Started wondering. Apparently a member “since the beginning.”
This 1999 tread might be worth bookmarking!
And I’m finally going to Portugal!
2 Likes
I
2015 was in some ways the worst because there were fewer posters there to begin with. But I think it might be true that more people left in the Jim Leff era, and right after he sold the site to CBS in 2006. I can’t say for sure because I don’t know what the numbers were, but the acrimony was extreme.
First, a lot of the original (1997) posters were enraged when Leff wrote two books around 1999-2000, about chowhounding in NYC and about CHing in San Francisco, and went on to be featured in a New Yorker article by Calvin Trillin, appear on NPR, etc… Many posters had never realized that they didn’t own the content they had posted to the site (an unhappy eureka moment for many message board users in those late 90’sdays of the World Wide Web). He didn’t lift text from the posts but of course all the posters had served as his unpaid research assistants. A ton of people quit angrily to other boards, or to write their own blogs.
There was the largish exodus of people who followed Jason Perlow and Steve Shaw over to EGullet in 2001, when they started that board with a greater focus on fine dining and fine cooking.
And then a lot of people left when Jim Leff took the money and ran by selling the site to CBS - partly because they resented providing all that valuable content to Leff for free, and partially because many hated the addition of CHOW, and the new site design.
There were many migrations like this that I probably didn’t notice. Here’s an article about a Chicago region exodus in 2004:
That food forum seems to still be very active:
lthforum.com
4 Likes
BTW, Patrick Sullivan continues to read this thread. His response today to my (rather long) Email reply to his removal of my comment on Site Talk was rather condescending.
Based on reading this thread, " I know that Hungry Onion users are content with contributing to a much smaller site."
Feels like the Grinch patting Little Cindy Lou Who on the head and sending her back to bed before he steals the Christmas Tree. “One day, HO will be all grown up and big and corporate, just like Chowhound! :::pat, pat, pat:::”
Interestingly, they still claim that "Members who have been on the site for a long time have very strong opinions, so when changes are made to the site, there is always some level of frustration. Chowhound, unlike, a lot of free websites, works with members on these changes and tries to adjust plans and improve the experience based on feedback. If it’s lucky, perhaps Hungry Onion leadership may face this challenge one day as well.
Several years ago, we did our very best to prioritize the improvements that would help the greatest number of members. Everyone was welcome to disagree and many did. If disagreement turned to personal attacks, then moderation was needed to maintain a healthy community. This has been a principle of Chowhound since it started. We’re very happy that we were able to maintain valuable members as contributors in the process. They are absolutely the life blood of the site today and in the future. "
So obviously, they consider the 2015 debacle as “working with members” and “improving the experience”.
And those who left CH were not considered “valuable contributors”. Gee, thanks Patrick. 
But then again, I guess I should have expected nothing less.
5 Likes
Amazing!! Alternate universe stuff.
4 Likes
Yup. And in full transparency, so everyone knows what I wrote in my Email last night, I’ll copy/paste it here. Yes, I rehashed the 2015 wholesale site change and the management’s lack of actually working with the members (as they did back in 2013 or 2012, which I mentioned). And it’s probably NOT what Patrick wanted to deal with 4 years later.
But his earlier comment to me that the site had changed and people had gotten used to the site structure and the Home Cooking board was thriving didn’t ring true. I’ve checked the site out on occasion - to me, it remains unwieldy, and I just don’t see the usage the way it used to be on the boards I inhabited. He said if I had questions, ask offline. Which I didn’t (have any questions). My reply to him was strictly that they continue to wave the “we don’t know why you were frustrated in 2015” banner.
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Patrick - I fully expected my post to be removed. Because CH has become a site where you’re not allowed to go against the party line. I have no questions. Nothing more than what was said 4 years ago. I gave feedback then. It was ignored.
But the fact you said " It’s hard for us to connect with these members or understand the specifics of their frustration. Some, I hope, might be pleasantly surprised to see how the site has changed over years. Others may still be frustrated, but as the site continues to evolve we’re more than willing to listen if they’ll give us a chance. " is very telling. You did hear the specifics of our frustration back then, but it was ignored. And you don’t want to hear it now. I get it. It’s supposed to be all Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy at CH vs. having honest conversations with your users. CHECK.
The 2015 change was the most provocative. You asked some users for feedback, and then ignored suggestions from those of us who provided the content that has kept the site going for years. The wholesale changes were going to happen - no matter what anyone said. So “asking for feedback” was a sham and a big EFF YOU to every CH user out there. Perhaps not your intent. But definitely how those of us who left in 2015 felt.
And you’re talking numbers re: number of people who left, but you’re not talking the REASONS for the departures in 2015. Format changes done in 2012 or 2013 were such that those of us who were beta testers were actually listened to and changes were implemented as appropriate to make the site run more smoothly. My understanding is you used those who were beta testing in 2015 to fix breaks in the new site - but the complete, horrible redesign of the site was happening at Georges’ behest, no matter what. Your humongous home page banner that you still have and the initial content seen on the home page is all created by CH staff; the “community posts” are below the fold, so to speak, and require digging to get to for the casual user. Those “community posts” are what made Chowhound. Not your content.
