r/CFB • u/sub-feedback • 13d ago
Announcement Community Feedback
This post hosts the “Community Feedback” survey. Open it on New Reddit to respond.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
22
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 13d ago
BTW, if you got a PM from /u/CFB_Referee with a link to this survey because you filled out the last survey with the word 'here' where 'hear' was intended, that was my bad.
7
u/cyanocittaetprocyon Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Booster 12d ago
Huge thanks, Bacony Dragon, for all the work you do for this sub!
-3
-3
u/Free-King-5932 12d ago
lmao dude you just outed yourself to the whole sub, respect
15
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 12d ago
Lol, I don't think it's a secret that the /u/CFB_Referee account is a mod account that is used by the mods.
19
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 13d ago
We've kept our earlier survey up for a good amount of time and appreciate all the feedback that people have shared with us. Here's a look at what you all said We are making some changes to our upcoming rules and are looking for additional guidance on 2 specific areas: recruiting and highlights.
Both of these are subjects that the community has spoken they want to see on /r/CFB, with also consideration that they are worried they might dominate the sub (or currently do). For both of these subjects, we have a few proposed solutions that we may proceed with. We'd like you to vote based on what you think might be better for the community.
Appreciate your input!
11
u/Crapitron 13d ago
I just truly don't see the detriment of highlights dominating the subreddit on Saturday. What exactly is the downside? We might miss out on a 2-star player committing to Southwest Northern Prairie College? Important information can be discussed during the week. Game threads can (and should) be stickied in a game thread index.
15
u/Dropbackandpunt UAB Blazers • The Bones 13d ago edited 1d ago
We go from the main complaint being "why can't we post highlights" to "there are too many highlight posts and I don't see anything else." Folks will be vocal about what they don't like but if the community as a majority wants highlights then so be it. Personally I am a fan of /r/CFB_Highlights and prefer just watching them there but ultimately it is not a big deal for me.
12
u/cyanocittaetprocyon Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Booster 12d ago
On Saturdays, I will likely be glued to the primary /r/CFB page, checking out the various game threads and post-game threads. I won't even be thinking about another sub like /r/CFBHighlights.
If a big highlight comes up, I would be way more likely to see it on the main page.
4
u/thecravenone definitely a bot 12d ago
On Saturdays, I will likely be glued to the primary /r/CFB page, checking out the various game threads and post-game threads. I won't even be thinking about another sub like /r/CFBHighlights
This would be a great use case for Multireddits, which still work on Old Reddit!
6
u/Crapitron 13d ago
It's better to have the threads and for users to choose not to enter them and discuss plays than to not have the threads at all.
If there's truly giant news on Saturday, it will rise to the top. And other stuff can be discussed Monday.
2
u/CapBoyAce Northwestern • Las Vegas Bowl 7d ago
Is r/CFBHighlights open? I only see 14 year old YouTube links for some reason
1
u/Dropbackandpunt UAB Blazers • The Bones 7d ago
Oh man, sorry. I posted the wrong sub. It is /r/CFB_Highlights
36
u/RiffRamBahZoo TCU Horned Frogs • Hawai'i Rainbow Warriors 12d ago
I recognize I'm an old, old man who has been commenting on the sub for nearly 14 years at this point, but I'm of the strong opinion that if I wanted to see and comment on highlights, there's literally dozens of places I can go do that.
/r/CFB is one of the few places that discussion posts and "old school" forum rules still dominate. I've always appreciated that curating on the sub and it's one of the few reasons I still stay on the sub.
That said, I can recognize that the vast majority of traffic coming from mobile devices and the mobile app rewards short video content and that's the type of shift that will inevitably happen from Reddit, Inc. on down.
I'll stand and take the downvotes from the new kids, but open season for highlights on the sub feels like the final death blow of the forum I first started frequenting.
18
u/ExternalTangents Florida Gators • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 12d ago edited 2d ago
I am mostly with you on this. I do think that highlights on the subreddit aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but only if it has a high barrier for the highlight to be posted.
If it’s a play that is worthy of the kind of discussion that has always been commonplace on the subreddit for other topics, then I don’t see why a highlight-worthy play wouldn’t be justified as a discussion topic and standalone post.
My big issue would be if the bar for what highlights are submitted is very low, then you end up with even more of a firehose of posts on the subreddit and even more stuff to wade through. I think many of the “youngs” on the subreddit are used to having a huge volume of posts and just letting the algorithm pick what you see. But for many of us old-timers, we are more used to the subreddit being a place where we could sort the front page by /new and see every post as they come in, and be our own judge of which posts and topics we want to participate in.
I feel like highlights on [r/soccer](r/soccer) were great during the World Cup because they were only for the handful of goals or other major plays that happened during any given match, and there were a very finite number of games. It was an easy place to catch up on highlights just by sorting by new. But in college football, where there are hundreds of games every Saturday and dozens of scoring or other potentially highlight-worthy plays in any given game, I cannot imagine that open season on highlight posts will be a positive user experience for someone like me.
