The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I really don't care what the metric is that is used by AL.com to charge for advertising. What is being submitted here is the idea that more response is better than less. A Saban stool report - "He had corn!" - will get 300 comments. A discussion of our starting QB's is lucky to get 20.

People from the outside gauging interest do look at clicks and comments as an easy way to get a ballpark guesstimate.

All they have to do to gauge interest is look at how many attend games.

Well, what we consider to be our beat writer wrote an article about goats eating Kudzu & a suspension at Sayre Racetrack in the last 2 days.

(08-08-2014 08:11 AM)rook360 Wrote:  So is the argument here about more articles about UAB or advertisers?

It's my fault. I brought up advertising, and UAB?IAB is beating me over the head with something I said because apparently I was incorrect. It has nothing to do with the point of the thread, but he is pissed that we keep "regurgitating" some bad information about ads.

Apparently, the management at al.com says that comment-counts are the way to gauge interest and thereby will affect resources, and I assumed that if a company applies resources to something, then that something must be seen as profitable. I assumed advertising was the way to get those profits, but I may be wrong. I don't really care though, because all I want is for UAB to get better coverage and better respect.

Of course, winning is the key, but aside from that, posting on al.com won't hurt.

(08-08-2014 12:44 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  All they have to do to gauge interest is look at how many attend games.

They would have to attend a game to determine that, and they are busy covering teams outside of Birmingham, so they make up numbers to address that tired criticism.

(08-08-2014 04:33 PM)the Dragon Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:11 AM)rook360 Wrote:  So is the argument here about more articles about UAB or advertisers?

It's my fault. I brought up advertising, and UAB?IAB is beating me over the head with something I said because apparently I was incorrect. It has nothing to do with the point of the thread, but he is pissed that we keep "regurgitating" some bad information about ads.

Apparently, the management at al.com says that comment-counts are the way to gauge interest and thereby will affect resources, and I assumed that if a company applies resources to something, then that something must be seen as profitable. I assumed advertising was the way to get those profits, but I may be wrong. I don't really care though, because all I want is for UAB to get better coverage and better respect.

Of course, winning is the key, but aside from that, posting on al.com won't hurt.

1. Just because you are agitated by my posts does not mean I am pissed, it seems you are.

2. Why do you always seem to own comments not directed at you? Does a response to one "true blazertalker" apply to all?

(08-08-2014 04:48 PM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:33 PM)the Dragon Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:11 AM)rook360 Wrote:  So is the argument here about more articles about UAB or advertisers?

It's my fault. I brought up advertising, and UAB?IAB is beating me over the head with something I said because apparently I was incorrect. It has nothing to do with the point of the thread, but he is pissed that we keep "regurgitating" some bad information about ads.

Apparently, the management at al.com says that comment-counts are the way to gauge interest and thereby will affect resources, and I assumed that if a company applies resources to something, then that something must be seen as profitable. I assumed advertising was the way to get those profits, but I may be wrong. I don't really care though, because all I want is for UAB to get better coverage and better respect.

Of course, winning is the key, but aside from that, posting on al.com won't hurt.

1. Just because you are agitated by my posts does not mean I am pissed, it seems you are.

2. Why do you always seem to own comments not directed at you? Does a response to one "true blazertalker" apply to all?

1. Nope
2. I made the comment (post #13) about advertising that set off the derailment that was progressed by you. You addressed my post over and over. I regret it as I've said.

So sad to see he was banned.

(08-17-2014 08:05 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  So sad to see he was banned.

must have been due to a pm or something that was deleted. I got suspended for a few days because I assumed the filter would block something that got through

(08-17-2014 08:05 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  So sad to see he was banned.

he should come back as UABIUD

(08-17-2014 08:05 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  So sad to see he was banned.

Frankly, I wondered what took so long. He seemed to want to argue with everybody.

Who's going to keep Smaug in check?

(08-17-2014 11:17 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 08:05 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  So sad to see he was banned.

Frankly, I wondered what took so long. He seemed to want to argue with everybody.

He enjoyed my company immensely.

(08-17-2014 12:22 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Who's going to keep Smaug in check?

Clearly, I'm out of control.