HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Hf Rankings.... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=100825)

icthelight 08-30-2004 05:32 PM

Hf Rankings....
 
So it's august 30th and we still haven't been updated yet. Anyone have an an idea on it's eta? Also, what other teams are not complete yet?

Infensus 08-30-2004 05:59 PM

I sent an email through the feedback option on the main page which delivers to owner@hockeysfuture.com asking about the slow team updates and lack of organizational updates with no response. Hockeys Future used to give prompt answers to questions.

Unfortunately it really does seem that this web site is slowly deteriorating...

oh well - the web does have other alternatives; It is sad to see a once great site falter.

NYRangers 08-30-2004 06:09 PM

They said team rankings will be up in January.

icthelight 08-30-2004 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
They said team rankings will be up in January.

Is this a joke? I'm assuming so.

NYRangers 08-30-2004 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icthelight
Is this a joke? I'm assuming so.

No but if you want to complain you should sign up to do it.

Guy Flaming 08-30-2004 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers
They said team rankings will be up in January.


The rankings that were promised in January of 2004 came out a bit late (Feb 9th of 2004).

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php

The Organizational rankings are being redone as we speak and will be unveiled before the 2004-05 season is scheduled to begin (approx Oct. 1)

The top 20 rankings for each team are nearly all done, the Rangers this time around is one of the last to come out but you'll see it soon. (No I'm not doing it).

If you feel you're qualified to help make the site even better than it is (and where else can you go to get prospect updates like HF provides?), then please feel encouraged to fill out the application and send it to our online editor.

Guy Flaming 08-30-2004 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infensus
Unfortunately it really does seem that this web site is slowly deteriorating...


Anything in particular you want to point out? Perhaps it's something other readers share with you and that the HF staff can address. :dunno:

sir_captain 08-30-2004 07:44 PM

From a long-time lurker
 
I'm disappointed in how the administration of the site has treated some writers--the Rangers board used to be updated constantly by talented writers, who, it would seem, were kicked to the curb.

Ken McKenna 08-30-2004 08:08 PM

It would appear that the real complaint here is that the Rangers page is deteriorating, rather than the entire site. While I will apologize slightly for the lack of articles on the Rangers page over the past few months, I do think we have a couple of writers in place who will pick up the pace a bit.

Of course, it took us about 25-to-30 applications from people supposedly interested in writing for the Rangers page before we actually found a couple that would produce at least a few articles.

Oddly enough, we seem to have the most difficult time finding writers for teams in the big markets, such as NY. I think it may be a case of Big City Syndrome- those interested only want to write about the NHL club, rather than the team's prospects. That was a problem with some of the previous writers for the Rangers page, which is why some of them aren't writing for this page anymore.

Writing about the prospects rather than the NHL clubs is what we do here at HF. That has been the case since the site began, and will continue to be the focus going forward.

As for no responses to e-mails, where are you sending those? I respond to all reader complaints/requests that I receive, but I don't recall receiving any from Rangers fans. If you have suggestions/complaints, you are free to PM or e-mail me.

in the hall 08-30-2004 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken McKenna
It would appear that the real complaint here is that the Rangers page is deteriorating, rather than the entire site. While I will apologize slightly for the lack of articles on the Rangers page over the past few months, I do think we have a couple of writers in place who will pick up the pace a bit.

Of course, it took us about 25-to-30 applications from people supposedly interested in writing for the Rangers page before we actually found a couple that would produce at least a few articles.

Oddly enough, we seem to have the most difficult time finding writers for teams in the big markets, such as NY. I think it may be a case of Big City Syndrome- those interested only want to write about the NHL club, rather than the team's prospects. That was a problem with some of the previous writers for the Rangers page, which is why some of them aren't writing for this page anymore.

Writing about the prospects rather than the NHL clubs is what we do here at HF. That has been the case since the site began, and will continue to be the focus going forward.

As for no responses to e-mails, where are you sending those? I respond to all reader complaints/requests that I receive, but I don't recall receiving any from Rangers fans. If you have suggestions/complaints, you are free to PM or e-mail me.

The boards are not near where they were before. Too much power trip with certain admins and mods. Fortunately I only post in the Ranger and Sports board now, but that's more because I was turned off by every other one. The site is also ridiculous. NYR had some of the best writers - NYR has one of the bigger fan bases. HF doesn't seem so bright to me, something small trying to be something big doesn't help if you make stupid decisions like that. There isn't much professionalism on this site. Sorry that this will group up everyone who contributes to HF as there are many I do like, Guy the Edmonton writer being one of them, but there is a lot that has nerved me about this place.