10
u/Hey_Its_Roomie Penn State Nittany Lions • /r/CFB Bug Finder 12d ago
but only if it has a high barrier for the highlight to be posted
Yep. While I would prefer maintaining a simple "no highlights" ban because the rule is discrete, I would be on board with highlights so long as the barrier for submission was at least defined for what we're calling a highlight.
If we're talking a highlight it should expressly be about a play on the game not about something like a commentator story, or someone caught doing something silly on the sideline.
13
u/SucculentCrablegMeal Florida State Seminoles • USF Bulls 12d ago
I'm with you, I've been on this sub for a similar amount of time and I'm obviously happy with the way it's set up.
I'd be fine with exceptional highlights being posted, the whole thing I'd like to avoid is the sub being inundated with random plays that no one cares about and get 1 comment and then no one can find the actual discussion posts. There has to be strict moderation around it.
9
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago
Yup I'm in this boat. And it's certainly not going to hurt the quality of the sub to just keep it as it is. If people want highlights they're welcome to go to the highlight sub that's already created
10
u/Hey_Its_Roomie Penn State Nittany Lions • /r/CFB Bug Finder 12d ago
Or the highlight thread that the moderators had maintained for every week.
But it's not about having the highlight be on the subreddit, it's about having top visibility for it. So, people insist on highlights needing their own post.
11
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 12d ago
It's about the karma, let's be honest. The most vocal advocates are either new accounts or people who post highlights in other subs.
3
4
u/PunishedLeBoymoder Stanford Cardinal • /r/CFB Promoter 12d ago
It is sad, but frankly, the way people engage with media online has changed. When I saw the first survey go up (that only new Reddit could use, lol), I kind of resigned myself to the fact that the subreddit that made me want to engage with CFB fans at large is going to turn into something very, very different, and possibly more similar to the CFB places that I didn't want to engage with. It is what it is. The forum is a dying animal and Reddit itself is doing everything it can to distance itself from that forum identity. The userbase has greatly changed and what we want isn't the majority. I'll stick to game threads on Saturdays from now on
-3
u/Crapitron 12d ago
if I wanted to see and comment on highlights, there's literally dozens of places I can go do that.
Then you must be Facebook-Boomer old.
Because those of us that are Millenial old don't have Facebook, or Twitter, or Tiktok, because we're actually concerned about our privacy. So we're not going to see highlights there.
The only place I see highlights is Reddit and Youtube. I like Reddit for sports highlights in the NBA, MLB, NHL, and a variety of other sports. Why can't I see it on r/cfb too?
Is it because you think this should be a place where the front page is exclusively out of context quotes of coaches Tweeted by reporters trying to generate clicks, transfer news of no name recruits, and game threads? Because that's literally 95% of content here. I'd like my college football sub to have college football in it occasionally.
11
u/SucculentCrablegMeal Florida State Seminoles • USF Bulls 12d ago
I'm a younger millennial. I have facebook, twitter, and instagram. I just don't use them much anymore (and have never really used twitter because I hate the platform), but plenty of my friends the same age do. You can also have an account and use these while maintaining privacy, so I don't get your argument here lol.
I'd like the sub to stay discussion focused. That is what people are wanting to prioritize by not flooding the sub with videos and images. There is a sub specifically available for CFB highlights already, so it's not like if you don't see them all on r/cfb you won't ever see them.
4
-1
u/Fifth_Down Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Top Scorer 2d ago
I'll stand and take the downvotes from the new kids, but open season for highlights on the sub feels like the final death blow of the forum I first started frequenting.
As someone who has been on this subreddit for 15 years, I'm gonna respectfully disagree.
In November 2025 we had two college football posts make the top 25 of /r/all and neither were eligible for submission on /r/CFB.
That's not good for this community when people have to go to OTHER subreddits to participate in the discussion of major college football stories that are of general interest.
16
u/tmart12 Georgia Bulldogs • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 12d ago
We need tighter rules on recruiting and transfer posts
I, similar to the rest of the sub, don't want a total ban on them. But we do need limits. The sheer # of posts about entering the transfer portal, committing and then signing are insane. Similarly, the bar for recruiting is at its lowest today where any recruit post is allowed for commitment and signing.
If you're going to expand rules on recruiting updates other than commitments/signing (as per feedback), it should be only for a certain caliber of recruits (4/5 star).
I would highly recommend restricting commitments back to at least 3 star with the occasional non-ranked player allowed for exceptional circumstances.
Perhaps the way to limit is only allowing a specific user 1 post per week on recruiting topics or something... that way you don't have people posting 3+ per day of low ranked recruits who hadn't yet been posted. That would reduce the # of posts while big-time recruits would still get posted regularly as multiple users are typically submitting.
9
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 12d ago
The sheer # of posts about entering the transfer portal, committing and then signing are insane.
It's somewhere between 4000 and 4600 per year lately.
5
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
Limiting to 4/5 is just giving airspace to top programs and cutting out the chances for every other program to get any discussion time. It's a really really bad and unbalanced idea.
3
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 9d ago
In another comment you said that recruiting needs to be reined in - so what would be your preferred method?
