eBob Closing Down...

Apparently eBob is closing down access to non-subscribers...

As many flaws as the board had (and there were many), there was an amazing wealth of knowledge to be gained. Some of the burgundy and german riesling discussions alone were invaluable...

Curious as to what others think.

[David M. Bueker]

As a subscriber it's essentially transparent to me. If you look at what had happened over the last several years, the non-subscribers had sometimes used the site to grandstand again the owner of the site, or to garner information from paying subscribers. I think Bob got sick of it.

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

Well... it is going to be pretty slow over there at subscriber-only eBob..and I would guess this board and others like Wine Berserkers should pick up some traffic.

I just hope that the board doesn't lose a lot of the posters that made it so valuable.

Having Terry Thiese chime in on a discussion on German riesling, or Allen Meadows post his opinions on which Burgundy 1er crus should be upgraded to Grand Cru is a pretty amazing resource.

too bad he could not "grandfather" in longtime, pre-e-bob, Sqires board posters, Ted Nugent did the same thing 4 yrs ago and the world kept turning.

[David M. Bueker]

Allen Meadows post his opinions on which Burgundy 1er crus should be upgraded to Grand Cru is a pretty amazing resource.

The two times it happened in the last 10 years...

The way it was handled without any advance notice was maladroit.

[David M. Bueker]

The way it was handled without any advance notice was maladroit.

Concur.

I generally believe in not commenting on one forum on another, but as I can't comment there in this case:

1) it's a shame that people have no archives of threads they participated in. This is my main forum, but I posted on eBob for about 8 years (500-600 posts, vs 10X as many in half the time here). I generally cross posted notes on offlines where other people were eBobbers, and while I have records of my initial notes(because they are also here and Usenet), I now have no way to access responses there, and I value the (especially disagreeing) opinions from my friends.

2) the no notice part was really vicious to those who were participating on offline /commerce corner threads.

3) I'll miss the breadth of knowledge for dining, travel, matching, and Burgundy searches, but life moves on.

4) Many people think this is a stupid business move on part of the Parker brand - in theory I'd agree, but in reality Parker came across as such a jackass in most of his posts in last couple years maybe this helps the brand!

Allen Meadows post his opinions on which Burgundy 1er crus should be upgraded to Grand Cru is a pretty amazing resource.

The two times it happened in the last 10 years...

Yes, good point....

Case in point though: I opened a '93 Kerpen WS Auslese*** tonight partially due to feedback gleaned from eBob (some of which I believe was from you David...), I was planning on holding for a while longer but read that it was ready to go now (it's really good, and seems to be approaching maturity). Similar to cellartracker, the sheer number of postings means that you can probably find some sort of info. on any wine related subject that you may be interested in.

I was pretty surprised at this move. I guess they got tired of people questioning Mr Parker's motives, procedures, etc. I guess they must have figured getting rid of the 'riff raff' would cut down on any questions about Mr Parker and his associates (especially Jay Miller). But did the subscribers never provide this kind of feedback? I wonder if this rather extreme move will work? I think there will be lots of intended consequences.

I think It's truly the end of an era. The Squires Board really served as an incredible resource. and was in the right place in the right time, when interest in wine skyrocketed, and Robert Parker's name/presence made it the most popular place to go for those wanting to learn more about wine.

Will another wine board really ever take its place? It will be interesting to find out. Perhaps much like the number of wine 'experts' has exploded recently, the greater number of wine boards will dliute internet interest in wine so much that such an influential and powerful site may never exist again. I think the Squires site will have its traffic really drop. Even if WLP, Berserkers, WineDisorder, etc. do pick up that traffic, I doubt they will ever have the impact the Squires/Parker board had. Certainly Mr Parker doesn't have the impact he once had either, as evidenced by the intense questioning over the last year or two.

I was a lurker on that site for years, but never signed up (even when I was a subscriber) and I know I'll miss some of the content there. I will also miss the many laughs provided by the considerable amount of buffoonary and puerile behaviour there!

I just hope that the board doesn't lose a lot of the posters that made it so valuable.

Having Terry Thiese chime in on a discussion on German riesling, or Allen Meadows post his opinions on which Burgundy 1er crus should be upgraded to Grand Cru is a pretty amazing resource.

My guess is that folks as prominent as Thiese and Meadows will get "courtesy" subscriptions.

But I agree with what David said - it's Parker's board and he can do as he chooses.

I'd call it a very economically stupid decision.

More than the board as a resource, it was a great way for the firm to attract a lot of people who may not have been subscribers to TWA to start gleaning some great information, learn more about wines from the likes of Neal Martin, Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht, RMP and co. and turn people who may have been casual fans/non-subscribers only following RP points in retailer newsletters/shelf stickers into subscribers.