Slats432 08-30-2004 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in the hall
The boards are not near where they were before. Too much power trip with certain admins and mods. Fortunately I only post in the Ranger and Sports board now, but that's more because I was turned off by every other one. The site is also ridiculous. NYR had some of the best writers - NYR has one of the bigger fan bases. HF doesn't seem so bright to me, something small trying to be something big doesn't help if you make stupid decisions like that. There isn't much professionalism on this site. Sorry that this will group up everyone who contributes to HF as there are many I do like, Guy the Edmonton writer being one of them, but there is a lot that has nerved me about this place.

I don't think that HF has turned into some totalitarian state. Number one, if there are mods and admin that have done certain things to bother you, then feel free to contact Buffaloed and or Gee Wally to express your opinion.

As far as the writer thing, I don't think that anyone who has posted with any regularity on the Rangers board isn't aware that a change in policy lost at least one very good writer. But as stated, the policy was necessary, and HF was willing to accept the loss as part of instituting a "More professional" direction. Now of course this wasn't a knock on that writer, but just an overall position.

As far as professionalism goes, if there is a writer or staff member, or moderator that goes outside the boundries you need to provide specifics and situations that can be corrected. I have heard the "things are going downhill" mantra before, but nothing specific. If something needs to be addressed, it gets addressed.

As volunteers, many of us go out of our way to enhance the site, but when we aren't given the expectations of the readership, then we are only in a position to make our best guesses.

We want to put the best product out there, but our readership must be involved in the process.

in the hall 08-30-2004 10:14 PM

Quote:

We want to put the best product out there, but our readership must be involved in the process.
doesn't seem like it:
Quote:

Originally Posted by George Bachul
As far as the writer thing, I don't think that anyone who has posted with any regularity on the Rangers board isn't aware that a change in policy lost at least one very good writer. But as stated, the policy was necessary, and HF was willing to accept the loss as part of instituting a "More professional" direction. Now of course this wasn't a knock on that writer, but just an overall position.

Why is the writer not qualified. His age? that makes him "unprofessional"? So many young people are given and allowed opportunities by more established organizations and yet that doesn't make them any less professional. Quality is what matters most. As it is now, the Rangers section is nothing, just barren as opposed to a year ago where it was one of the best areas this site had to offer. That is not professionalism, that is stupidity.

dafranchz 08-30-2004 11:15 PM

I am glad to see that many NYR fans are passionate about getting their news from Hockey's Future. I understand that currently, things haven't met your expectations. I want to stress that the path in which Hockey's Future is moving, only supports long-term growth and positioning.

Of course in any business (paid or volunteered), you have to make the right decisions for future success. Sometimes people, policies or rules fall victim to change. Can any business remain the same and still succeed? Chances are yes, but it can become very mundane and repetitive. By forcing change and keeping your core ideology in tact, you only enhance the longevity in which you are able to successfully provide a service.

I have to say that the people who run Hockey's Future, are visionaries who are open for change and evolution. In order for us to go out and get more for you and the next guy, we have to start taking a uniformed and professional approach with everyone and everything we encompass. They have taken a hard look to align our strategies, tactics, structure, etc. When you take a hardline approach, you have to also incorporate rules into your model. Rules stink, but in an environment like this, they need to exist, even if it forces a temporary loss.

In this case, the way in which Hockey's Future has moved is in the right direction, even though they have taken some minor losses here and there. Honestly, what you should be able to distinguish is that they are making the right changes to put the "cause" in a better holistic position down the road. By doing so, there has been an extensive step to solidify and reinforce the credibility of our reporting staff and the content in which we provide.

From what I see, it has been a temporary setback for you, our NYR brethren. Everyone here on the staff is very dedicated to providing the utmost accurate, reliable and consistent information. Unfortunately, change has slowed down the process in which we are able to give you that information. As the staff, we all strive to continue to be on the forefront of prospect reporting.