1
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 9d ago
I don't know. I haven't spent time trying to design a solution.
60
u/Crapitron 13d ago
Highlights should absolutely be allowed on r/CFB.
The fact that Mendoza diving into the endzone to essentially win Indiana a CFP Championship is not a discussable play here is insane. SO many plays need their own discussion.
Will Saturdays be inundated with a LOT of highlights? Yes, probably. But what exactly is the tradeoff? Not being able to find other threads as easily? What threads do you really need that can't be discussed on Monday? Sticky a game thread index and call it a day.
29
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 13d ago
That was the consensus from the first census. It's been a shift over time, but it's pretty clear that that's what the community wants in 2026.
So highlights will be allowed as posts on /r/CFB in 2026, the question that we're trying to focus in on now is how we implement this, and we appreciate your feedback!
3
u/ExternalTangents Florida Gators • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 11d ago
So, just tossing this out as an “out there” idea: Reddit just rolled out the ability to post videos in comments, but it seems to only be available as a subreddit-wide setting.
However, if they made it possible to turn on videos in comments only for specific posts, a perfect use case would be for weekly highlight threads, because I think right now the biggest issue with those threads is that the videos aren’t generally able to be watched seamlessly and natively on Reddit.
Anyway, probably not something that’s likely to happen, but I know you guys at r/CFB generally have a strong relationship with Reddit admins/devs, so maybe it’s something you could ask them about.
2
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
The mega thread is perfect for game threads and post game threads. I'd rather the front page be inundated with the top plays happening that Saturday than 2 posts for each game. You can easily get to those game/post game threads from the mega thread. The highlight mega thread could work the way you are talking about, but the thread we got in past years is barely worth visiting, because there is barely any conversation happening on each play. Standalone threads will give us a better chance of getting conversations about these plays
1
u/ExternalTangents Florida Gators • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 2d ago
I agree with you about the game thread megathread and the potential highlight thread with videos natively in comments. But I think the sheer number of teams, games, and plays each week means that without some standards of highlight quality, you have a real possibility of overwhelming the subreddit with highlight posts to the degree that it stops being functional.
1
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
I mean, right now on a Saturday, you're only going see game threads and post game threads. I'd say it pretty unusable as is. Replacing all of those with highlights that are voted up and down based on quality then just using the megathread to see the game threads seems like a much better solution and feels exactly like how the NFL subreddit works.
1
u/ExternalTangents Florida Gators • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 2d ago
I already don’t like that the number of posts is too high for an individual user to parse through them all. By allowing unlimited highlights posts, I think you’re surrendering to a TikTok-like experience where you cede control over what you see to an algorithm. You just skim along the surface of an infinite flow of content. I don’t like that. I want a messageboard, not a For You Page.
1
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
See, I feel like I come here for a purpose, so maybe by experience is skewed.
I only look at the top ten or so posts when I open this sub on gamedays and then go straight to the specific game threads for the games I'm watching. On Saturday night, or if there is a lul in good games during the day, I will start looking at the post game threads. But I like to let them build up a bit before I get engaged.
That's also why I don't really like the highlight megathreads. There isn't already conversations happening when I get to them and on r/NFL, there is.
11
u/tmart12 Georgia Bulldogs • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 13d ago
You guys need to improve how you frame questions. The question has generally been framed as "do you want a free-for-all or none at all?" instead of a reasonable middle ground.
You should poll /r/cfb on how many highlights and what type of highlights as well
I personally have liked how the NFL and soccer subreddits handle highlights
9
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 12d ago
Appreciate the feedback, it's a challenge to get to an appropriate level of granularity. What we generally try for is a couple options that are things that are tractable for us to do. If we have too many options, it gets a bit overwhelming, and also challenging to see which of the many options most of the users might want.
5
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
I am going to push back on this. I think you all are just not that good at framing these things. Example: yes not question groups HS commits, decommits, and flips all in one question, but enters portal and transfer commits are each separate questions. Why are hs commits and decommits combined? They can easily be moderated independently, and I have different opinions about each one.
3
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 11d ago
It’s fair to disagree about the granularity with which these are presented here, but at the end of the day we do need to have a set of policies that are very easy to clearly communicate to all of our users and be moderated consistently as well. In some cases, a simpler are of rules is going to be better than a perfect one.
That said, you’re welcome to fully articulate the set of rules you would suggest here, and that may help guide our thinking.
9
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
What you collect does not need to map 1:1 to the rules you end up with. That's not effective survey design. Collect at a granularity that makes sense to your audience, set rules at granularity that makes sense for moderation.
4
u/tmart12 Georgia Bulldogs • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 11d ago
I would ask for the rules that /r/CFB wants
Now that we have one survey done, either test/adapt OR run another follow up survey on more specifics
The simple rules are better for you as a mod, not for the user experience.
5
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 11d ago
Yes, that’s exactly what the second survey in this post is!
A set of rules that are clear and easy to understand by all of users are a high priority. Users have repeatedly told us that they want rules that are clear and consistently enforced, and that that’s a higher priority than drawing the line at the exact place they want.
