN could go back to promoting signups a little more frequently in articles and podcasts/streaming content. The forum will always be a work in progress and hopefully we'll see some updates soon. We appreciate your feedback.

moos

@cincydawg is right, and the mods are right to raise these concerns. If dawgnation only wants comments on dawgnation specific content, then it would seemingly make more sense to move to a article comment section rather than having a forum.

cincydawg

https://forum.dawgnation.com/discussion/comment/553963#Comment_553963

I'm sure that the signups skyrocketed, but that's what I would expect to be the short-term impact. In fact, that's when I created my account. But I was already on the forum before generating ad impressions for DN. And I debated whether or not to create an account, but ultimately decided to. I'm sure I would have signed up at some point since I'm too opinionated to stay quite forever.

The question I have, is do you have more traffic and a more active forum today then you would have had without that change. It's not easy one to answer, but I'd want more than a surge in signups to validate the decision (unless signups is what you monetize). Georgia being an ascending program during this time also also complicates figuring out what works and doesn't. It could have been the best decision, though.

I think you are definitely on to something about promoting signups and making sure new users understand there is something behind the curtain since it's likely what they are looking for when they make a first visit to this forum.

JimWallace

What other similar but better forums are available to us.

Asking for a friend of course.

We've lost too many very good, very informed posters, and retained at least one who...

Go, Dawgs!