I've read this blog for I don't know how long. I've lurked most of the time because there wasn't anything that I thought I could add to the conversation that wasn't already present.
However, I attempted to get an answer for a question yesterday that got taken down. Why was it taken down? There was nothing violating the rules of use; there was really no reason to take it down and I really would like an explanation, but that's for another place and another time. What I really want is an answer is to the main crux of the question: "why is everything changing". Don't get me wrong, I read the front page post. It is an announcement of things changing, it fails to mention reasons. I find that problematic.
There are two reasons why anything would change. Either the old thing wasn't good and it NEEDED to change or there was a clear alternative. I don't think anyone hated the name PSA. Does anyone like PB (PSB?) more than PSA? I mean, there is an incredibly simple way to find this out: a poll. This really should be a non-issue. Put it up to a poll, and that wins.
There are some other fundamental flaws I have in the logic of changing the name itself, but that's neither here nor there. It also will turn into a rant into why I dislike the change(s) thus far and I feel like that will spurn other people to.
Here's something else: I really don't get what is changing about this site. The post says that dramatic upgrades will be made to the editorial process and also "content and conversation will remain the same". Those things are mutually exclusive. Your content (mostly an editorial rooted in analysis of data or observations relating to the yankees) and comments (obviously a user-based mini-editorial) cannot not change and change at the same time. Which is it? Even after that is answered, WHY is it changing?
The users like what we have (had). The users are the one that is using it; without the users, SBN loses. What, exactly, is spurring all this change? What is the purpose of changing (note: you can't just say it's an upgrade. It's a change until it proves to be beneficial for the good of the site.)
Digg died because the higher ups wanted to fix something that wasn't broken. Facebook's stock is falling because it's trying to please it's shareholders, not the users. Nintendo can't release a good game or platform in a timely manner in comparison to it's competitors because of the ideology of their CEO and thinking they are above game updates. Do you know why Google is incredibly successful? It does stuff for it's users, not the higher ups. Why has reddit exploded in niche popularity the way it has? It's pretty much entirely user-based.
So name, logo, and other things- why are we not polling? I really have no objection to the idea of change. I am very much for the idea of change, just not for the sake of changing.
********PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A "I DISLIKE ____" THREAD. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS MEANT FOR. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY IT IS CHANGING. WE CAN GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS LATER.*********