The company I work for has launched an initiative called Lean Six Sigma. One of the components of the LSS program is listening to the customer in order to drive your business.

There have been numerous complaints about the officiating.com site and the caliber of the articles.

So here is my request:
a) if you are a current subscriber, what can we do to make officiating.com a better value?

b) if you are not a subscriber, but were at one time, why did you allow your subscription to expire? What does it take to get you back?

c) if you are not a subscriber, why not?

Please identify yourself as a catagory A, B or C.

thanks in advance.

I am A.

I have posted advise for Carl in the past.

Things to fix:

1. Rollie is terrible. He needs to improve his articles, or he needs to stop writing. Ives wants to turn this forum into eteamz. JM is bland and boreing. It is a good thing you have Tee.

2. Every other article is by Rollie (which might be okay if he didn't suck). 4 out of the last 5 (Yes Carl, I am sure it is 4 out of the last 5, check it out yourself) are by Wierlanders.

3. Carl needs to apply some sort of standards to the articles put on the site. Many of Rollie's are terrible. But I can't blame Carl for not having standards, for if he did, he would only have one writer.

4. Since Carl should be rejecting almost, no all, of Rollie's articles, he will need something to fill the void. He needs more writers, or he needs to put out more himself.

5. There are many many different types of articles which could be on the website. Any type of interview or umpiring news would be great.

6. Many ex-writers say that they hated writing for Carl. He was always hounding them for more articles, and it takes forever to get paid.

7. Rich has just said that he does not want to be associated with the current writers except for Tee.

In summary, Rollie is terrible. Officiating.com need more writers. But why would anyone agree to write when they know the will be associted with the current writers, have to deal with Carl, and not get paid for months? Officiating.com has many problems.

I fit into catagory "A".
After a quick analysis of the July baseball articles,
I have found the following:

(1)Officiating.com has released 16 articles in total.

(2) Rich Ives and Blaine Gallant wrote one article
each.

(3) Tee accounted for three of the July writings.

(4) Two articles were rule-change releases by our
friends at the National Federation.

(5)Roland totaled seven articles alone.

Tossing out the two Fed articles brings the July
count to 14 articles.A full 50% of these are
attributable to one author.That figure in itself
is disappointing,particularly given the quality
of those writings.I gave up on trying to read any
article written by Roland,mainly because I could
find no relevance in them.I just never have been
able to connect salads,George Carlin books,or the
United States Marine Corp to officiating baseball.
Until either new authors start writing, or people who make sense(Tee,Blaine)write more often,it will not get better.Sometimes
I believe certain people write just to take up space.
If an article isn't in some way informative,or at
least helpful,it isn't worth the effort to read.
Just one man's humble opinion......
Chuck Maske

Edited to add my name,so as not to seem to
be hiding behind a nickname.




[Edited by umpduck11 on Jul 26th, 2005 at 10:19 PM]

I am a subscriber. I renewed in early July, when my subscription ran out.

I would rather get more articles than less. Some of Roland's I don't agree with. I don't always agree with some of the other writers either. I don't agree with everything I read in the editorials of the newspaper either. I think that allowing a runner to maliciously crash a catcher in major league baseball is stupid. I don't like the DH rule. I don't like artificial turf. I am still trying to figure out why aluminum bats are allowed. And, I can't figure out why some tournaments would require an umpire to wear a dark blue shirt on a 95 degree day.

I would like to see officiating.com bring a new JEA to press. That's all I ask.

Carl explained this, Officiating.com always puts out X number of articles a week. The more Rollie writes, the less we will see articles from other writers. Carl does not put out the articles as soon as they come in. They are scheduled evenly.

Carl said that he is writing an article explaining how Officiating.com works. I think it is sad that he has let the website get so bad that he has to write articles trying to defend it.

I guess I'm stupid because I am still trying to figure out what the size of the infield has to do with me being a better umpire.

Also not knowing the rules needing to be called is not a USSSA thing. Last 5 tourneys I've called have had differences in what was discussed before hand and what was on the field, except for 1 and that was a Super Series national tourney. TD had a meeting for the umpires and todl them how it would be. Not always possible to do but would be nice to do.