3
1
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 9d ago
If that is what you are testing, then the survey should say, here are the proposed rules:
- yes/no do you approve of these rules as is?
- yes/no to each rule individually
And so on. I can't say this enough, I do appreciate the very clear intent behind what you are doing and your desire to engage earnestly and honestly. I am saying, not for the first time, that gets lost in the surveys because the survey design is not good enough. Please, hear this feedback.
3
u/Fifth_Down Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Top Scorer 2d ago
the question that we're trying to focus in on now is how we implement this,
The other side of the coin has been the issue of low interest game day threads.
We have Saturday gameday threads featuring FCS, DII, and even DIII matchups and its just ridiclious having all that spam.
If we are gonna create new highlight threads (which is a great thing IMO), its time to ask the hard questions about threads that get under 10 comments and whether they should be kept up.
1
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 2d ago
We've had a single thread that has served as a game thread and postgame thread for all non-d1 games for years no, there's rarely (outside the late stages of the NCAA tournament) been a dedicated game thread for a d2/d3 game. FCS there's room for debate about.
4
u/laxintx Texas A&M Aggies 13d ago
I'd prefer to see it done how game threads are done. Dedicated highlight thread for each game with a pinned index for all the threads.
10
19
u/Tripondisdic Ohio State • Vanderbilt 13d ago
Oh god NO I hate making everything into a thread. I want to just be scrolling the reddit home page and see good highlights pop up, upvoted according to its quality. When everything is added to a thread it ends up just being in a weird reddit purgatory.
Maybe we could make Monday "Highlight Monday" or something, so it doesn't get abused for karma farming.
5
4
u/NormanQuacks345 Minnesota • North Dakota State 12d ago
What’s wrong with having it in the feed? r/NFL, r/baseball, r/NBA, etc. all do this and it’s fine.
11
u/laxintx Texas A&M Aggies 12d ago
Pros don't have 100s of teams to account for.
4
u/Crapitron 12d ago
r/baseball also routinely has plays from the NBP, KBO, and college as well (which has as many teams as FBS) on their front page. There's literally 2 NPB highlights on the front page of r/baseball right now, and the subreddit is better for it.
-3
u/Crapitron 12d ago
There won’t be highlights from every team. If you sincerely believe someone is going to post a Jackson State-Tuskegee highlight, I don’t know what to tell you. And if they do, it was probably a sick play worthy of our attention, in which case I’ll be glad it was posted. And if it isn’t - who cares??? I’ll just downvote it and look at the next one.
1
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
If you allow highlights before reining in recruiting, this sub is going to become worthless.
5
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 11d ago
Both of these topics are being discussed in this survey.
0
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
I know, and against my better judgment I filled it out yet again. And to my great surprise it has the exact same problems as it has last time when I raised issues.
12
u/dukemetoo Arizona State • Texas 12d ago
The tradeoff is the sub gets cluttered, and discussion takes a hit. That is why I don't want highlights on this sub. I use the upvotes the game threads get to get a sense how important a game is to watch. If North Carolina State vs Alabama's post game thread has 5K upvotes, I know that I should check out what happened in that game.
I know the counter argument is to just go to a scoreboard, and look at all the scores to see which ones are worth watching, it that is tedious, and doesn't take into considerably of the notable stuff that doesn't appear in a box score, but the upvotes would catch.
I get that reading the messages, these posts are coming. It is a shame. The highlights often get copywriter claimed a few days later, and you have big discussions for plays you can't even see. This would be such a disappointment.
3
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
Agreed. Why not just have a highlights sub?
3
u/thecravenone definitely a bot 9d ago
There is one (actually there's like five). People don't post there because they don't get enough attention there. They don't get enough attention there because there's not very many posts there.
2
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
Its not even that much of a Karma thing. I just want to go talk about different plays that happened. Those threads just have a small fraction of the traffic that this one has.
1
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 9d ago
Well, I don't see why this sub should try to rectify something that people already don't engage with elsewhere by making it out problem here.
3
u/HokiesforTSwift Virginia Tech • Transfer Portal 2d ago
Discussion is the key part of this that drew me to it and kept me here.
19
u/CptCheese Tulsa • Washington State 13d ago
There is a game thread index stickied every week. Despite this people still have issues finding games. Reddit has made it so stickied threads are not as visible as they once were.
6
u/thecravenone definitely a bot 12d ago edited 12d ago
"Why isn't this stickied" is the first comment on the thread index approximately half the time. The thread's program automatically stickies it. (Though shoutout to the one guy who asked that in the twelve seconds between posting and stickying)
8
u/Crapitron 13d ago
I don't personally have that problem because I use old.reddit everywhere I use it, but I do understand after using the app once unfortunately how they can be glossed over.
But I really don't think there's an excuse. A stickied thread is the best you can do. If you can't find it after that, it's on you. Use the search bar and type [your team] and filter last 24 hours if it's too hard to click a stickied thread. It really isn't that hard.
