eBob Closing Down...

[David M. Bueker]

David,

You wrote:
"It's his board, his rules, and thinking one thing or another ain't gonna change one bit".

In a sense, yes, of course. But the board will lose people and credibility IMHO.
And it was pretty cynical to make the announcement just before the scores for the 09 great growths came out...

As for Parker, I never saw much that rubbed me the wrong way.
It's his band of watchdogs, including Mark Squires, who were really bad news.
Censorship rules there, and I am far from being alone in not liking it.

A couple of comments:

1) I do not disagree that there will be a loss of people & credibility. I was not addressing that. As a moderator on this site I will (for the most part) try to refrain from making predicitons about another site's success/failure.

2) You did not read enough of Parker's comments. He's had plenty of mean-spirited attacks on people/their ideas about wine. His normal approach to any issue where he was coming out on the wrong side was to ridicule posters as not being open-minded enough (read: not agreeing with him) and then listing all the wonderful wines he was going to drink that night.

3) I won't take sides on the censorship thing, as I honestly think some of the things that have been said over there were completely over the top - on both sides of arguments. Where does someone draw the line?

I visited the Squires board years ago, found it inhospitable, and never went back.

I have never been a Parker fan, although I will gladly impersonate one if I think it will result in a good sale. I remember when he was styled the Ralph Nader of wine; over the decades he has corrupted himself by believing he is a man alone on a mission to save innocent Americans from decadent Europeans. But the hunter was captured by the game, I'd say.

Hey, don't take my word for it.

P.S.: Kinda sensational (as in initially misleading) thread title, doncha think?

It's worth noting that if you're looking to retrieve PMs and posts, there is a $12 monthly subscription option. It auto-renews, though, so be sure to cancel promptly. My guess is that they will have turned off editing of posts older than a few days, to prevent the kind of wholesale content loss that shabbily treated posters would want to inflict.

Walt

So who owns the posts on eBob? Unless members agreed to hand ownership or rights when they signed up, they would still own the copyright to any substantial posts and probably (IANAL) be able to prevent them being sold on to others when they were originally put on the board in the understanding they would be freely available.

Mesesrs Parker and Squires are perfectly entitled to do what they want with other boards and content, but IMO the only right thing (morally, and quite possibly legally) to do with existing content is to make it freely available, even if future posts are blocked.

[David M. Bueker]

So who owns the posts on eBob? Unless members agreed to hand ownership or rights when they signed up, they would still own the copyright to any substantial posts and probably (IANAL) be able to prevent them being sold on to others when they were originally put on the board in the understanding they would be freely available.

Mesesrs Parker and Squires are perfectly entitled to do what they want with other boards and content, but IMO the only right thing (morally, and quite possibly legally) to do with existing content is to make it freely available, even if future posts are blocked.

Per the board FAQ - all content owned by eBob.

As Steve says, no matter what the FAQ/TOS says, pretty distasteful to get a vast body of content and then kick out a sizeable portion of contributors (even if you make the argument it's legal). I'm sure Squires will claim it's legal (and it's not worth anyone's time to challenge), but then remember Squires' claims when he was threatening Robin over something JJB posted years ago? I'm not reminded of Cardozo, Frankfurter, Holmes, or Brandeis.

My prediction is they'll get a short term surge in membership, as some board addicts need their fix. But I predict (and I'm a famously BAD seer) that after that renewals will drop steeply, as quality content drops. The base of the content will age, and become less valuable. But Parker's "you must taste for yourself, but if you disagree with me you're crooked, elitist, or have no palate" comments will be hidden from general view, a big plus for the brand.

[David M. Bueker]

Again - not presenting any overall judgments, as I don't really think it's my place. Just relaying the facts as I know them.

Again - not presenting any overall judgments, as I don't really think it's my place. Just relaying the facts as I know them.

David, your note reminds me of the cop on TV, with the trilby, who used to say 'just doing my job `mam". LOL.