If there are certain issues that you think are valid and pertinent to making our work more effective, I encourage anyone to step up and work with us. You have to remember it has to be relevant to the content we provide (prospects) and/or model in which we provide it. We can't try to guess what you want or guess what you prefer. We have to meet on some sort of common ground. There has to be some sort of acceptable dialogue in which the issues can be addressed. Bickering and blind accusations are going to delay the process. Being vague gets us nowhere.

Personally, I interact with the Coyotes fan base as much as I can. I strongly encourage their feedback, positive or not. I like many other writers here recognize that we need to hear what our peers have to say. It fosters an environment that helps guide us towards fulfilling the audiences' need. Realistically, we aren't going to please everyone every single time, but we try very hard to put the best information for you to read.

We have to always do better, go farther and find new possibilities even if our current practices are a big success. Moves have to be within reason and there is evidence to support that here. You might not see it everyday, but it is happening. Folks...progress and success is a never ending process. We can never be satisfied. Even though it might seem that the NYR content is temporarily breaking down, the site within itself is morphing into something a lot more dynamic. As well, I envision that our NYR "chapter" will be getting back on track here shortly. Though please be patient, things like this take time.

We are a very passionate and dedicated group that offers a lot and really asks for squat. We have our own core values and a sense of purpose here, beyond making money. We all want what is best, so if there anything I can do to assist you here...feel free to PM or email me...or anyone on the staff. We want to hear what you have to say.

vbox81 08-30-2004 11:50 PM

I guess that's why all I hear since I joined seveal months ago is "It was so much better last year/a few years ago when we had better writers."

I was here not 2 months before I was enticed to join a competing board. That board breaks news before this one, incites more conversation, though it does not have organizational rankings or Top 20 as this one does.

As someone who wasn't here when prior regimes were changed, could an HF staff member explain what occurred oh so many months ago?

TheZherdev 08-30-2004 11:53 PM

You are my new favorite mod. :bow:

THANKS FOR THE INFO!!!

Slats432 08-30-2004 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vbox81
I guess that's why all I hear since I joined seveal months ago is "It was so much better last year/a few years ago when we had better writers."

I was here not 2 months before I was enticed to join a competing board. That board breaks news before this one, incites more conversation, though it does not have organizational rankings or Top 20 as this one does.

As someone who wasn't here when prior regimes were changed, could an HF staff member explain what occurred oh so many months ago?

In a nutshell a very good HF writer was asked to no longer write for the site because he was under 18.(A new policy designed to make it easier to get media credentials, and rid of the stigma of "writers are only a bunch of kids that don't know anything." Holly has the stats but the average age of the writers is now high-mid 20s and somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 have actually had some professional training in writing.)

Not only was he a good writer, he was a valued poster on the boards. Sometimes policies affect good people in a negative way, but it was done with the best intentions and for the overall benefit of the site.

Slats432 08-30-2004 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackburn2727
You are my new favorite mod. :bow:

THANKS FOR THE INFO!!!

None of us are mods, we are all HF Staff, trying to understand the HF Rangers readership and how to best serve them.

Zetterberg4Captain* 08-31-2004 12:38 AM

are you serious? You can only be a writer if your 18 or older? Thats one of the stupidest rules I have ever heard in my life!

ZombieMatt 08-31-2004 06:30 AM

Hi guys. I caught this thread on my usual perusing of the boards, which I'm just getting back to doing now that I've landed in the east coast for another year of university.

I see quite a few complaints about the under 18 rule. This is, ironically, a rule which came about at least partially due to the complaints of some readers who felt the HF staff was comprised of nothing but a group of children. In order to completely debunk that stigma the decision was made by the higher up to ensure all HF Staff was over the age of 18. It was unfortunate in this one instance, which I'm just hearing about now for the first time, but it would appear that the HF Admin simply made a decision which seemed like it would be taking HF a step ahead, and I think that in general, it has. Unfortuntely, it appears to have adversely impacted the Rangers page. At least for now. I'm not certain if the Rangers have any writers right now.

I'm one of the newest members to join the HF Staff. I've been on board for less than a month I believe. My name is, as the board says, Matthew MacInnis, and I'm currently 20 years old, turning 21 shortly, and I'm taking Canadian Studies at a prominent Canadian undergraduate university. The reason I'm telling you this is because Canadian Studies is, for me, a segway into professional journalism. I've been involved with newspapers for more than four years, writing for my local newspaper (and serving as the editor of a well received annual publication funded by a government branch the past three summers).