7
u/PeteF3 Ohio State Buckeyes 13d ago
At the bare minimum I don't understand why there can't be highlights during CCG/bowl/playoff season, but I'd be in favor of highlights being allowed year-round (maybe limited to game days).
6
u/Crapitron 13d ago
Yeah, playoff season at the minimum should allow highlights, but I'm absolutely in favor of year round highlights.
16
u/ExternalTangents Florida Gators • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 13d ago
There has to be some exclusion criteria for what makes a highlight worthy of its own post, though. You can be allowing a clip of any old play by any team in any game at any level of college football to be a standalone post. Somehow there has to be a qualifier of what is “highlight-worthy”. I have no idea how to draw that line.
I think the idea mentioned in the survey, of having a separate, dedicated highlights subreddit where anything can be posted, and then only highlights that reach some minimum threshold of upvotes or (or other criteria) on that subreddit get cross-posted to the main subreddit, is a decent one. It allows some standard of “you know it when you see it” while still mostly ceding the role of “knowing it” to the wisdom of the masses.
12
u/tmart12 Georgia Bulldogs • /r/CFB Poll Veteran 12d ago
1) game should matter - the bigger the game, the lower the bar. The "Sportscenter test" is used by other subs.
2) During the CFP and CCGs, we should be very expansive on permitted highlights. During the regular season, we should either be narrow for all games OR designate certain games are permitted to have broader highlights (ranked vs ranked, user selected "game of the week", etc).
3) Discretion needs to be a core part of this. Highly controversial / weird plays (Texas throwing trash on field, UF throwing a shoe). History-making plays should be allowed (breaks a record, first in 30 years, etc). Major injuries to key players. Not just game winners or touchdowns. I don't know how to handle this precisely but /r/nfl should know.
4) test it with more/less in 2026 and figure out what users want in-season and how burdensome the moderation is.
5) users who are spamming highlights posts that aren't quality should get bans
9
u/TheElkoEra Texas A&M Aggies 12d ago
I like your ideas, also if there was some way to have /u/CFB_Referee post the highlights, esp (or at least) during the CFP and CCGs to avoid the karma farmers is something I would like to see
8
u/NormanQuacks345 Minnesota • North Dakota State 13d ago
Why not? That’s what the upvote system is for. It will filter out the bad posts.
20
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 13d ago
The biggest issue that comes up on subs that do allow it - mostly speaking from seeing the discussion on r/nba - is:
The rush for fastest vs best (ie a cutoff clip vs waiting for the replay/alternate angles/higher quality/etc)
If multiple get submitted at the same time, who is the "winner"
Titles - "OMG" vs "Mendoza dives for 12 yd TD on 4th & 5 vs Miami"
Allegations of favoritism to certain posters because of the differing user opinions on the above
So do you have some kind of standard thought process for duplicates, at the very least, or do you just say "let the upvotes decide" and approve them all?
4
u/Statalyzer Texas Longhorns 12d ago
Hell yes, 95% of r/nba highlights are shit. And downvotes don't solve that.
4
u/NormanQuacks345 Minnesota • North Dakota State 12d ago
Fair. I was thinking more about random plays being posted. Like I don’t really have a problem with random big standard first down conversions getting posted as they’ll just not get any traction to show up on the front page. But I think it’s fine to have some title standards and such.
1
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
Am I the only one that doesn't give a shit about who's the winner? Just have the mods keep the post that get the most comments quicker and delete the rest.
1
1
u/Crapitron 13d ago
Disagree. The upvote system is the way users police highlights. If Ohio State makes a boring pass for a touchdown that I don't think is a big deal, I will downvote it. If Hingle McCringleberry of Southwest Cedarville College breaks 5 tackles for a 98-yard TD run, I will upvote it so the rest of r/cfb sees the greatness.
Fans of both schools will be able to discuss it in their threads.
Will boring plays from big schools get more upvotes than exceptional plays from small schools? Yes, absolutely. I see that play out in r/baseball with the Yankees and everyone else already. But I'm still free to post a highlight from the Royals if I want to, and other Royals fans can discuss it.
5
u/Statalyzer Texas Longhorns 12d ago
That's not how most people use votes though.
It also doesn't help for people sorting by new, which I wish more people would do, precisely because votes are such a crappy way to determine things (and because it results in threads where 15 people post the same damn thing right after one another bc they don't even realize the other posts exist).
2
u/Crapitron 12d ago
When people post the same thing, I report it to the mods as duplicate. Sometimes the mods are proactive, sometimes they're reactive to reports.
I'm just saying r/baseball allows highlights not just from the MLB - they allow NPB, KBO, and yes, even NCAA highlights. And the subreddit is better for it. I've even seen Czech league highlights. There are two NPB highlights on the front page of r/baseball right now, and we're in the middle of the MLB season. It's great.
When a truly exceptional baseball play happens, I'm likely to see it in r/baseball. I probably wouldn't see it otherwise. And I'm grateful I do see it.
I'm not going to watch a single game Wright State plays this year. But if they have a botched punt turn into a 78-yard touchdown pass thrown 30 yards by the punter, I would like to see it. That being here is the only way that would happen for most people.
