Site Topics - Part II

[LA Guy]



Might as well stick this here.

Just a clarification about our advertising policy:

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.

And about original content:

The original content is something that members asked for, and that we put out, at considerable effort and expense.

 

[poorsod]



I've already told you that we have actually implemented some of the things that you would like implemented, and that others are just contrary to the spirit of the forum.
If you want a forum that accepts and turns people away, based on the amount of bespoke clothing they have, and their appreciation for your point of view, and in which only certain members are allowed to start site topics, that just isn't going to happen. From the beginning of the site, it's been about camaderie, not about having a panel of experts who rule over the masses. Our goal is to have experts talking eye-to-eye, face-to-face, with people who just want to learn something, or maybe observe something. I have a feeling that this isn't your deal.

One of the issues at hand is that those posters who generate your content (for free) do not seek camaraderie from just anyone but only from their peers - most likely other rich men of taste with knowledge and experience with classical dress. Without them, MC will become what AAAC is today. I remember when AAAC had great content and I only checked MC for NYC sales updates. How times have changed.

I wonder why Vox hasn't picked up his ball and setup his own forum like malden did many years ago. I suspect a forum is too much work for Vox and Tumblr is much easier. If he did, I wouldn't be surprised if many content generators followed.

I have no easy solution, but I think the major central issue is that the best content generators feel they are no longer getting their "utility" from SF.

 

[in stitches]



My favorite posts have been lengthy, picture-driven expositions that are added to and discussed: Whodini's coffee thread, Manton's culinary school, T4's tailor/loom thread(s), visits to NSM, Vintage Gent's piano lessons, photojournals of Florence, Napoli, Etc. And yes, ****** Tuesdays. okay maybe not that. But yes, that's sharing, and it's important that people with similar experiences add to these threads.

it may interest you to know, that i am working on something like that for MC, that you may enjoy. i hope to have it up by monday or tuesday.

 

[F. Corbera]



My question to you is - are you so entrenched in your position that you can't accept that some users, like Unbelragazzo, PSG, or Spoopoker, who are, by and large, happy with the MC forum, have valid opinions as well?

My "position," as you call it, is completely compatible with those three guys being happy with the MC forum.

My "position," to be a reflection of reality, need only to observe that the number of such "happy" people is fewer than before, that the ranks of dissatisfied have increased, and that the number of such includes more and more people who cannot be tarred with the dismissive "old glory days" label.

My question to you remains at what price to your capacity to be synchronized to reality do you choose only to hear those who agree with you, and ignore those who might love the idea of the MC forum as a "community" even more than you...an owner...does, yet see changes for the worse.

"The meat in this burger is rotten," someone tells you. You then say, "but the bun is still sweet, so the hamburger is fantastic. Eat."

Again, the whole thing is moot since you choose to plow ahead unperturbed, which is your right after all.

Like I said earlier, the whole matter was a shut case when you made an earlier post in this thread.

 

[Gus]

Might as well stick this here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan

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?


My reply:

I think this is "looking in the rearview mirror" thinking and not accepting that things evolve and change. The presence of vendors can give SF members a direct link to the product and the process. One of the major social/commercial trends in the US is the desire to know where your food, your clothing and other personal possessions comes from and who makes them. SF offers that direct link. I see that as a plus. It actually breaks down previous barriers. I love that.

The comment, "treat them like gods whose presence we should be grateful for'? I have no idea who or what vendors have such god-like status here that they are impervious to negative posts on threads. I think negative feedback from respected posters has a real effect. On the positive side, good feedback has certainly boosted vendors business. It has lead me to some wonderful discoveries for which I am grateful.

 

[SpooPoker]

You guys should just call each other and record it, then post it here.

 

[F. Corbera]



Just a clarification about our advertising policy:
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.

I do think that the approach to advertising and vendors on SF is a lot more honest than some other forums and a lot of high traffic blogs.

The question isn't the integrity of your policies, but the fact that advertising now swamps the forum in nearly every physical crevice, and casts a pall over every thread. I mean, I read Spoo's post with as clear a mind as I could, and then I saw his sig line.

And about original content:
The original content is something that members asked for, and that we put out, at considerable effort and expense.

Honestly, it sounds like Mickey Mouse GQ, which is odd given (1) the formation reasons of the site and (2) your earlier comments saying SF is not about "experts."

The more stuff like that you have on SF, the more it crowds out user-generated content. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it isn't happening.

I can see why n00bs and lurkers would prefer articles with official branding, as they do on magazine sites and so on. "10 Ways to Dress for Your Beach Wedding."

 

[in stitches]



You guys should just call each other and record it, then post it here.

please to add me to that call.

@ douglas - hardy har har. no sir, i mean actual pictures. bro.

 

[LA Guy]



My "position," as you call it, is completely compatible with those three guys being happy with the MC forum.
My "position," to be a reflection of reality, need only to observe that the number of such "happy" people is fewer than before, that the ranks of dissatisfied have increased, and that the number of such includes more and more people who cannot be tarred with the dismissive "old glory days" label.
My question to you remains at what price to your capacity to be synchronized to reality do you choose only to hear those who agree with you, and ignore those who might love the idea of the MC forum as a "community" even more than you...an owner...does, yet see changes for the worse.
"The meat in this burger is rotten," someone tells you. You then say, "but the bun is still sweet, so the hamburger is fantastic. Eat."
Again, the whole thing is moot since you choose to plow ahead unperturbed, which is your right after all.
Like I said earlier, the whole matter was a shut case when you made an earlier post in this thread.