[Edited by cowbyfan1 on Jul 27th, 2005 at 03:11 AM]

Officiating.com
 

I am in group "b".

I stopped subscribing because most of the information I receive through other means: forums, training, other umpires, and official communications.

Although that is the main reason, I am also distressed at the attitude of the people involved with the paid site toward small diamond umpires. It would seem to me that you would want to cultivate those people and help them to develop into proficient umpires for the organizations they currently work for and assist them to progress into a higher level, both as an umpire and the games they are calling. These are the people that will end up benefitting the most from a site like this and will eventually be contributors themselves, helping newbies because they remember where they started and in what areas they struggled the most.

What would bring me back would be a higher standard of quality in the articles (I agree with the person that said newer umpires may assume that if it is written in a paid article on Officiating.com, it must be valuable and correct), a change of attitude that values ALL umpires of ALL levels and organizations, and information in articles that is hard to find elsewhere (comparisons of methods, mechanics, interpretations, and organizations, etc.).

I think a great idea would be a comments section (HIGHLY MODERATED) attached to each article, so people would be able to express their opinions and viewpoints regarding the article (in a VERY RESPECTFUL MANNER).

Just my two cents...

Greg Owens

Greg,
 

I think you are throwing a lot of people under the bus.

I really think I am the "ONLY" person invloved in the paid side of the site that treats Little League Baseball (and untrained LL umpires) poorly.

I think Carl has been quite free with knowledge and thoughts about LL baseball.

I really can't think of anyone (other than Peter's attack on all 'kid athletics') that fall into this situation.

All writers on the paid site are considered an independent contractor and are given the right to comment freely.

It seems that I would want to support that.

T

Re: Greg,
 

I agree. The only two authors that have gone after youth sports in a major way are Tee and I. Tee goes after the umpires and I go after the concept of highly competitive youth sports. I believe that I have written a half dozen articles this year on all subjects, not just youth sports and Tee is not too much ahead of that. That is like condemning a newspaper because of the content of the op-ed page.

Balance this out with the much more numerous posts in support of youth programs from Rich Ives, Hickey, Carl, or Roland etc. We are outnumbered at least 5 or 10-1.





[Edited by His High Holiness on Jul 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM]

I am category C.

Why have I never subscribed? I've read the beginnings of nearly every article published (I get an email with the first part of them), and nearly never feel like I wish I could read the rest. Were the articles useful? I don't know - the blurbs you give for free often don't even tell you what the article is about. In reading other comments here, I suspect they aren't. I've read some of Roland's posts, and if his articles are of similar quality, the man simply shouldn't be advising ANYONE on how to umpire. Might as well ask dude and dumbdrum to write.

Besides ... I already get enough misinformation via my subscription to Referee magazine. :)

C for me.

I just never see anything that is on this site that is so convincing I need to learn from. I spend enough money with the many associations I belong to learn what to do and what not to do. I do not need to read an article to tell me how to officiate. It also does not help that many of the people that write the articles do not hold themselves in what I feel is a positive light (I will leave it at that). I also am a NASO member and I read Referee Magazine all the time. I am not going to say that everything I read there is perfect, but the people there seemed to be more in tune with officiating. I also do not read the sports specific sections in Referee Magazine to learn how to officiate there either. I do read mostly the general articles in that Magazine and I do not see much of a value to subscribe to what I would see as overkill in information. I have stated before I can learn more from the guys I work with or attending association meetings with. I am not sure everyone has that same confidence in their local groups, but I do.

Peace

I'm a C.

I simply can't justify the $$$ for one writer that I would read. Even with the coupons for the store which would basically be for a BRD, I can't justify it. I can't comment on the writers other than the reviews here, which aren't very good. I have read Tee in the past. Solid, entertaining writer. I have read HHH and Childress in the past. Same comment for these gentlemen. If there were a solid rotation (say 6, 7 or more)of baseball writers of this caliber, I would be inclined to subscribe.

I don't have any interest in officiating other sports, so those articles would be a waste for me as well, no matter how talented the writers are.