In this time I've served as a liason to my high school, a sports reporter, the sports editor for a month long period, a columnist for three summers, a freelancer, as well as my time working on this other annual publication. All for a completely legitimate, award winning local newspaper.

My point is this. Working with the North Island Gazette as a 17 and 18, heck, even a 19 year old, was EXTREMELY difficult. I was not taken seriously. I had difficulty getting access to prominent local figures (mayors, federal and provincial politicians, heads of organizing committees, etc). It was nearly impossible for me to get important interviews without the person first checking with my editor, or even publisher, to ensure I was legit (though later the editor and publisher became the same person but anyhow). As a youth, people were NOT taking me seriously. This past summer was actually the first time in my life, as I'm nearly 21 now, that I had NO problems due to my age.

This sounds like a lot of whiny teenage crap, but ageism is one ofthe biggest problems in today's society. And this certainly extends to journalism. Unfortunately many people do not respect the ability of a youth to do a professional job, ESPECIALLY in something as public as reporting.

I think HF would have a much easier time gaining media credentials if one of the things it can say to teams is that we don't employ minors/youths (age of majority is different everywhere, I know). It's unfortunate that making this decision cost a board such a well respected writer and poster. Unfortunately, the decision appears to be made indirectly at the request of HF readers and in order to try to get HF access to more prominent figures that HF readers want to hear from.

Infensus 08-31-2004 06:43 AM

I understand the direction and position that HockeysFuture is taking; but disagree with its tactics. If you get to a position that you are in by having a devoted fan base, you do not upset that fan base to the point where they sign up for competing media sources before you have a good alternative in place. The case of the writer here that was dismissed due to his not being mature enough is a good point. Why would you dismiss him prior to having another writer in place? A writer that proves his or herself with good quality content.

Aside from that; the readers here found his articles informative and insightful. Is that not what you want? In this writer you were providing frequent quality updates that the NYR fans wanted and enjoyed and which built up this section of your forums.

Over and over HF is telling me that things are getting better but I have yet to see evidence of this; Please point out some of the areas that have already improved. I was a fan of the old forum and again with the new. I used to check this site very frequently for updates and lively conversation but that has all but disappeared. You may be updating the core components of this site and the NYR section is not one of them and that may be your "things are getting better" point; but it really does seem that the fan base is being neglected and that the ideology of this once great free site is now turning commercial.

This is a free site provided by you the staff at HF which is appreciated. We want this site to stay the great site it has been. We appreciate the feedback when provided and for being allowed to voice our opinions and criticism when we feel necessary; however at this point please be aware that many posters are already "defecting" to other sources where they are receiving the information they are looking for and frequent updates from writers regardless of age. HF may want to explore different avenues of allowing articles to be submitted. It was not only the quantity of updates but also the quality.

I wish I could continue this post which has been rushed, but I do need to go to work now.
----------------

"As for no responses to e-mails, where are you sending those? I respond to all reader complaints/requests that I receive, but I don't recall receiving any from Rangers fans. If you have suggestions/complaints, you are free to PM or e-mail me."

I have been sending my e-mails to the feedback link on the main HockeysFuture web page.

TKLOOCH22 08-31-2004 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt MacInnis
I see quite a few complaints about the under 18 rule. This is, ironically, a rule which came about at least partially due to the complaints of some readers who felt the HF staff was comprised of nothing but a group of children. In order to completely debunk that stigma the decision was made by the higher up to ensure all HF Staff was over the age of 18. It was unfortunate in this one instance, which I'm just hearing about now for the first time, but it would appear that the HF Admin simply made a decision which seemed like it would be taking HF a step ahead, and I think that in general, it has.

I dont understand this one bit. I dont argue with the rule the site placed, but how the site went about it. Just because of a few *grumpy*, whiny posters/readers, the guy(s) under 18 had to get slashed? I know alot of guys on this site that talk/post just to have a puss. Were they jealous they never had a job like that a 18? And what is the fanbase on this site? I see more and more youthful kids, under 20, posting and inhabiting this site. I see less and less "professionals" that the site has to be geared towards. No disrespect to you or any other volunteer mod/person on this site, but the site really has got to get their *stuff* together.

