I have not seen any articles regarding the recent events on the MousePlanet pages. There has been plenty of discussion within MousePad and other forums, but nothing which would catch the eye of, say, a NY Times reporter who is taking a cursory glance at websites listed on www.SaveDisney.com to see why Roy and Stan are linking to them for information. The discussion board link is not prominent. Is this a conscious choice?

Well, initially, there was a bit of confusion. Through a misunderstanding on my part, I thought David Koenig's article was going to be about this.

I had been told the title (Who's To Blame) and stupidly jumped to the conclusion that it was about who was to blame for the conflict between Disney and Eisner. So I wasn't exactly seeking out someone to write something. By the time I learned otherwise, it was a bit late in the story, and pretty much everything had been said somewhere.

There were a few factual type questions, and I did try to address those on the alert page (http://www.mouseplanet.com/mp/resignations.htm) that we had up for a week about it.

Lani did press me to write something, but at this point I honesly have very little thought or opinion on the matter. Here is what I would write, in its entirety on the first day:

The move seems poorly time with the recent improvements in performance. It also seems unlikely that repeating the same maneuvers of 1983 will work again. But who knows.

I don't have any particular knowledge to back up my opinion and none of the writers have felt they have anything particularly interesting to say on the subject. So far nothing beyond symbolic acts have been made, and after the first two days of the story, it has been pretty quiet.

So, two weeks into the story, here is what I would write:

The move seems poorly time with the recent improvements in performance. It also seems unlikely that repeating the same maneuvers of 1983 will work again. But who knows, and apparently nothing significant will happen until they start ramping up to the annual stockholder's meeting.

I do have a couple things I would like us to eventually write about, but at this point I would like to save them for when something is actually happening.

But Alex... there is a difference between expressing your personal opinion about an event, and reporting what has happened and what the online community support has been.

We did report what happened, we just didn't have anything original to report.

Well, this is a hot topic *discussion* which is occurring on the discussion boards. The online community doesn't "live" on the static pages. This is what the reporters and visitors look at when they link to the site.

Of course, you wouldn't want to get Michael mad at you. ;)

Originally posted by teri
This is what the reporters and visitors look at when they link to the site. They also see 3+ years of honest discussion of the parks and resorts, including the problems and concerns Roy addressed in his resignation letter.

AVP

Originally posted by AVP
They also see 3+ years of honest discussion of the parks and resorts, including the problems and concerns Roy addressed in his resignation letter.
But that's only if they read all 3+ years. Obviously the woman who wrote the article Teri is referring to did not - she simply glanced at the main page. Lame reporting, but still, visibility is key right now.

I have to agree with Teri on this, although I know you guys don't need our criticism and discuss these issues enough between yourselves, etc etc. Just my 2 cents.

Right... we know it is there, and you know it is there, but the newbies and reporters only see what is in front of their faces. They don't know the history.

I'm not sure what NYT article is being referenced, but I'm still not sure what you wanted us to put up.

We had what information we had available (with links to the MP threads) on the front page for a week (which is three days longer than anything else is up there).

If we had written an article about what our message board was saying (and we never do, and wouldn't occur to us to do), it would have only been there for two days, and we wouldn't have left it up there longer in the hopes that a NYT writer would see it.

I'm probably being dense somehow, and not intentionally, but I'm not really understanding what you want to see.

You are not being dense.. I am just not being clear.
Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/business/media/15roy.htm

Now, go look on your front page and ask yourself where a person would look to find out why Roy and Stanley linked to your site saying that they could find information here.l

Originally posted by teri
Now, go look on your front page and ask yourself where a person would look to find out why Roy and Stanley linked to your site saying that they could find information here.l

Actually, their site says "Click here for a list of other Disney related web sites that might be of interest":
No "click here for more info on our resignation."

We are a site of interest because we present a plethora of Disney-related information, not just about the resignation but about the entire company.
I think anyone who looks at our site -- and sees what our padders and writers have to say -- can get a better feeling of why they left.

I think you are taking this as a criticism of your editorial content. That isn't what I mean at all. It is just a format issue. You do have a link to the "news" forum... a similar link to the Columns area would be nice in this circumstance.

You (and we) know the site well. I am not sure that it is so obvious to newbies. JMHO.

teri quoted this bit from that article on this thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=321538#post321538):

"And most of the Disney-related Web sites mentioned seem to have no connection to any disaffection with Mr. Eisner. Some sites promote Mickey Mouse and the theme parks."

Yes, the reporter is dumb. But it's definitely a warning flag.

Originally posted by teri
I think you are taking this as a criticism of your editorial content. That isn't what I mean at all. It is just a format issue. You do have a link to the "news" forum... a similar link to the Columns area would be nice in this circumstance.

You (and we) know the site well. I am not sure that it is so obvious to newbies. JMHO.

That's where both the Site Map links on the home page go (a listing of all columns) and the Recent Update link goes (through which you can chronologically find everything we've published).