eBob becomes subscriber-only effective today!

[Blanquito]

Just read that only eBob subscribers will be allowed even read-only access to the Squires board. The preach-to-the-choir-only mentality that many on that board demand (led by Squires, and BWE's former "Pomerollover", Jeff Leve) has finally won out.

Too bad, as I am letting my subscription expire and I have found a lot of value on that site despite it's shortcomngs (although many of the best contributors were not subscribers). But perhaps this will inject some new blood into BWE!

[William P]

It's too bad. I enjoyed the burgundy discussions over there. I think this is a way to limit contentious discussion and to exercise greater control over topics and people. So much for almost free speech.

[stefan]

Occasionally I saw something of interest on ebob, usually about Burgundy, but it is not much of a loss to me.

[JonB]

Actually I can sympathize with their move. Once in a while (?daily?) there are threads directly attacking them, and why give those people an audience in a channel that they pay for and has visibility to many of their subscribers?

[Houndsong]

I read cellartracker. It's just as informative and a lot more entertaining.

[Jay Winton]

very poorly handled, IMO.

[DavidG]

Completely classless. I can understand wanting to avoid the attacks, and sure it is their board and their prerogative to take it private, and doing it with no notice precludes bunches of people signing off in a big FU blaze of glory. But this makes them look really bad and will probably be bad for their business as people will just move elsewhere. Maybe they figure the revenue isn't worth the hassle. Or maybe they just don't figure...

[RDD]

All about the money.

[DavidG]

That's what I can't figure, Rob. How are they going to make more money by walling this off? OK, they don't take ads, so no loss of revenue there. But don't you figure an open forum generates new subscriptions? Or maybe they have data that it doesn't. Or is the cost in the hardware for hosting a larger group? Do they pay the moderators?

[jal]

If the business model is changing, can all subscribers participate in the forum? How about the banned ones (Ian and Posner come to mind)? I'm not banned and I'm not a subscriber, but if the dialogue becomes more open again, I may re-examine my decision to let my subscription elapse.

[RDD]

That's what I can't figure, Rob. How are they going to make more money by walling this off? OK, they don't take ads, so no loss of revenue there. But don't you figure an open forum generates new subscriptions? Or maybe they have data that it doesn't. Or is the cost in the hardware for hosting a larger group? Do they pay the moderators?

Well they alluded that it was expensive and time cosuming to manage.
I really suspect many new wine writers use that board to post their reviews prior to RMP.
Maybe it steals a little of his thunder.
Also why support some newbe? Make them do it the hard way on their own.

[JimHow]

Why would a wine board be any more expensive just because more people are participating?

[RDD]

Quote from eBob:

Supervising the huge volume of posts has become increasingly time consuming and expensive. At the same time, we've noted that the subscriber-only forums we created some time back are increasingly popular and much easier to manage.

[DavidG]

Gotta pay the board police, I guess. Perhaps Squires got tired of having to delete and lock so many threads - too much work for him - so he convinced Bob to take it private. Among the other plausible reasons listed above.

[Gerry M.]

Do they really think that making it subscribers only will actually save them a material amount of money? Does RMP seriously think that this move will motivate more people to subscribe to enable access to the boards? I believe the answer to both questions is NO.

Only RMP knows the real answer but my suspicion is that he's tired of the ever increasing attacks to his inflated ego and questioning of the almighty one.

[Blanquito]

I agree, Gerry. More users/participants doesn't make the web-board more expensive, as most of it's probably a fixed cost, but it does cost something up front. So, Parker asks, why spend the money when (a) it doesn't increase subscriptions, (b) it provides a forum for his up-and-coming competition, and (c) a bunch of cranks choose to attack him.

Personally, I think the vast majority of the posts were benign and/or pro-Parker, and since I don't buy the expense excuse, I don't really understand the move (unless Parker/Squires' collective skins are really thin). But undoubtedly, I think they handled its termination badly.

[gremlins]

I may be a lurker of that forum and this .

I find it really interesting (beneficial) to see the reviews of the vintage from Izak, Panos and others.