This is interesting news, which I heard for the first time today. As someone who was kicked off the Squires board long before Parker became a pomp-ass (lately, anytime he opened his mouth), I loved the site for the wealth of information, researching wines I thought looked interesting, and for some of the heated discussions (when they were tolerated) that went on. Those days are gone, apparently. This is just one more nail in the coffin of the Robert Parker brand, diluted earlier when he farmed out wine critiquing to his henchmen, and now, only playing to the core lovers of Parker Points. And while I have no horse in this race, people eventually get what they deserve.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Okay, time for bed.

[Jenise]

As Steve says, no matter what the FAQ/TOS says, pretty distasteful to get a vast body of content and then kick out a sizeable portion of contributors (even if you make the argument it's legal).

Think we can assume that the sudden nature of this announcement was a pre-emptive move to keep people from angrily removing any content they contributed? To my ear, it rings true to Squires' dictatorial ways (not hearsay, experienced it directly myself) and of course practically speaking it eclipses all discussion. At least from those who find themselves outside the walls. The annointed who get to remain might not actually be so happy with their new, smaller community.

Per the board FAQ - all content owned by eBob.

Note to self: Never EVER sign up to anything where you pass ownership of your own words to someone else.

[David M. Bueker]

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the Robert Parker brand, diluted earlier when he farmed out wine critiquing to his henchmen, and now, only playing to the core lovers of Parker Points.

I am going to throw one opinion in here, and that is to derisively paint people like Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht & Neal Martin (all three more skilled in their areas and/or writing skills than Parker ever was) as "henchmen" is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they bring to the Wine Advocate. I subscribe specifically because of all three - those are the only reasons I subscribe.

David, I knew you were quoting and not taking a personal position.
I agree that those three seem to have independent tastes, write well, and take job seriously.

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the Robert Parker brand, diluted earlier when he farmed out wine critiquing to his henchmen, and now, only playing to the core lovers of Parker Points.

I am going to throw one opinion in here, and that is to derisively paint people like Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht & Neal Martin (all three more skilled in their areas and/or writing skills than Parker ever was) as "henchmen" is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they bring to the Wine Advocate. I subscribe specifically because of all three - those are the only reasons I subscribe.

David -
I didn't mean to imply the reviewers he chose didn't have their own voice. They do. However they are still under the employ of the RMP brand. Hence, henchmen.

As someone who was kicked off the Squires board long before Parker became a pomp-ass (lately, anytime he opened his mouth)

Mark, what an honour!!

As someone who was kicked off the Squires board long before Parker became a pomp-ass...

Way to go, Snojak!

Dr Vino and his point of view.....>

http://www.vinography.com/archives/2010 ... ine_b.html

Dr Vino and his point of view.....>

http://www.vinography.com/archives/2010 ... ine_b.html

Actually, that's Alder Yarrow (Vinography). Dr Vino is Tyler Coleman (Drvino.com)
Good read, though

I think all of this point to the place where wine gets too serious.

e-bob never was a good advert for Parker, so maybe the right decision to marginalise it?

This is just one more nail in the coffin of the Robert Parker brand, diluted earlier when he farmed out wine critiquing to his henchmen, and now, only playing to the core lovers of Parker Points.

I am going to throw one opinion in here, and that is to derisively paint people like Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht & Neal Martin (all three more skilled in their areas and/or writing skills than Parker ever was) as "henchmen" is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they bring to the Wine Advocate. I subscribe specifically because of all three - those are the only reasons I subscribe.

David -
I didn't mean to imply the reviewers he chose didn't have their own voice. They do. However they are still under the employ of the RMP brand. Hence, henchmen.

Mark I think you're out of line to refer to Galloni, Schildknecht, Martin as henchman. Webs definition=Faithful follower or retainer- A subservient supporter of a powerful often disreputable person. I have broken bread, tasted wine, eaten at restaurants with David Schildknecht before he went to work at The Wine Advocate and for you to criticize him any way is out of line. When it comes to wine I've never met an individual more knowledgeable and honest in his approach to wine writing at all times than David. Rant over.