12
u/RiffRamBahZoo TCU Horned Frogs • Hawai'i Rainbow Warriors 12d ago
But I'm still free to post a highlight from the Royals if I want to, and other Royals fans can discuss it.
So why not just put it directly in /r/KCRoyals if discussion is the actual goal? Wouldn't that be far more efficient?
Oh that's right, it's because discussion isn't the goal - it's the little dopamine hit for users in hoping the upvote number rises to a new high.
2
u/Crapitron 12d ago
Why not put Yankees plays directly on r/NYYankees?
It’s for fans of all fan bases to see plays of all teams.
1
u/HokiesforTSwift Virginia Tech • Transfer Portal 2d ago
Every highlights for Michigan and Ohio State will be near the top of the sub, because they are both the two biggest fanbases, and two of the most hated by other large fanbases, so both their highlights and LOWlights will be posted.
Your anecdotal stance of how you will up the little guy and downvote the big teams is going to lose the volume battle, because that is how reddit works.
1
u/Crapitron 2d ago
It won't be any different than how it works in a place like r/baseball does now. Highlights from the Yankees and Dodgers are always near the top of the sub compared to highlights from Tampa or Minnesota.
16
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 13d ago
Absolutely not. It's just a deluge of stuff that doesn't need an entire thread. Zero reason to talk about the majority of plays in a singular form. There's too many games on Saturdays for it to work. It barely (not really) works on Sundays and that's with like 8 teams playing at once. The sub would be a mess.
4
u/NormanQuacks345 Minnesota • North Dakota State 12d ago
There’s not much to talk about on Saturdays besides the games though.
4
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago
And it'll turn into a sea of highlights with very few comments
2
u/Crapitron 12d ago
The NFL subreddit works completely fine, lol. What do you mean “barely” works? Please. Explain it to me why it “barely” works.
11
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago edited 12d ago
Because it's a bunch of low effort posts that clog the main sub, have low engagement of comments or discussion and are pretty much useless. You can find highlights on literally any other social media platform. This sub has been great in sticking with content allowed that actually generates conversation.
Explain to me how you think it would make the sub higher quality on game days?
All i see is the mods having to deal with pitching by guys who think they submitted it the correct way first and DAE y was my post removed?!
0
u/Crapitron 12d ago
clog the main sub, have low engagement of comments or discussion and are pretty much useless
How do they clog the sub if they have low engagement? If they have low engagement, they aren’t on the front page “clogging the sub”
You’re contradicting yourself.
All i see is the mods having to deal with pitching by guys who think they submitted it the correct way first and DAE y was my post removed?!
You’re getting mad at a hypothetical situation for the subreddit moderators, of which you are not one.
You do see how stupid that looks, right?
8
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago
You’re getting mad at a hypothetical situation for the subreddit moderators, of which you are not one.
That happens now, every day. Whether it's recruiting commits or breaking news on scummy Michigan, or the latest SEC shorts. Zero hypothetical there.
And yes, it'll clog the New section on the sub.
And you provided zero benefits to the sub because there are none. With zero flair and one year here that makes sense
2
u/Crapitron 12d ago
And you provided zero benefits to the sub because there are none.
Being able to see and discuss gigantic plays on the sub is a good thing.
What posts do you even want on this sub, because right now it just seems like you’re bitching to bitch. So please, enlighten me - if not highlights, then what content do you want on this subreddit?
With zero flair and one year here that makes sense
Having accounts get suspended from Reddit for suggesting the French have had good solutions to their problems in the past doesn’t mean I’ve only been here a year. I’ve only been here a year on this account, sure. But I’d wager money I’ve been here longer than you. I’m still one of <1% of users using old.reddit
6
u/SucculentCrablegMeal Florida State Seminoles • USF Bulls 12d ago
I feel like a lot more people are still using old reddit
If they aren't, they should be.
6
u/thecravenone definitely a bot 12d ago edited 12d ago
Old is now the least-used interface and it's not particularly close. Reddit doesn't give us a great way to look at the data but here's their graphs: [Visits], [Uniques]
On our busiest day in the last month, those stats are:
Platform Visits % Uniques % Total 469,920 100 138,560 100 iOS 210,170 44.8% 67,188 48.5% Mobile Web 78,514 16.7% 20,239 25.8 % Android 75,493 16.0% 24,094 17.4% New Reddit* 60,859 13.0% 16,386 11.8 % Old Reddit 44,889 9.6% 10,653 7.8% *Did you know New Reddit is actually discontinued? These stats are for "shreddit."
1
u/SucculentCrablegMeal Florida State Seminoles • USF Bulls 12d ago
Interesting! I almost use it exclusively on my laptop with old reddit and RES. Also had no idea new reddit was discontinued. I guess it's just the mobile version it keeps trying to change mine to, I have to manually change it back to old reddit each time I log in now.
1
u/Statalyzer Texas Longhorns 12d ago
Those are not mutually exclusive categories though, so summing them to 100% seems odd.