I'm Category B. I declined to renew when my subscription ran out. I just prefer the give-and-take dialogue that occurs on discussion forums, compared to the "ivory tower" posture that is adopted (by necessity) by "expert" writers.

I also think the quality of writing is adversely affected by the pressure to produce X number of articles per week, month, etc. Since I personally know a number of current and former officiating.com writers, I know that the "publish or perish" syndrome is something they all had in common as a significant downside to the association with the webzine.

Don't know how I'd "fix" any of that, but those are my impressions.

I have been an A ever since I first learned about the site. may just be when it started.

I have been a Childress believer, (not Guru) since reading some of the first books he published and probably all the others too. Why?

Because when I started, they were the most down to earth books for someone with no formal training, clinics or camps.
I could easily relate to what was being said and what to do on the field. It worked for me because, I became better at what I did on the field and I was getting better games because of it.

Now, does that mean that that I whorship everthing Carl says or writes, NO. (Sorry Carl) I take the relavant material and see if it can help me to become better at officiating this game of Baseball.

I apply this same approach to what is written in all the articles on this site and even the material that appears in this forum. And sorry guys, when I compare Rollies material to some of the stuff written here, he has you beat hands down. Furthermore, the man has big enough baseballs to write and publish the articles. That in itself, would be a feat for me.

Personnaly, you have to be quite narrow minded if you let the writings of one individual make your decisions for you.

I don't spend a lot of time on other sites (even though I probably spend too much time on this one) but, I do belong to other venues that offer similar material, for another sport. I find this site to be as good, if not better. I have enjoyed my membership and in fact just renewed it for $50.00 of more resources and reference material.

Can the site be better? Hell everything can be better. But for the buck, I have enjoyed what has been offered to date and thats my story and Im sticking to it.

Category A
I enjoy reading the articles that offer up situations, mechanics, plays etc.
Im still relatively new (4th year just completed), and can say I've learned a great deal on the site. Its one component that has helped me advance to JC in 4 years.
Good to see Tee contributing articles. I've never agreed with his view of Little League ball, and his all-too-often-not needed smart aleck comments, but when he does offer up his experiences, all should lend an ear.
Keep the articles coming dealing with rules and their interpetations. Ditto with articles on mechanics, situations, etc. One of the best learning tools, is from the "been there, done that" category.
And have to agree on the "Roland" factor. Quanity does not equal quality. I too, have stopped checking to see what the rest of the ariticle entails. I tried to give him a shot, but after several articles, they just dont offer anything (to me). The "Un born, pre born, something born" article is the best example.
Overall, Im happy with the site, and would re-up.

I'm a C
 

I think the attitudes of the writer's on the forum seem to be very snotty. They don't seem to have respect for new people (Some should lose the respect right away, but they don't seem to give any to anyone), and seem to belittle people as often as they can. They don't seem to want to be helpful, and correct situations, just eliminate or mock them. Eg. when I came on here and said I was thinking of joining and a representative of your site, more or less said I was a liar, and a waste of oxygen. A very good attitude toward the potential client.

This is from the obviously High quality writers on the site. The rediculous info shared buy the poor writers just adds the circus atmosphere. There are 3-4 guys who's articles I would love to read, but sadly lately thier attitude on the forum has soured me to them.

I don't think you do a good enough job of advertising the online mag, nor do you do enough to entice the possible subscriber. I find the website muddled and a bit difficult on the eyes which makes it difficult to navigate.

Re: I'm a C
 

That was Carl, right?

I'm a C, but I'm thinking about becoming an A just long enough to pull down some articles and buy a book or two, then become a B.

I'm an A now was a B.
 

When the site first opened I joined but after a year was disappointed in the lack of articles dealing with the practical.

I rejoined this year thanks to the coupon which allowed me to purchase some books, but again I read the internet site looking for entertainment and some good information.

Lately I have enjoyed Tee's articles and of course I always enjoy anything Peter writes because its always thought provoking. (g)

I wish Carl would write more, his articles are always great and if he's allowing Roland What's his name to write seven or eight articles to his one, that's not good.

I know he's the editor, but Carl is also a great writer, as he makes the rules make sense.