By making the board subscription only, I'd say they're only shooting themselves in the foot in terms of attracting new subscribers. Earlier a quick google search could bring someone onto the forum, give them a nice sampler of the sort of knowledge the site had to offer and was a great way to hopefully reel in more business.

Quite poorly done (as I also find it incredibly rude to the communities that formed there to cut them off so abruptly), I will not be surprised if the longer term effect of this is less exposure/financing for the Wine Advocate (who as it is only seem to rely on subscriptions and no advertising for their capital and income), not to mention that the way this was done will leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths - and word of mouth (particularly between a strong 'net wine community) will certainly not help the RMP/TWA brand any further.

The no notice part is what really annoys me.

There were some offline threads that I hope get moved elsewhere as they were in the middle of planning and I would have wanted the chance to save off my PMs somewhere.

A case of pay up or piss off if you ask me. And the way it was done ... with seemingly such complete and utter contempt/disrespect would have me gutted if I was a regular who didn't happen to subscribe to the Wine Advocate.

I'm so glad I've never warmed to this mob .... my desire to visit/post there disintegrated a long time ago.

I'd call it a very economically stupid decision.

More than the board as a resource, it was a great way for the firm to attract a lot of people who may not have been subscribers to TWA to start gleaning some great information, learn more about wines from the likes of Neal Martin, Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht, RMP and co. and turn people who may have been casual fans/non-subscribers only following RP points in retailer newsletters/shelf stickers into subscribers.

By making the board subscription only, I'd say they're only shooting themselves in the foot in terms of attracting new subscribers. Earlier a quick google search could bring someone onto the forum, give them a nice sampler of the sort of knowledge the site had to offer and was a great way to hopefully reel in more business.

Quite poorly done (as I also find it incredibly rude to the communities that formed there to cut them off so abruptly), I will not be surprised if the longer term effect of this is less exposure/financing for the Wine Advocate (who as it is only seem to rely on subscriptions and no advertising for their capital and income), not to mention that the way this was done will leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths - and word of mouth (particularly between a strong 'net wine community) will certainly not help the RMP/TWA brand any further.

Here, here!

Doesn't affect me one bit. In recent years I've seldom lurked and posted even less.

The way it was handled without any advance notice was maladroit.

Frankly, it was rude. It's totally their business how they run the board and whom they allow to post, but as a subscriber, I felt I should have had reasonable notice. I was in the process of communicating with people on the board, and they just cut me off without the least regard. Honestly, I am a great admirer of RMP, but I was appalled by the treatment.

The way it was handled without any advance notice was maladroit.

Frankly, it was rude. It's totally their business how they run the board and whom they allow to post, but as a subscriber, I felt I should have had reasonable notice. I was in the process of communicating with people on the board, and they just cut me off without the least regard. Honestly, I am a great admirer of RMP, but I was appalled by the treatment.

Welcome, Ben! But why would you be cut off if you are a subscriber?

The board is totally shut down for a day+ as they switch to subscriber only. A day down doesn't seem like much, but what if you were planning an offline for this week? What if you were conducting a commerce corner transaction via PM? Indeed, shutting down the board with no notice is rude, even if one is a subscriber and will be allowed back on.

No way I'm spending money on that site. Luckily I don't have anything really current (a post re a Canon vertical for this weekend, but it had been up for days). I will miss the archives. I can still find my old TNs here or AFW, but while I can see my posts re say the 86 vertical at Orchard, I can't see the ensuing back and forth with Paul, Brian, etc - the healthy disagreement had value to me. Still, not a great loss in my life.

Usually only read eBob because of a link to some particularly nasty disagreement there. No loss to me. I can't help but wonder if this will cause the implosion of the whole thing.

As I think about, they probably had to do it without notice. I, for one, could have used the time to transfer some contact info and some PMs and maybe a few posts, but the open period would have been a vicious free-for-all (rightfully so) and quite a lot of content might have been deleted.

The board is totally shut down for a day+ as they switch to subscriber only. A day down doesn't seem like much, but what if you were planning an offline for this week? What if you were conducting a commerce corner transaction via PM? Indeed, shutting down the board with no notice is rude, even if one is a subscriber and will be allowed back on....

In a nutshell, that's it from my position as a loyal paid subscriber over many years. As for the immediate reason, I would have to think that Parker's reviews of 09 coming out at 18:00 today has a lot to do with timing. Parker probably didn't want his scores being given away for free via posts on the bb. That's a totally legitimate concern, as is the fact that certain paranoid types use the BB as a platform for personal attacks on his motives, which is a serious misuse of the BB. Still, I think it was a bad decision, which I hope will be revisited once the emotions have settled a bit.

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.

I wonder who the next guru will be when Parker retires.
Or, possiby, no one critic will ever again weild as much power.

All the best,
Alex R.