[GarthB]

A MODEST PROPOSAL(apologies to Jonathan Swift)


Sometime ago, Carl solicited comments on how to improve the paid site, Officiating.com. He asked me privately for some comments about a year and half ago and I sent in a few. Trusting that he really is interested again, and this isn’t an exercise in futility, nor an excuse to be flamed, I’ll try again. There will be some repeats from my last endeavor, only because they still apply.

Nothing New Under the Sun?

I suggested, before the site announced it would provide one, a news section. Carl has correctly identified the ability to inform and respond on short notice as a distinct advantage a web-based magazine has over its print brethren. However, other than printing a news release put out by NFHS regarding an interpretation about throwing a glove with a ball stuck in it (which was available to the world at the NFHS website), this advantage has been pretty much wasted.

Some may question if there really is enough umpire related “news” to keep such a section active. I don’t know about media in your area, but I can’t read a morning paper these days without seeing one story or another about an even the night before that relates to umpiring or officiating another sport. Additionally, there are “scoops” available that are as yet unpublished that would really show-off a webzine’s ability to be timely.

As examples in both cases:

Today’s media is full of stories regarding the umpire who forbid Spanish-speaking players to speak Spanish.

It has been first rumored and then verified that a Texas High School umpire walked off the field during a game during a state tournament and has subsequently been suspended for a year for his actions.

Both of the stories are of interest to umpires and could have been presented as news at officiating.com

Quantity vs. Quality

This age old argument has been mentioned before, but it applies, so I’ll mention it again. Actually, another element needs to interface here, and that is editing.

Editing is more than correcting grammar, spelling and punctuation. In the absence of a “fact-finder”, an editor needs to be involved in the accuracy of articles. I believe he also needs to the “conscience” of a publication as well. Despite fears of censorship, which are a red-herring, articles need to be “tested” for appropriateness to the genre, professionalism and suitability for the consumer.

The desire (need?) for a certain number of articles seems to have caused these concerns to be dismissed and the predictable result is that there are many mediocre articles instead of fewer good articles. I haven’t seen Officiating.com’s research, and I suppose there is a chance their subscription base prefers it that way, but I doubt it.

The red herring a spoke of, censorship is really not a concern. Officiating.com is a private publication. Safeguards to protect citizens from its government, e.g. censorship, do not apply. It may print whatever it damn well chooses, and not print what it damn well chooses not.

In short, fewer better articles with more attention to content by the editor would be an improvement.

Featuring...

Another way to provide quality and alleviate the demand on quantity would be to invite and present "featured" writers on a monthly basis. Carl has more contacts in the officiating and baseball arena than any other amateur with the possible exception of Tim Christensen. I know most of those would be reluctant to give up their time to become regular contributors, but I'll bet many of them would be willing to contribute an article a year, given plenty of advance notice.

Writing, Reading and Rollie

Closely related to the quantity/quality issue is the Rollie conundrum. We have an eager soul here…eager to write and seemingly eager to please. But even Rollie should see that as his articles have progressed, they have become less pertinent, less creative, less entertaining and at times, downright obtuse. It wasn’t always this way. The demand on Rollie for numbers, whether by Officiating.com or self-imposed, has hastened the drain of the creative well. He needs to take a break. He needs to replenish the well. He needs to try to write well rather than often.

The Peanut Gallery

Even Buffalo Bob and Howdy Doody recognized the need for a peanut gallery. Officiating.com should, too. A “letters to the editor” section on the paid site would provide for input from paying customers, something more valuable than criticism on the public site. With the technology available, these letters could be grouped generally or even attached to the subject matter they concern. Replies from the editor and authors could be featured as well. This section, updated (along with an active news section) would help relieve the constant demand for new articles. They could easily replace two articles per week, at least.

How about Somebody We’ve Heard Of?

What happened to the interviews? Four or five years ago, I forget exactly, Officiating.com writers were expected to submit an interview either monthly or every other month or something like that. Bring back interviews, and of people we’ve heard of: Minor League and Major League Umpires, college umpires, college conference coordinators, FED officials, etc. There are enough individuals in just the groups I’ve mentioned to provide over five years of interviews at the rate of two a month.

I Just Read the Articles

That phrase was made popular by the early subscribers to Playboy back in the 50’s and 60’s. It wasn’t true then, it isn’t true now. Officiating.com needs to take a lesson from it. No…I’m not advocating nudes. I am advocating pictures, photos, videos, sound tracks, anything visual or audio. The technology that Officiating.com continue to boast about is being wasted. Officiating.com could be so much more than a printed magazine, and it is not. What a shame.

In short, Officiating.com needs to show more sensitivity to quality and those advantages that it has over print pieces. None of this is difficult. None of this is impractical. All of this could be implemented in a week. All it would take is the interest of the management.

I don’t know the circulation of the paid site. Since it is a private corporation it does not have to accurately reveal that information to anyone. I do know that despite Carl’s suggestion that there only about 100 posters to the public site, there are certainly many, many more who frequent it. According to Official Forum’s own propaganda there are, as I write this, 6897 registered folks at the free site. This is great pool to be able to draw from. They have seen the complaints. Now they need to see the response.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 29th, 2005 at 08:26 PM]