With the format I don't know how it could improve without spending lots of money to actually hire writers etc.,

Thanks
David

Roland has taken quite a beating here recently. I, for one, have read most of his articles. Has anyone here studied Zen? Roland's articles have a certain Zen like quality to them. It is sort of like the wisdom of Yogi Berra.

"When you come to fork in the road, take it." On the face of it, that is an absurd statement much in the same way that Roland's articles are often absurd. For VIPs receiving honorary degrees, Yogi's quote above is the most often used quotation in a commencement address. It is wisdom for the ages. Likewise, Roland has numerous bits of Zen like wisdom buried in his pieces.

I have written that baseball is a religious experience. Roland has carried that over into Internet baseball as well. I think that the problem may be that this has very little to do with umpiring, unless one is a spritual type.

Note to Carl: The Godless umpires are complaining. :D

Note to HHH and Carl: Ummm, nooooooooo, how do you know that the ones who are complaining are Godless? Thats a blanket statement, with no facts at all to back it up. Careful where your throwing those stones HHH.

Sissiest See-Si Yes Sir, Part
 

Cough!

This comparison between Zen and things that are just plain absurd has been made many times regarding many subjects. It was even included in a Comparison of Relgions course I took in college.

In the end, the only ones who accept simple absurdity as Zen are those who truly do not understand Zen.

Rolandese may be simply absurd, but it is not Zen.



[Edited by GarthB on Jul 29th, 2005 at 10:06 AM]

Hmmm,
 

" . . . these subscribers have lost their faith, it isn't their faith in God."

Garth, I didn't know Doug Harvey was referenced in this thread.

Re: Hmmm,
 

I think you know to whom I was referring in the rest of the post.

<< sitting in a painful Yoga position and hummming


hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Is that Zenful enough?

update...
 

after a comment from Carl, I decided that I need to add some information in order to prevent any sort of misrepresentation...

1) I am a contributor for the site
2) This request is not sanctioned nor commissioned by the site
3) There are no guarantees that the owners of the site will accept any of the recommendations made

If I led anyone to believe otherwise, I sincerely apologize.

Count me as an "A"
 

I joined up for the articles and to purchase the 2005 BRD. I am mostly satisfied with the articles and overwhelmingly happy with the BRD purchase. It was worth the price of admission a couple of times over. I have found it becoming my first rule source and I have acquired a good many of choices.

As a looooong time reader of umpire websites, I came to know many of the writers and their capabilities from other sites and sources. I appreciated their abilities from the posts on the old sites in the old days . I only began posting regularly in the recent past prefering to read and study. One of the methods I use in reading any material is to attempt to find a point or points that particularly hit home to me.

I do read all of Rolands writings and admittedly he can lose me, but when he talks of rural baseball I can relate.

Tee's new "Strikes and Outs" column is something I look forward to reading.....of course I was a big fan of the old columns.... In his writings You will get the information you need to get better.....if you care to read and listen.....

Carls writing is top notch and well respected. You get what you pay for and when Carl writes, my membership is worth every penny.....

I get my monies worth.......I may have to look for it in some articles, but I am satisfied.

that is my $.02

Stan

Re: update...
 

Whoops, looks like one of Carl's writers isn't sufficiently under his thumb. Let me guess, you got slapped a bit in a personal email.

Re: update...
 

Jump:
It's a shame you had to publish a disclaimer. It
would seem that the management of Officiating.com
would be interested enough to have done a "poll"
themselves.Recommendations from paying customers,
and/or potential paying customers should be taken
under consideration,at least.

I joined the paysite because I was mistaken in thinking I needed to to be able to post on this forum.MY BAD!Some of the articles have been good and some not to good at all.I have almost another 11 months to make up my mind on if I should renew my subscription.

Re: Re: update...
 

Let me be perfectly clear...

Carl and the staff at officiating.com have NEVER, EVER threatened, pushed, cajoled, insinuated or directed that I should (1) write only what they approve, (2) issue a disclaimer, and (3) follow the "party" line. In fact, I have had a couple of rather heated disagreements with Carl concerning my articles. Bottom line is that he published my views, despite his disagreement. I know many editors that would not do such a thing.

