Official Match Day Thread: Reading (A)

As per the suggestion of a few people this week, let's try this out.

Post all game-related stuff in here. And try and keep it positive

 

I reckon a draw, 1.1

 

Also a suggestion, make it a sticky till tomorrow night

 

In reading. Snowing. Don't care about the result as long as the game's on and I don't have to come back midweek. 2-0 reds.

 

Don't let's become a carbon copy of other boards. I quite enjoy all the random threads.

 

I`m with you lass on that.

 

And then there are the people who complain that they log on to the board on Saturday after the game and have to scroll through three pages to find more than just several "goal" threads, or similar.

We can't win :nails:

 

It doesn't need a matchday thread but it doesn't need loads of threads on the same thing.

 

Yids is back!

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">TEAM NEWS: Barnsley starting Xi to face <a href="https://twitter.com/ReadingFC">@ReadingFC</a> at the Madejski this afternoon <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COYR?src=hash">#COYR</a> </p>&mdash; Barnsley FC (@bfc_official) <a href="https://twitter.com/bfc_official/status/830415770232422400">February 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Y6utsWcAA51CB.jpg">

 

I get that but the boards where you visit and they only have 1 or 2 threads just look deserted. It might take me half an hour on an evening to read through all the various threads but if there was just one then it'd only take me 5 minutes then I'd log back off.

 

Interesting line up, glad to see Hammill is starting again.

 

But we don't need a dozen threads after a match saying the ref was ****. One is more than enough and makes all posts on that easier to find and read in one go.

 

I suppose the question n that is that out of the hundreds and hundreds of members HW many people complain about the BBS having a USP compared to all the clones?

There is also the issue of who is the board primarily to cater for? Those taking part in the discussions or those coming in after and reading?

 

Me too, for what it's worth. If anybody's counting up votes then I for one (two?) am against it!

 

But they aren't all the same conversation. I think it was jay who put it best, if you walk into a pub you will find lots of groups of people, you wouldn't walk over to a random group and tell them to stop talking to their friends and instruct them to come and join your discussion instead would you? Jay didn't quite put it like that though, he put it much much better.

Threads on here are conversations, they aren't rigid pieces of computer programming which must be followed, they are conversations by people. Just because two different conversations are about how bad a referee is doesn't mean that they are both the same conversation.

Person 1: This referee is *****
Person 2: aye I know. Did you see that decision in the 26th minute?
Person 1: yeah it was terrible.
Person 2: I can't believe he didn't give handball in the 30th either
Person 1: miles outside of the box wasn't it. And what about when he didn't book their number 2?
Random person number 3: this ref was *****, did you see the decision in the 26th minute.
People 1 and 2: erm we've already discussed that mate.

 

Make it 3

 

My main worry is that it will make conversations disjointed. Someone will want to talk about the ref, someone else Bradshaw's goal, someone else whether Hammill should have had a penalty or not, someone else about how rubbish Roberts is...

 

I think it's a good idea. I enjoy them on other clubs boards and get bored picking through the 900 we scored a goal threads.