Lately, I’ve made a change in how I present the morning links to you. For years, I got up and tried to get you a link to every single sports story out there in New England that dealt with one of our pro teams, and occasionally college as well. For the last couple of months, on most days, I’ve linked to just what I thought were the ten or so best or most noteworthy stories from that morning.

The feedback that I have received has been positive, as many of you have expressed appreciation at not being subjected to the likes of Shaughnessy, Borges and others on a daily basis, but only when they actually write something worth reading.

But I want to make sure – do you prefer getting just the top stories, or do you like to get everything, and then try to sift the wheat from the chaff yourself?

Vote below, and also please weigh in down in the comment section. This feedback will be of benefit to me as I try and plan the future of BSMW going forward.



23 thoughts on “BSMW Poll – Morning Link Preferences

  1. If I want to read everything, I can scan the papers’ websites myself.

    It’s much more valuable to have someone with a clue doing the sifting for me.

  2. I voted for only the best, although I do like how you poke holes in the less worthy pieces. For example, The CHB’s column Sunday was garbage (no controversy in Red Sox training camp), which in and of itself isn’t noteworthy, except he wrote the same column during last year’s spring training. That’s the kind of thing you have noticed and carved up with a surgeon’s precision.

    1. Shaughnessy does not seem to understand his readers at all. Does he really think that they are disappointed it’s such a quiet spring training? The average fan doesn’t care. It’s a shame more writers don’t stick to informative features that tell us more about the new players in camp.

  3. I’m with Pip. I enjoy the skewering almost as much as I do the good articles. How about the ten best, and the five worst?

    Otherwise, how else will Joe Haggerty ever make the page?

  4. I voted for “only the best” with the caveat I think your “noteworthy” exception should include links to egregiously bad or wrong. In other words, if Shank writes something horrendous it should be called out by this site, even though its not technically one of the “best”. Terribly bad should be called terribly bad too.

    1. Good call Greg. I like everything because I know idiots who read CHB and listen to Felger and I come here to know what the buzz on the street is – even though I haven’t read Shank for years.

  5. This ought to be about finding the best stuff in what’s increasingly becoming an absurdly deep pool on content every day. Never mind that it probably also means you’ll keep doing it longer.

  6. I like the ‘best 10’ format

    maybe add a ‘garbage of the day’ link for the worst article, it would be interesting to see if Borges, Shank, Farinellaor Breer take it most often

  7. My hesitation with doing a “worst” set of links is that I don’t want to encourage those writers by sending traffic their way by designating their stuff as bad.

    I know over the years, some of the worst trash written has gotten the most clicks because it is so outlandish or over-the-top that people have to see for themselves. I don’t want to reward that type of article/column.

    Maybe I just call attention to the worst stuff without actually providing a link to the article?

    1. I agree with no worst links. If they aren’t good enough to make the best, why publicize their weak efforts???

      I voted for all. I like to be able to pick and choose articles and writers that interest me. I appreciate the effort in providing the links. One stop shopping is great though you can omit anything by DeOssie, CHB or Borges.

      Can I suggested weekend links if you opt to do just the top ten?? After all the weekend is a time the media needs to be watched, too and in some cases their busiest time.

  8. There is so much content out there now and a lot of it is worthless crap written by agenda-driven, lazy, out-of-touch hacks. (We all know who they are.) Just give us the “best of,” please.

    I do like, however, the idea of calling out horrendous writing or just plain wrong reporting without providing these jamokes the links to their pathetic, “look at me” nonsense. For those who may be interested, for some bizarre reason, in subjecting themselves to actually reading that tripe, we’re all savvy enough to figure out how to access it ourselves.

  9. I vote for the best, realizing that quality is subjective and everyone’s interests are parochial and personal.

    I always scan your links list and click on the ones that speak to ME. So… I won’t be disappointed if you stay comprehensive, Bruce! Keep up the good work!

  10. Calling out the bad is one of the best merits of this site, be it Borges’ fallacious comments on EGA’s old show or calling out Ken Powers’ plagiarism. It holds the writers to a higher standard.

    I agree it shouldn’t be a daily thing, and linking to them should be avoided, but since you’re still poring through the garbage every day, the egregious should be pointed out.

  11. I like the top-10 format, but are you or is anyone worried about doing that come April and May, when three sports are in season (and the Pats in an uncapped free agency period) and there’s far more written every day?

    Maybe a top-15 or something like that?

    1. For sure, if there is more good material, I will expand the list. I will also on some days – perhaps after Patriots games, or Red Sox/Celtics playoff games do full links.

  12. I voted for everything because I like it better but as long as you still have the team links available that works for me, and it’s probably a lot less work for you.

  13. put me down for the top 10 with commentary on the crap…..might be tough though, on alot of days there is probably more crap than top 10 articles

Comments are closed.