I issued the disclaimer because it was the right thing to do. Carl didn't tell me I had to, nor did he suggest that I should. I chose to because I wanted to eliminate any possible appearance of impropriety. That is the kind of person I am.

FWIW, I appreciate the comments of those who were honest. Of course, there are some who, just like Pavlov's dogs, start salivating at the mere opportunity to stomp on Carl. Seems kind of childish to me...

I am in category A.

I signed up as a subscriber earlier this year. I am quite pleased with the value I have received for my money.

Two things motivated me to subscribe:

1. I did not have a copy of the BRD and I wanted to get one.

2. I had perused the archives and was interested in reading a number of the articles I found there.

From my perspective, either one of these was worth the price of the subscription (a little over $4.00 a month).

I already had the J/R, a JEA, and a 2002 copy of the MLBUM. I have found the BRD to be an exellent addition to my collection, and I often turn to it first when I have a question.

The article archives are a treasure trove of information. I believe that most of the posters on the forum would find the archived articles written by:

Bob Jenkins,
Carl Childress,
Dave Emerling,
Peter Osborne, and
Jim Porter

alone worth the price of subscription.

At the time I subscribed, Tim C. was not yet a writer for the paid portion, but I certainly look forward to each of his articles. From my perspective, they are all good and they continue to get better.

As a coach, I realize I may be looking for different things than many of the subscribers, but I would also recommend the articles by:

Michael Byron (write more)
Blaine Gallant
Rich Ives (Hey, I'm a coach! And Rich <b>does</b> know what he's talking about.)
Alan Roper (more, please)
Roland Wiederanders

I realize that Roland has taken a lot of flak on the forum for his articles. While I agree that the paid site would be improved if other writers were more prolific and Roland's pieces did not constitute the majority of the baseball articles, that's not really Roland's fault. I enjoy reading what he writes, but perhaps my expectations are different from yours.

There are a number of authors listed on the paid site who have one, two, or zero articles. In this category, I would be interested in seeing more articles from:

Garth Benham (0)
Steve Freix (2)
Rich Fronheiser (0)
Don Guinn (1)
Dave Hensley (1)

While Garth adopts a somewhat negative and curmudgeonly persona in his posts on the forum, I found his recent "A Modest Proposal" post exceptionally well-written and "on point". I agree that all of his suggestions would improve the value of the website. I may be wrong, but I would guess that Garth could be a quality writer for the paid portion of the site.

I have inferred (perhaps incorrectly) from the posts on the Forum that there is some "unpleasant history" between Carl and Garth, Steve F., and Rich F. that is the underlying reason that the latter three are not published on the website. Personally, I think it would be good if <b>all</b> of the parties involved could put that behind them and collaborate to make the website better. Perhaps that's not possible. Such is life.

Finally, I would just like to thank Alan for starting this thread. When I first saw it, I did not think he was doing it on behalf of Officiating.com - but, I applaud his "class" in clarifying that he did it on his own initiative.

To any I may have "insulted by omission", my sincere apologies. I haven't yet been through <b>all</b> of the archives.

JMO

JM

I wish I had a JEA or a MLBUM. J/R is easy to acquire.

I've written dozens of articles for the paid site -- why don't you or some of the other subscribers ask Carl what happened to them?

Rich,

I believe I just did.

I, for one, would be very interested in reading what you wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would both "bury the hatchet".

Perhaps that's not possible. I don't know the history, and I'm really not interested.

FWIW, I would respect the party that initiated "putting it in the past".

I've recently had a "spirited debate" with Pete Booth in another thread on the Forum. I disagree with him, but I have a lot of respect for his point of view. He obviously knows what he's talking about. While I continue to disagree with him on this particular point, I'm trying to honestly consider his point of view. We may ultimately "agree to disagree" on the point in question.

This will in no way diminish my respect for him. I will continue to look forward to reading his posts and argue or agree with him as the case may be. That is how we all learn. When we stop learning, we are dead - or might as well be.

JMO.

JM

Coach: All articles by Mr. Fronheiser and Mr. Benham are now accessible to paid subscribers.

Carl,

Indeed they are.

Thank you very much.

JM