Future of the footy forum

[spf]

If the forum was to go the social media route I would not use it anymore.

[BlueAvenger]

Bring back Gozza.

He was a character that's for sure. I echo the sentiments of the majority. Love CSC, I've been around since '09. CSC is much better than TC and BF imo.
I only go to BigFooty.com during the trade period as they have 2-3 in the know type posters but in general and overall CSC is much more like a little community.

[sandsmere]

If the forum was to go the social media route I would not use it anymore.

x2.

Social media is all over the place. I'd prefer to keep this site free of it.

[cookie2]

If the forum was to go the social media route I would not use it anymore.

Tend to feel the same way. I want nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter and studiously avoid both.

[Thryleon]

There's other problems with social media.

Imagine half the stuff said about Gibbs was to make it to social media platform where he could actually read it.

We'd have to moderate that more heavily meaning people won't be allowed to be as critical.  Before anyone says no to that, it absolutely would have to happen because common decency prevails.

I'd rather we get people being able to voice it, and discuss accordingly.

[Thryleon]

I've noticed that social media is changing too.  People don't use it like they used to.  Most of my friends have ditched facebook for insta because there's too much advertising and sports on facebook.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Tend to feel the same way. I want nothing to do with Facebook or Twitter and studiously avoid both.

x2...

[mateinone]

Thry, are you suggesting he can't read it is on CSC or that he doesn't know the identity of those reading it?

Because integration with Facebook (let's use that as an example), wouldn't mean all the posts on CSC are on Facebook.
It might mean that a link is posted directing those wanting to chat about Gibbs to come over to the forum and discuss it.

Whilst respecting everyone's right to their own decisions around where and when they post, I find some comments a little hard to understand and I wonder if they are just blanket statements without a complete understanding of what integration with sites might actually look liike.

Here are 2 examples

Example 1
=======
IF the forum enables users to use their account (and let's say Facebook again) as an 'option' to logon with (instead of having to signup with email) are people saying they would leave the forum?
I mean that is an 'integration' with Social Media affecting only those wanting to sign on that way, but it is a popular form of integration.

Now why would the forum adopt this method as an opton for signing up? Well as an example yesterday I was in Fitzroy heading to St Vincent's and looking for some sushi to take up to someone I was visiting. I downloaded Yelp onto my new phone and you had to log in or sign up. I was able to just signup with my facebook account in seconds, rather than have to signup with my email, wait for verification etc etc. I was pulled over on the side of the road, I would not have signed up with email. Now this is common, a LOT of people would prefer to hit a couple of buttons to sign up/logon to a site, that is why that method has become so popular everywhere.

So that is one of the most popular forms of social media integration. Would people actually leave CSC if that was enabled here?
If yes, I respectfully ask why?


Example 2
========
What about if today someone went to Facebook and copy and pasted a link from a discussion here and put it on a Carlton Football Supporter group today encouraging people to join csc and chat? Something which has absolutely already happened.

Would people leave CSC if a poster on here was to do that?

If not, then why would people leave if there was an option to "share on Facebook" a thread. Making it easier for the admins or others to post the link?

What I am suggesting here is that it can already be done right now, but having it as a built in option makes it easier for a topic to be shared.

The site can enable these options and the ONLY change for the average user would be a button with the option to 'share' or an option to 'sign in with your ........ account'. Users could still login with their current account/password/avatar. No user would ever have to go to Facebook or Twitter or Google+ (that is funny) or reddit or anywhere else to discuss Carlton.
In other words the site can enable integration with the wider community without a user here changing anything.

So whilst I understand people might jump ship if you had to lose your anonymity (though that anonymity is partly a falsehood regardless right now), or if the discussion here were moving to social media... I do struggle with understanding why someone postiing a link to the forum on another platform would be enough to  drive people away.

This could very easily be a misunderstanding by me, but it does seem as though growth is discouraged by some because that in reality is all that integration is designed to do. To allow CSC to reach out to the next generation of supporters to come and chat about Carlton, because I fail to see how any of the suggestions change things for current users who don't use social media.

===

If it is something other than the above that is worrying people about SM, what is it?

[Thryleon]

Thry, are you suggesting he can't read it is on CSC or that he doesn't know the identity of those reading it?

Because integration with Facebook (let's use that as an example), wouldn't mean all the posts on CSC are on Facebook.
It might mean that a link is posted directing those wanting to chat about Gibbs to come over to the forum and discuss it.

Whilst respecting everyone's right to their own decisions around where and when they post, I find some comments a little hard to understand and I wonder if they are just blanket statements without a complete understanding of what integration with sites might actually look liike.

Here are 2 examples

Example 1
=======
IF the forum enables users to use their account (and let's say Facebook again) as an 'option' to logon with (instead of having to signup with email) are people saying they would leave the forum?
I mean that is an 'integration' with Social Media affecting only those wanting to sign on that way, but it is a popular form of integration.

Now why would the forum adopt this method as an opton for signing up? Well as an example yesterday I was in Fitzroy heading to St Vincent's and looking for some sushi to take up to someone I was visiting. I downloaded Yelp onto my new phone and you had to log in or sign up. I was able to just signup with my facebook account in seconds, rather than have to signup with my email, wait for verification etc etc. I was pulled over on the side of the road, I would not have signed up with email. Now this is common, a LOT of people would prefer to hit a couple of buttons to sign up/logon to a site, that is why that method has become so popular everywhere.

So that is one of the most popular forms of social media integration. Would people actually leave CSC if that was enabled here?
If yes, I respectfully ask why?


Example 2
========
What about if today someone went to Facebook and copy and pasted a link from a discussion here and put it on a Carlton Football Supporter group today encouraging people to join csc and chat? Something which has absolutely already happened.

Would people leave CSC if a poster on here was to do that?

If not, then why would people leave if there was an option to "share on Facebook" a thread. Making it easier for the admins or others to post the link?

What I am suggesting here is that it can already be done right now, but having it as a built in option makes it easier for a topic to be shared.

The site can enable these options and the ONLY change for the average user would be a button with the option to 'share' or an option to 'sign in with your ........ account'. Users could still login with their current account/password/avatar. No user would ever have to go to Facebook or Twitter or Google+ (that is funny) or reddit or anywhere else to discuss Carlton.
In other words the site can enable integration with the wider community without a user here changing anything.

So whilst I understand people might jump ship if you had to lose your anonymity (though that anonymity is partly a falsehood regardless right now), or if the discussion here were moving to social media... I do struggle with understanding why someone postiing a link to the forum on another platform would be enough to  drive people away.

This could very easily be a misunderstanding by me, but it does seem as though growth is discouraged by some because that in reality is all that integration is designed to do. To allow CSC to reach out to the next generation of supporters to come and chat about Carlton, because I fail to see how any of the suggestions change things for current users who don't use social media.

===

If it is something other than the above that is worrying people about SM, what is it?

Not exactly.

There is a level of restraint people will subconsciously come to if they sign on with their public identity.

Players will seldom come to forum's like this one.  I think they'd visibly read social media.

If the tie in was just authentication and the comments don't hit facebook that's probably ok.

[mateinone]

I agree people will comment different if their actual identity is used, but many sites use Single Sign On tools and you still post under an alias and allow anyone who doesn't want to use any of the different SM platforms to still sign up the traditional way.
Oh and I know 100% for sure that players come to forums.

Also I don't think people actual read "posts" on Facebook. They might see a link and go and read further on the site, but if someone tried to run a forum through a Facebook group it would just be a huge mess full of inane comments.

And twitter doesn't allow for lengthy posting.
In both instances any integration would be directing people to talk about footy on the forum I would think