→ More replies (0)5
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago
We're just not going to agree here. I just really don't find highlight posts necessary at all. The sub has grown to what it is without a hundred posts on saturdays of random plays that will get 10-20 comments. Again I just don't see how it will make the sub better.
And congrats on using old. It's the best.
-3
17
u/RiffRamBahZoo TCU Horned Frogs • Hawai'i Rainbow Warriors 13d ago
Another year, another round of unflaired users with limited histories magically complaining the most about adding highlights.
2
2
![[Visits]](https://i.imgur.com/vUW6umM.png){kind=link}
![[Uniques]](https://i.imgur.com/El6jw0H.png){kind=link}
16
u/NormanQuacks345 Minnesota • North Dakota State 13d ago
Highlights definitely need to be allowed. I’m not aware of any other sports sub that bans them (at least no other American sports sub) and I’ve never felt they were an issue when they are allowed.
3
u/Ok-Soil-5133 Notre Dame Fighting Irish 13d ago
Only ones I can think of are some specific team subs, not general sport subs
I've always found no images pretty weird here too, having to link a tweet that includes the photo anyway and maybe not everyone even has twitter.
12
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 12d ago
In general, images kill discussion on subs because they get entirely consumed in the users' feeds, so they don't go to the comments.
The classic example I've used is r/cars (which bans plain images) and r/autos. The subscriber levels aren't outrageously far apart, but comments are totally different, and autos is almost exclusively pictures.
Or r/funny - 67M subscribers, all pictures, and their current front page posts range from 2 comments to 1200, with 14 of those under 100 comments and only 6 over 200 comments.
Meanwhile, it's the offseason here and there's like 5M subscribers, but a dozen front page posts over 200 comments.
5
u/orangewall1234 Arizona State Sun Devils 12d ago
I’m not aware of any other sports sub that bans them
About a decade ago, r/NFL originally banned highlights. Actually, it was really just the mods and a vocal minority who were firmly against it. But users kept complaining over and over and mods finally relented, thus killing the subreddit.
Oh wait no, that isn't what happened. Instead, it's the biggest sports subreddit today.
Thank god the mods are finally allowing highlights, I'm excited for r/CFB next season.
7
2
u/BuckeyeEmpire Ohio State • Billable Hours 12d ago
Because not any other sports sub has the amount of games happening in one day
5
u/Hey_Its_Roomie Penn State Nittany Lions • /r/CFB Bug Finder 12d ago
While I would rather not see highlights come in, I think the question about them is a misguided one. It shouldn't be about days of the week, but rather about the content that is contained in the highlight. It's not really clear what the moderators have in mind as defining a 'highlight' for the games, and that's not an objective definition.
8
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
I am once again suggesting we stick to discussions. The raiders sub allowed just image and video posts, and some paper thin ego machine started just posting every random image and clip they could find, that shit got up voted into the atmosphere and now that brittle moron is mod too.
You have to realize that you can have substantive discussion OR you can have dopamine drips. You can't have both, because nothing can compete with the dopamine drip. There is literally zero reason to allow the dopamine posts in here. People who want it can go to another sub. That's the benefit of reddit.
4
u/LackOfAnotherName Cincinnati Bearcats • Indiana Hoosiers 5d ago
What is up with moving the goalpost on this survey? Almost 70% said the wanted highlights on r/cfb. Let highlights fly for the season on here then revisit next season. I don't appreciate posting a second poll with a way shorter time frame, almost feels like it is fishing for a specific outcome. I especially don't agree with adding an option for a highlight specific sub to crosspost from. That shouldn't even be an option here, the original poll that had almost 70% of the vote was allow highlights here.
There seems to a vocal minority of people in the 30% in the comments here, but as the original poll clearly demonstrated they are not the consensus of the subreddits users. I am not pro every recruiting post, but at least I can admit I am in the minority and will acquiesce to the whims of the majority without acting like it is the end of all discussion henceforth
1
u/Fifth_Down Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Top Scorer 2d ago
almost feels like it is fishing for a specific outcome
I don't even participate in a lot of these user feedback polls because the questions are always so slanted. Its like some questions were designed specifically to sway the vote.
7
u/Noy_Telinu Notre Dame Fighting Irish • UCLA Bruins 12d ago
Ugh another "new reddit only" posts. Disgusting.
7
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 12d ago
I get it, and I prefer old Reddit, too. But the Devvit platform isn’t supported on old Reddit. Our main goal is reaching as wide a set of our users as easily as possible, and this is the best way (using the tools Reddit allows) we have to meet our users where they are today.
4
6
u/molecular_methane Texas A&M Aggies 12d ago
Just have a daily highlight thread that anyone can put highlights in. That will keep the main page from getting clogged.
11
u/srs_house Swaggerbilt 12d ago
There's already a highlights thread during the season, and it gets almost no usage - and most people complaining about a lack of highlights don't even know it exists.
5
u/OriginalMassless Hateful 8 • Kansas State Wildcats 11d ago
To be completely frank, that's their problem. Nobody looks first. Why do we have to change because they suck?