Did you not read my entire post?

I said that I am constantly listening to feedback, good and bad, and making adjustments, constantly. We also think about a lot of possibilities. All the proposals you'd made to make the community better, we'd already considered. At least one, we had already implemented in earnest. Half of the people active on this thread, including Dopey and Doc, (so, not only those who are happy with the state of MC) have the ability to moderate any threads they start. Some of the other suggestions we'd also already considered, and rejected as being poisonous and counterproductive. One suggestion (to allow some posters to view the forum without ads), we'd previously rejected as being contrary to the esprit de corps, but are willing to revisit.

Please have the courtesy to not misrepresent me.

 

[F. Corbera]



One of the major social/commercial trends in the US is the desire to know where your food, your clothing and other personal possessions comes from and who makes them...I love that.

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]


Local chicken: the meat of future MC forum threads.

 

[The Thin Man]

For what it's worth, the bespoke customers who were on here through 2009 were and are the primary attraction to me of the forum. Basically guys who have canonical knowledge of classic clothes and basically stick to a conservative approach, who are affected by trends only obliquely, if at all.

I don't know which changes have occurred that have chased those people away, but I suspect that they have left principally because of changes in the forum, and not just their own boredom.

Just because the forum was founded on strong principles, those principles served the forum well for its first seven years and those principles have been applied consistently doesn't mean those principles are serving the MC subforum well now.

I honestly think MC would be greatly helped by if the bespoke people had a thread that served as their club room, like "random fashion thoughts" does for the SW&D crowd.

The last thread that had that potential could have been Manton's conservative business dress WAYWRN thread (although it probably would have been better if it was discussion-based rather than depending on photos). It's instructive how that thread fell apart. I recall a mix of people who were defensive when faced with those with more knowledge of tailored clothes; people who hate rules; people who hate Manton; etc.

Maybe a "Dubiously Honored" could try to start a similar thread and actively kick out those who detract from the conversation. I'd like to see the Dubiously Honored treat their threads ruthlessly, basically kicking out whoever the hell they felt like, with less caution than the mods would or should use. I get a sense that LA Guy & the mods wouldn't encourage that approach, which is a shame. Be very careful in who you give the "Dubiously Honored" title to, then let them go wild. Maybe even say that two DHs need to nominate new DHs, then hold a vote among the DHs on their new members.

It's probably too late for that, but what do you have to lose. Those guys are priceless to the forum.

 

[SpooPoker]



I mean, I read Spoo's post with as clear a mind as I could, and then I saw his sig line, ran to my closet, and prepared a package of things to send him.

FTFY

But come on, my sig line? Its my website for petes sake.

 

[LA Guy]



Honestly, it sounds like Mickey Mouse GQ, which is odd given (1) the formation reasons of the site and (2) your earlier comments saying SF is not about "experts."
The more stuff like that you have on SF, the more it crowds out user-generated content. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it isn't happening.
I can see why n00bs and lurkers would prefer articles with official branding, as they do on magazine sites and so on. "10 Ways to Dress for Your Beach Wedding."

We were asked specifically for this type of coverage (and I don't see Panico in GQ,) and the response was overwhelmingly positive. The material is designed to generate discussions, of the type that you'd like, I think. Here's my question to you. Why is it bad that Derek goes to Naples, visits with Panico, and writes about it, but good that other members post about their visits to Rubinacci? It's very difficult to talk to you when you are determined to see every single thing in a negative light.

 

[F. Corbera]



Did you not read my entire post?
I said that I am constantly listening to feedback, good and bad, and making adjustments, constantly. We also think about a lot of possibilities. All the proposals you'd made to make the community better, we'd already considered. At least one, we had already implemented in earnest. Half of the people active on this thread, including Dopey and Doc, (so, not only those who are happy with the state of MC) have the ability to moderate any threads they start. Some of the other suggestions we'd also already considered, and rejected as being poisonous and counterproductive. One suggestion (to allow some posters to view the forum without ads), we'd previously rejected as being contrary to the esprit de corps, but are willing to revisit.
Please have the courtesy to not misrepresent me.

You're now confusing me.

So, are you agreeing that there are severe problems with the MC forum today or not?

Because you seem to be saying that you are listening to both Pollyanna and Nostradamus, absorbing things like a sponge, computing trajectories, weighing options with wisdom and consultation, and after doing all that, what we have today is your best solution.

Is that right?

I had the distinct feeling that you thought the MC forum was just fine. If you do, of course, all of the computing of trajectories means little since they are made with the premise that there is nothing to fix.

 

[F. Corbera]



We were asked specifically for this type of coverage (and I don't see Panico in GQ,) and the response was overwhelmingly positive. The material is designed to generate discussions, of the type that you'd like, I think. Here's my question to you. Why is it bad that Derek goes to Naples, visits with Panico, and writes about it, but good that other members post about their visits to Rubinacci? It's very difficult to talk to you when you are determined to see every single thing in a negative light.

Did you pay for Derek's trip?