Edit: Didnt realize it was going to look that nasty. lol

ZombieMatt 08-31-2004 08:32 AM

I'm not an administrator or owner of this site, but knowing them in the limited capacity that I do, I can certainly attest to the fact that this must not have been a concern of 'a few grumpy posters', or anything remotely resembling that for such a change to be brought on.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like the responses to what I have said have read my post without reading it. This decision has been designed to make HF better. It was brought about by what the owners felt was a concern of the majority and not simply the sentiments of one, or a few, boards, who were negatively impacted by this change.

The undeniable fact of the matter is this change helps bring more credibility to HF in the eyes of the hockey world. HF is currently attempting to get some of its writers accredited with various organizations, including NHL teams, and that the website is able to boast that it is NOT just a group of kids writing, and is actually a site which has a good reputation, and is inhabited by 1/3 to 1/2 writers which actually have journalism experience, is a major advantage for HF.

The best was to provide the best information to readers is certianly through having closer ties to the people and organizations which we cover, correct? Who better to hear opinions and views from than professional scouts and players themselves? That is what HF is striving towards. HF is moving in a direction that the majority of readers indicate they want. Research articles and such are great, but can't compare with interviews with players, scouts, access to training camps and other events, etc.

I strongly disagree with the claim that the quality of HF has decreased. The articles being posted on the main page are more thoroughly researched and go into deeper depth than any other time period in the three odd years I've been reading the site. HF is moving in a direction that, as something that more or less began as a fan-site, is amazing. HF is being recognized more and more by the hockey world, and this is vitally imnportant to the quality of work we are able to produce. I am very excited about this direction, and the opportunities HF is going to have in the future.

As for having to release a writer before a new one was in place...unfortunately if HF had permitted him to stay on board, newer writers would have complained that this other writer was permitted despite the rules, why not them? Consistency is the single most important thing in journalism. Everything must be standard across the board. This reportedly good writer was an unfortunate casualty of a process which is making HF better. How? The quality of the articles is vastly superior to past years and the access to prominent figures is increasing. These are the two necessary tenets to bring HF to the next level in its evolution.

Melrose_Jr. 08-31-2004 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt MacInnis
I strongly disagree with the claim that the quality of HF has decreased. The articles being posted on the main page are more thoroughly researched and go into deeper depth than any other time period in the three odd years I've been reading the site.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you're right. The bottom line is, for Ranger fans, the site literally offers nothing but a message board. We're not able to reap ANY of the benefits of HF's new regulations. For us, they've only served to eliminate a source of information.

Ranger fans are one of the largest groups of supporters of this site. One would think finding a writer for us, especially given the current state of the team, would be a top priority. The consituents are speaking. Is anyone at HF listening?

ZombieMatt 08-31-2004 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you're right. The bottom line is, for Ranger fans, the site literally offers nothing but a message board. We're not able to reap ANY of the benefits of HF's new regulations. For us, they've only served to eliminate a source of information.

Ranger fans are one of the largest groups of supporters of this site. One would think finding a writer for us, especially given the current state of the team, would be a top priority. The consituents are speaking. Is anyone at HF listening?

According to the page the Rangers currently have two writers. Is this incorrect?

Furthermore, I'm not certain I see the same dismal state you do...I see that that Top 20 list has yet to be completed, but there are other teams who are just having theirs done as well.

The Draft Review went up earlier than many others, and I believe there is an interview and a off-season update on the site as well.

This is not so bad compared to some teams, is it?

Unfortunatley HF does not have enough volunteer writers to assign multiple people to each page. In fact, sometimes a person is assigned to multiple pages, which is the exact opposite of what would be ideal. However, when its a free service, you do what you can.

Melrose_Jr. 08-31-2004 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt MacInnis
According to the page the Rangers currently have two writers. Is this incorrect?

Furthermore, I'm not certain I see the same dismal state you do...I see that that Top 20 list has yet to be completed, but there are other teams who are just having theirs done as well.

I thought Brendan was our only writer, who, by his own admission, isn't able to contribute as much as he used to. We haven't gotten an update from him since the draft preview. Most of the articles posted on the Ranger page are contributions from non-NYR writers.

We're being told the rankings may not be done this year. I can't see how this isn't a constantly updated part of the site. At very least, someone should cut and paste the top 25 user poll that 'bmoak' ran post-draft. At least it reflects players who are in the organization.

"Dismal" is your word. You're telling me your goal is to have HF become "more recognized in the hockey world". I'm telling you, the people who support this site just want some information, even if it comes from a 17 year old.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.