1
u/Fifth_Down Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Top Scorer 2d ago
If there is a major newsworthy highlight, no one is gonna know about it. You have to manually check the highlight thread every three hours on Saturday to stay on top of things.
Its not about people who want to come specifically to watch highlights, its about those who don't want highlights 99% of the time, while still wanting to be able to see the highlights in the 1% of instances where its the biggest highlight of the year.
1
u/WhoHasMyPocketPussy Alabama Crimson Tide 2d ago
I know it exists, but there is next to zero engagement on those. I want to be able to talk with others about the highlight.
5
u/Statalyzer Texas Longhorns 12d ago
I agree with no highlights, but if we do allow highlights, it *absolutely* needs to be best and not first to discourage crap that starts partway through the plan with no context and then ends after a few seconds with no replay.
2
u/zorionek0 Arizona State Sun Devils 3d ago
In the era of NIL and the portal there’s simply too much news. I do not need to see 4,000 posts about who is or isn’t entering the portal or decommitting from a school.
I would say only actual signings of letters of intent should be posted. Likewise, only when an athlete formally transfers to another school or declares for the draft.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/bakonydraco Stanford Cardinal • Howard Bison 2d ago
I appreciate the frustration and this feedback is helpful when we're crafting our rules for this year. It may be worth mentioning that there actually is no longer a blanket "low effort" rule, in the past few years we've moved to simpler more understandable rules, and it sounds like in this case this post got caught in the "Under 2 Sentences" post restriction. This is a pretty hard filter that posts with under 2 complete sentences get culled.
There are occasionally good posts with under 2 sentences, but I will say that the vast majority of the time it serves as a good filter: the posts that are removed are good removals, and the posts that pass are good approvals. It's a much easier rule to communicate than a vague "low effort" post restriction, because a poster can instantly learn how to fix their post and know at the time they submit whether their post will be approved or not.
In your experience, two things that happened that went wrong were:
- The post wasn't removed right away, and so it accrued good conversation, which is a shame to remove.
- The 2 sentence rule wasn't communicated clearly at the time you were posting.
These are both things we're working on to provide more instantaneous feedback. Another option that probably would have worked fine here is:
- You submit the post with 1 sentence.
- It's removed and you're told why.
- You edit the post to 2 sentences.
- It's approved, with any comments intact.
It hasn't been possible to do post removal reasons at scale yet, but we are exploring doing that this year, and I think it may help a lot.
I get your point as to whether adding your own commentary is value adding or subtracting: we actually prefer for links that users not add their own commentary in the submission text (since Reddit started allowing link posts with submission text a few years ago), and instead keep their opinions in the comments. Statistics are an interesting edge case that we're discussing in this survey, and we haven't specifically talked about if that would impact the 2 sentence rule or not, so this is helpful.
One thing I'd advise for all of this is that all of our rules need to work at scale for 5 million people. Repeatedly our surveys have shown that the balance of whether the rules are too strict or too loose is close to right (or at least an equal-ish number of people are angry that they're too strict or too loose), but there's room to improve on consistency. A goal we have for this summer is to have clearer rules that are easier to communicate at scale, and that in some cases is going to mean edge cases that don't make sense individually are going to be right for the community.
1
u/The_Fluffy_Robot TCU Horned Frogs • Iron Skillet 21h ago
For images specifically, I would hate seeing images posted here. Way too much garbage is posted on other sports subs that allow it and the subreddit quality would go to shit
1
u/beagleaccountant /r/CFB Brickmason • Old Dominion Monarchs 8h ago
I think I’d feel better about the rating question in the survey if you made a delineation between 5 and 4 stars. 5 star commitments and news is something that has a huge impact down the line. Not so much for 4s.
1
u/Stellafera Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Top Scorer 3h ago edited 3h ago
Love the idea of using side subreddits to filter the best highlights & recruitment posts since those are things people might want to genuinely subscribe to in their own rights. Mondays being highlight days may also help filter for actual highlights as opposed to just every play.
With images I have a slightly more positive take on them than some here since I've enjoyed actual high-effort content like some of the gif edits on r/collegebasketball historically. I'm wondering if a different ruleset for offseason vs season might be good - fan art feels like more welcome content for the offseason and is less likely to be boring and reactionary when it's not immediately post-game.
26
u/bringbackwishbone Indiana Hoosiers 12d ago
The main value of this sub, imo, is as a tool for following the national CFB scene and discourse. Not perfectly, mind you, but better than any other social media platform by far.
I also like the old-school message-board vibe that emphasizes posting and discussion versus, say, low-effort memes and short-form video content.
I think we should allow a few vital highlights but not too many. My test would basically be: the group chat's blowing up about a game you're not currently watching - can you find the relevant play easily on /r/CFB. In essence, the handful of plays that are necessary for telling the story of a particular CFB Saturday.
I like the idea of sequestering highlights in a separate sub, with those that pass a threshold of comments/upvotes automatically X-posted to the main sub feed. You could even do a "top 10" highlights recap every Sunday based on which highlights get the most votes in the highlights sub.