I have recently had communications with two different California wineries (not affiliated in any way with each other and with entirely different staffs). When I referenced WB, I got substantially adverse comments from both of them.
In one case, when I asked about something someone said about their wine that I thought was incorrect, the response was:
“A few years ago, this would have really got me going. These days – especially on WB, it would be easier to call out the actual correct information vs. the wrong, partial truth or just completely made up posts that comprise 99% of the place. That isn’t fair, at least 40% of all posts are personal attacks against other members.”
In the other case, in response to a general comment I made, I got back, “Too much negativity on that forum these days.”
Although I think the former comment is over-stated, the feeling behind it has merit, and there is plenty of merit to the latter one, certainly on some threads (Premier Cru and Maison Ilan being the best, or worst, examples). These are not the first such comments I have heard, but I thought it appropriate to bring them out in the open as a basis for suggesting that, at a minimum, people count to 10 before pressing the “submit” button and during those 10 seconds consider whether the post really needs to be as acerbic as it is written.
I.m not entirely disagreeing Jay…but, and the thing is, why does an individual’s (or individuals’) opinion/gripe/complaint/bitch fest have to represent an entire community? How do you stop that from happening? Seems to me, it will always be the case.
All you/we can do is keep asking. Civility is always voluntary and I would not suggest that the rotten apples be censored, but I thought it was time for a reminder. I value the interaction that I have been able to develop with others on this BB, notably including many people ITB, and I think it would be a shame to chase them away because of a perception of negativity, even if the perception is substantially greater than the reality.
The reality is that most wineries are talked about in glowing terms. Personally, I’m reluctant to post negative information about any winery associated with WB. Moreover, when people speak negatively about a winery (I’m thinking about a complaint about a BD offer in particular) members almost always stick up for the winery.
I think that the perception of the wineries doesn’t really match reality. The overwhelming majority of threads on Wine Talk are free of animus.
9, 10.
Both comments are probably true, at least until the comments represent something positive for the same people.
Not to single out Maison Ilan, but there’s the perfect example.
Would not have had the success that they did without this place and the contributing members.
Would not be suffering the image they currently are without the contributing members.
We have our darling wines/wineries, everybody knows who they are and we may have played a part in their success, but we also can be very negative to each other and it does get a little old. Some threads go pages with just bickering. That dampens the mood here.
I have no perspective on domestic winery threads (I almost never open them) so I don’t know what they might be referring to. The negativity in the Mason Ilan thread was, in my view, driven largely by the proprietor at the estate and his surrogate (90%) and one especially in indefatigable poster (the other 10%). As of a few weeks ago – the last time I opened it – the current PC thread had a nasty edge because of one individual. The problems may appear common but the sources are not widespread.
I suppose you have to accept the crunchy with the smooth on this forum. Frankly it turned me off joining for a long time.
There are some dysfunctional people on the forum, but also a more widespread tendency to dive into the trenches and lob a few grenades over the top. It does make for regular train-crash threads that make you feel dirty after reading them, but do provide entertainment of a sort. Like a glossy 'sleb magazine.
Yet there is a large majority of pretty decently behaved people, with plenty of interesting stuff to say. There is a balance to be struck, and this forum will always have plenty of edge.
What would I change (bearing in mind that Todd has an impossible task)? I’d be harder of the personal abuse. Argue long and argue hard if you wish, but the moment you resort to throwing abuse at someone else, you’ve lost the argument and you’re dragging the forum down. It also becomes much less pleasant to read and will put off more reasoned posters. At that point you’re no longer an asset to Todd, and you’re now a liability.
You are all probably tired of me saying the same thing . . . . as I’ve said it often and been accused of ‘witch hunts’ and other kinds of things . . . .
What the hell is so difficult about disagreeing without being disagreeable on this board as it pertains to wine? Really? Is it that difficult?
So someone doesn’t like what you do - move on? OR disagree but don’t get personal and nasty.
Yes, this board and others have been responsible for the creation and success of wineries - this is definitely true. And yes, the majority of conversations here are civil . . .
The impressions that Jay mentioned, though, are just that - impressions. And they are either based on those specific wineries getting on and checking things out OR what they hear from others. You as a member can choose to agree or deny these - but these are not your impressions - these are from someone else.
At least a few times a month, I have people come into my tasting room and mention that they ‘know me’ because of this board and others. When I bring up WB, I too often get the response that they choose not to post either because they do not like the ‘overall negative vibe’ or that they are ‘intimidated’.
I am not for censorship - but I’d hate to see traffic die down further by people feeling alienated. Yes, you can choose to ‘ignore’ people and yes, you can choose not to open threads that my be ‘inflammatory’. How’s this - if you want to get inflammatory, do it in a PM OR take it to another part of WB - but NOT on in the Wine Talk area. Is that too much to ask?
Go ahead - flame away and tell me that I’m trying too hard here to get my point across. Oh well . . .
These complaints from wineries have been in place since the dawn of Internet wine boards. Most Internet forums that are not heavily moderated tend to have a negative slant because people are allowed to say what they want.
I always go to this, but look at beer advocate. It’s generally really civil because the mods run through deleting stuff quickly. It’s so common place that no one bothers being a dick cause when they do it is deleted quickly.
Jeez, Larry, I don’t know how anyone could disagree with any of that. The problem is that some people never learned to play nice. I think the number is relatively small, but we do have a few here
The problem here is that these ‘bullies’ don’t get silenced by the masses - or even by the mods at times. This is not to blame the mods per se, but the whole idea of putting someone on ‘ignore’ or whatever does not solve the problem. They simply should not be tolerated - except perhaps in other boards here where that type of communication is more the norm.
And it bums me out that folks can’t speak ‘openly’ about ALL wineries here - worried they will be ‘blackballed’ from that winery or thought of differently. Wine should be about ‘like and dislike’ versus ‘good and bad’ and there really should not be any sacred cows . . .
Initially their board was run like ours. When they decided it was getting out of control they decided to be aggressive with moderating. A big upheaval occurred and plenty of people left and lots of people complained. But as they are the biggest board for beer, they prevailed.
Agreed – I guess the question/concern for me is whether the WB’ers who have contributed a lot of positive insight, humor, and passion will be the ones who leave.
I had a choice starting out, and have a choice at any time, to consider how much moderation to have. Obviously at the get-go it was to be the antithesis of what most of us came from, which was the smart move at the time. Many absolutely adore the fact that there’s so much room here to say what you want, and, of course, some do not like it. Impossible to please all, but who knows, perhaps at some point, I’ll change to mega-moderating and then run the risk of people complaining that it’s too square and rule-tastic.