I sense that Bob is feeling that his 'deity' is being challenged as the reviews/notes of 'third party' on the new vintage of the century are being posted on the board.

In the past many would wait with bated breath for Bob to release his report but now many of them have spilled the beans on the new vintage.

I agree that the manner which the switch has been done is poorly managed and the reason given is kind of lame.

It could well be a ploy to get more people to subscribe before the numbers are released. But who knows?

[Claret]

The trainwreck has finally derailed. There was some good wine info amongst the bickering and chest thumping that will be missed.

[JimHow]

I never thought he did himself any favors to his mystique by rolling around in the mud with that crowd.

[Houndsong]

Jim, I think you need to do some contingency planning for all of the defectors/lurkers who are about to show up here. First, you'll need an extensive set of rules and bylaws. Then, you'll need some bouncers. Oh yeah, avatars. Uh, there's something else, probably.

[JimHow]

I want to reserve the Cubs and Angelina Jolie logoes....

[PappaDoc]

I agree there was some good info about Burgundy. I never subscribed, but have bought RPs books in the past. His first few "Wine Buyers Guides" his scores were more conservative. I particulary liked the "Third Edition", Great period of mostly 1988, 89 and 90 wines that had produced some fantastic wines in almost every area in the world. Most fully mature, many that will hold for five plus years.

I pair that book up to Cellar Tracker notes , B.W.E. Events , Archives, and Forum. This combo has the "What To Buy, Where to buy it, and When to drink it. That period of wines is still widely available is both auction and retail, some in the $50 to $100 range.

[Tom In DC]

1988-1990 was indeed a sweet spot for wine in many places, wasn't it PD?

I haven't spent any time with Bob in years, but he was a simple country lawyer with a love of wine back in the day...

[Tom In DC]

On the other hand, traffic on eBob is looking like rush hour on the DC Beltway...nothing going on...

[William P]

It appears the majority of the burgundy board has moved to the below site. Hopefully we can pick up the remains of the Bordeaux board.

http://www.wineberserkers.com/search.ph ... ive_topics

[stefan]

Good; I can still see what Alan Weinberg has to say.

I also see that Pomerollover loves the '09 Cos, which, given the reviews Jacques posted, is not surprising.

[Jay Winton]

I've been a member of WB for a few months...gets a little raunchy sometimes but interesting discussions.

[Blanquito]

The 2009 Cos sounds dreadful. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it (I'll likely never taste it), given the number of smaller-scale Parker New Wave darlings I dislike. But I'm not surprised after his love of the 2003 vintage, which was when I finally decided that Parker had gone over to the darkside. He's still a very useful source, but his ratings and notes must be sifted very carefully now to avoid buying cases of wines like the 2003 Faugeres.

[DavidG]

I've enjoyed WineBerserkers on and off since it first formed a couple of waves of Squires board banishings ago. They get into some lengthy bashing threads, but no one has held a gun to my head and forced me to read them. There are plenty of good TNs posted there.

[jal]

Just as an FYI, since the question was asked...I am still not allowed to post on the Parker board.

Thanks Dan, so much for that theory. Can you at least view the forum?

[Jay Winton]

Just as an FYI, since the question was asked...I am still not allowed to post on the Parker board.

I'm sure that's causing you sleepless nights

[RDD]

Just as an FYI, since the question was asked...I am still not allowed to post on the Parker board.

I'd be interested in Jim's view form a legal perspevitive. You pay for a online subscription but are banned from using part of the services provided with the subscription. I guess they could refund the subscription fee. Can you legally refuse to sell someone merchandise? I guess it's like being banned from a store because you dissed the owner.

[Houndsong]

Just as an FYI, since the question was asked...I am still not allowed to post on the Parker board.

I'm sure that's causing you sleepless nights

It would for some: http://xkcd.com/386/

[tim]

Out of curiosity, is anyone still reading? How active is the participation now that it is subscriber-only?

[DavidG]

Much less posting. Also much less arguing. Signal to noise ratio is up, but a whole lot less signal.

[Tom In DC]

Yup, getting berry, berry kwiet over there. I'm gonna give 'em an expired credit card since I can't figureout how to turn off their auto-renew "feature"!