From: John Crowley ([email protected])
The problems over the last 10 months are directly attributable to
the amount of traffic on the site. A year ago we had 20,000 users
on a
good day, now we have between 50-100,000 on any given day. More
users,
unfortunately, translates to more jerks.
I did not select the original hosts, Jim Jenks did. This is not
to
criticize Jim's choices,. or the hosts themselves, it's just to
say that
I was working with a group that was not mine. After a few months I
realized that this was a less-than-ideal group, and I made the
move to
institute the new hosts were currently have. Regarding gag
warnings,
they are not necessary. Profanity is not an issue where there is a grey
area,
either you have used it or not. Use it, and you will be gagged. I
have
left that up to the host's discretion. If they want to warn, fine.
If
not, they don't have to.
Other people clearly disagree with you. The volume of email I have
received since instituting the new hosts indicates that most
people
think there has been a marked improvement in the tone in the room.
Literally, hundreds of positive emails.
You are right, I did select the people as hosts who "marketed"
themselves to me. However, I prefer to look at it as "the people
who
made a serious effort to get my attention regarding their interest
in
hosting."
I ask you this: Where was I supposed to get these people? From
observing
the chat room for hours on end? I am an editor, not a babysitter,
and
frankly, that's what most chat room administration is,
babysitting. I
cannot, nor can the site, afford to waste time in the chat room.
These
people made a series of inquiries -- some over months of time --
before
I selected them. I corresponded with them through email, talked on
the
phone, found out about their occupations, where they live, hours
they
are on, and many other things. It was not throwing darts at a
board,
despite the fact that it appears to you that it was nothing more
than a
popularity contest. And like you said, in the scheme of things the
chat
room is pretty unimportant. So much so, in fact, that I have given
serious consideration to eliminating the room, at best opening it
up
once a week, after races for a few hours.
NASCAR is concerned that
it's
a discredit to the site because of what goes on in there, and our
hit
totals no longer need the boost that the room provided.
I've spent far
too much time as it is administrating this rather strange and
bizarre
social subculture, and what I have found out about it tells me
that it
is trivial, in terms of its importance, and relevance, to the
site.
I am unsure about how these people "profited" from their "sucking
up."
To be honest, there is nothing very pleasureable about being a
host,
except the fact that you can be sure the room will be free of
obscenity
and depravity while you are there. Otherwise, you are the target
of user anger, cannot chat in a normal anonymous fashion, have to answer
redundant questions, etc., etc. They are performing a service, for
absolutely nothing. Nothing. If there is profit or gain in there
somewhere, I've yet to recognize it. Resentment, that's like
jealousy, often rooted in insecurity. I don't think that's an issue that
relates to administration of the site. Again, I'm sorry if you feel that
way, specially if it relates to me somehow, but as a longtime member
of the media, I'm used to people being angry, or resentful. Not that I'm
insensitive to it, but I've just dealt with so much of it, most of
it
misplaced and off base, that I have to take it with a grain of
salt.
Like I said, shutting down the room is not out of the question at
all.
People on the Starwave payroll are far too valuable to be spending
time
as chat hosts. Frankly, the people here are some of the best and
brightest that the Web has to offer. That's why we are the No. 1
multimedia firm on the planet, why NASCAR, the NFL, the NBA, ESPN,
among
others, are our Web partners. Hosts HAVE to be users, it's just
that
simple.
Have I noticed a dropoff? No. I wouldn't know Adam from
Eve in the room. I have no interest in chatting on a computer. I
prefer
my interpersonal communication to be direct. Regulars? Who defines
what
a "regular" is? You? I need a more authoritative source.
So we've lost a
few "regulars." I can't be too worried about the small picture.
When our
numbers have more than tripled from a year ago at this time, I
can't say
that the loss of users in the chat room, of all places, is a big
issue
right now. Nor is it expected to be anytime soon. It's my
experience
that most chat room people never go to the rest of the site, as
the
answers to the questions they ask in there are readily available
on
places like our Home Page. That's pretty sad, if you ask me.
Don't apologize for being honest. I have thick skin, and I do pay
attention to all site comments, positive and negative. But I think
you
are taking this a little personally, and I think you have to
understand there are some limitations that exist that may never be
solved. They will just have to be lived with. If not, we kill the
room
and, voila, all the problems are solved, aren't they?
But I don't
think
that's what you want, nor do the other users in the room. And that
is
why, despite the constant headache that the room has become, we
will
continue to let it live on the site. Like I said up top, these
answers
probably won't satisfy you, but I hope they will serve as some
sort of
an explanation for some of the decisions that have been made
regarding
the room.
Thanks for your interest in the site. I hope it continues to serve
your
racing interests. We do work very hard, not only to satisfy
NASCAR, but
to satisfy users. I hope in some ways, we achieve that goal.
John Crowley
NASCAR Online
GeoCities.com