Sportspages.com -- Anybody still care?

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Before I'd look at the Top 10, I'd try to guess the number of legits vs. the number of oily self-promoters who were there because of their constant e-mailing of links to Rich and probably some sucking up, too. My usual guess was 7-3. If only I could pick lottery numbers so accurately.

 

[Dessens71]

To answer the original question: With all due respect, I haven't used the site in years. Won't miss it if it goes.

 

[ned racine]

PLEASE....as a guy who needs topics for his job,the links are awesome....i still read other papers and sites,but the links saves lots of time...i am a subscriber and its worth it...i do agree with a previous post who mentions using the same columnists too much....enough of the guys who are always on sports reporters....

 

[brettwatson]

I use the top 10 on slow days to see what's on there. If I see something I like, I occasionally call an editor at that paper and ask for permission to reprint the story (typically a column) in my paper the next day. I've never had anyone turn me down.

So by all means, keep it going.

 

[Rufino]

I love the utility of the links to the specific papers sportspages provides, but the link service stopped being relevant for me a long time ago. Ben Maller's site benmaller.com has the same type of stuff, as does profootballtalk.com for NFL. They and a variety of other sites do it for free and seem to cover a wider range of papers than you guys did back when I used the link service.

Rich, you used to have the occasional free days to show what people were missing out on if we didn't have the link service. Maybe you still do and I just haven't noticed, but I'd suggest you do that again and show people what they're missing out on by not getting it. Otherwise, there's more than enough similar content out there that I doubt anyone new would want to pay for it. Also, you used to have a perioidic comings and goings type column on the page. I'd suggest bringing that back - there's an aspect of it here, but not everyone follows it as closely as they likely would if it was in one place. You also included broadcast job stuff, which virtually never is discussed here.

 

[21]

I never really understood the Top Ten--folks seem to use it as a barometer of what's hot or who's got the best column/story of the day (as in, 'it must be good, it's in the Top Ten!), which would require some sort of daily beauty contest. Doubtful that anyone is actually weeding though scores of sports sections to accomplish this.

No disrespect to anyone who does the selecting....just an observation. The value of that site (to me) is having all the links on one place.

 

[playthrough]

I love the Top 10. Never believed it to be more than one guy's opinion, but it's a good starting point in my morning reading. Does the guy have favorites? Of course. Who wouldn't?

 

[lantaur]

If you keep it, at least update the newspaper links on the conference pages. A lot of them are dead/have new urls.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

I used to check out Sportspages maybe at least once a day (normally at least twice). Now I check it maybe once a month. Reasons why I stopped caring:

- as Luggie pointed out - if something is good - then it gets linked here or at one of the other boards I frequent. The links at Sportspages.com are redundant and often crappy writers are highlighted for reasons unknown.

- the site is slow to load and I have very high speed Internet access. Rich has bogged the site down with too many ads and other stuff and that's his business but it is also a reason I stay away from the site. I don't have the patience.

- maybe the biggest reason I stopped caring about Sportspages is because I got the impression Rich didn't care about the site. For about 3 years I was a regular contributor on their web log page. I may have contributed 3-4 offerings per week. From my writings I got emails from people like Woody Paige, Norman Chad, Bill Simmons and many of the people on the board here first emailed me via my postings at Sportspages. I'm not tooting my horn but I think some pretty good writers volunteered to provide original free content for Rich's site and he treated us like dirt. Writers like Chris Black, David Scott, Denis Gorman, Jaap Stijl (excellent Mets perspective), Jim Dawson, John McGuirk (a very funny professional comedy writer), Mike Paskoff (who actually got a sports talk radio job in Baltimore from his postings at Sportspages), Mike Ganis, Neate Seager, Van Walker and many others. Many of these writers are people just starting out in your industry and Sportspages had the potential to be THE place for new talent to show their stuff to a national audience.

Rich had 3-4 new offerings almost every day and many people made the web log page a daily must read. Instead of utilizing this free content and capitalizing on it - Rich did nothing. Now all of the people I mentioned above with the exception of Jim Dawson have quit posting at Sportspages mostly because of indifference. Rich is indifferent to his own site and he asks if we should care? Rich hasn't made any visible improvements to the site in years. And now he asks if we still care?

What pops to mind is some slob checking his refrigerator and asking aloud "is this food still good?" If you have to ask Rich - I think you already know the answer. Sportspages has become clumpy and moldy - you just haven't thrown it out yet. My guess is that you are just too lazy to clean the fridge.

 

[Appgrad05]

I used to check out Sportspages maybe at least once a day (normally at least twice). Now I check it maybe once a month. Reasons why I stopped caring:

- as Luggie pointed out - if something is good - then it gets linked here or at one of the other boards I frequent. The links at Sportspages.com are redundant and often crappy writers are highlighted for reasons unknown.

- the site is slow to load and I have very high speed Internet access. Rich has bogged the site down with too many ads and other stuff and that's his business but it is also a reason I stay away from the site. I don't have the patience.

- maybe the biggest reason I stopped caring about Sportspages is because I got the impression Rich didn't care about the site. For about 3 years I was a regular contributor on their web log page. I may have contributed 3-4 offerings per week. From my writings I got emails from people like Woody Paige, Norman Chad, Bill Simmons and many of the people on the board here first emailed me via my postings at Sportspages. I'm not tooting my horn but I think some pretty good writers volunteered to provide original free content for Rich's site and he treated us like dirt. Writers like Chris Black, David Scott, Denis Gorman, Jaap Stijl (excellent Mets perspective), Jim Dawson, John McGuirk (a very funny professional comedy writer), Mike Paskoff (who actually got a sports talk radio job in Baltimore from his postings at Sportspages), Mike Ganis, Neate Seager, Van Walker and many others. Many of these writers are people just starting out in your industry and Sportspages had the potential to be THE place for new talent to show their stuff to a national audience.

Rich had 3-4 new offerings almost every day and many people made the web log page a daily must read. Instead of utilizing this free content and capitalizing on it - Rich did nothing. Now all of the people I mentioned above with the exception of Jim Dawson have quit posting at Sportspages mostly because of indifference. Rich is indifferent to his own site and he asks if we should care? Rich hasn't made any visible improvements to the site in years. And now he asks if we still care?

What pops to mind is some slob checking his refrigerator and asking aloud "is this food still good?" If you have to ask Rich - I think you already know the answer. Sportspages has become clumpy and moldy - you just haven't thrown it out yet. My guess is that you are just too lazy to clean the fridge.

Please, tell us how you really feel.

In all seriousness, I've gone to this site once or twice but it didn't hook me.

 

[Double Down]

Good post, Evil One.

 

[21]

My ideal links service would be a subscription service that delivers a daily email with a specific collection of links the subscriber would select in advance. Five links for this price, ten links for that price....you pick from a long list of columnists or whatever. Any time your guy writes, you get the link.