In 2015, you (a.k.a. Marssy) chose to put users in Time Out for 10 days (Really??? A TIME OUT?), or you outright banned people who didn’t agree with you and called you out on your crap. (Please note - the “you” and “your” is Mod-related, not just you personally.) NO DISCOURSE ALLOWED IN PUBLIC - you locked threads without responding to questions from many posters, prompting them to go to the new Site Talk thread to ask yet again - and oftentimes, not getting a response. That’s not a “Community” as you claim to have at CH. Yeah, I know - it’s a free site. But the Users are the content providers. The posts made by CH staff are secondary and often regurgitated what was culled from the message boards. The message boards (now “Communities”) were the backbone and guts of CH - and you all tore much of that apart with Communities and requiring tags and whatever else happened 4 years ago. Message boards aren’t the new hip thing anymore. I get it. CHECK. But refusing to acknowledge the users who helped build the site to what it was is typical of large corporations, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s what I expected would eventually happen when CNET purchased and then CBS Interactive took over Chowhound.
That’s great you’ve found new users - they’ll follow the CH Party Line without rocking the boat. But the content is sorely lacking the energy it once had in much of the site, except for a few areas where people try to hang on. I’ve read. I’ve watched. CH has become like so many other food sites out there. While sometimes rocking the boat got the site to where it is with genuine back-and-forth conversations about topics and restaurants and food, you all prefer smooth waters and users who don’t cause any friction or those who want to have honest discourse. Your company, your rules. CHECK.
Melanie Wong, one of CH’s most fervent long-time cheerleaders, said it best on your 22nd anniversary post re: Top 50 posters to whom CH sent Emails to asking for nostalgic stories about CH’s past:
Melanie Wong jun 21, 201908:07 pm
Thanks for posting.
I found the questions posed very odd and shallow. They focus on passive, reading behavior. If this was supposed to be a mailing to the most active contributors, why not try to dig into something more relevant to that population?!? Of course contributors read as well, but why not dig into the behavior that you’re trying to single out?!?
And basing someone’s value on frequency of posting really rubbed me the wrong way. That is so wrong!!! What counts is how useful the information one has to share is, accuracy, rare pieces of knowledge, depth of understanding of the topic . . . there are so many other ways that I value contributors. And why ask who you look to for “general banter/convo”?
It demonstrated to me an unfortunate lack of understanding of what this community is founded upon.
So if Melanie is disappointed? How is everyone else supposed to feel?
As I’ve said to others who left CH, leaving CH, while it was painful and disheartening at the time, is like moving out of that REALLY great, large, low-rent apartment with great views of the city specifically because you have a neighbor who stomps on the floor in the middle of the night while having fights with his girlfriend and plays the drums and smokes incessantly when he’s not fighting with his girlfriend. You think “WHY am I putting up with this?” Once you get off your butt and look elsewhere, you find a great new place to live that doesn’t have smokers, drummers, and fighting couples.
I’m cool where I am now.
Good luck with the 22nd anniversary.
6 Likes
Well, he’d be right about that.
Here, I feel that I am amongst friends with whom there is mutual respect and that my contributions are valued. Sure, I might wish that more people read and contributed to the UK but the fact seems to be that, nowadays, more people do, than contribute to its CH equivalent. I might well wish that more contributed to the UK board but, hey, a handful of people do, as opposed to the couple of handfuls that used to contribute to the CH forum (but they were mainly American tourists asking where to eat in London. There is actually more interaction between our handful than there ever was on CH.
7 Likes
Hope all that made you feel a little better… really. For me it’s all summed up in just a few of your words: “Those “community posts” are what made Chowhound. Not your content.”
I felt, all through that debacle, that CBS had a completely different idea of what the site should be than the board posters. Maybe it had something to do with them thinking the CHOW site was a better brand and business model. That was my guess. For whatever reason that seemed to be the underlying strategy. Just my 2¢.
4 Likes
I’m sure that’s absolutely true. CBS is no different from any other company in that its prime aim is to make profit for its shareholders. Their idea for the site will be entirely driven by their view as to how that is best achieved. On the other hand, board posters seek to have a facility where they can exchange information and chat with e-friends about a shared interest in food, at no cost to themselves. But this is no different to the differing aims of any company and those of its customers/users.
3 Likes
My comment at the time was that it IS their football.
1 Like
Realize that posters were suppliers in addition to customers/users. As in any retail operation, Chow is dependent on its suppliers for product. Alienated suppliers need to be replaced, for better or worse.
3 Likes
It did. 
And I agree that it could have been dialed down to a lot less, such as what you noted. But “they” would claim that that hadn’t changed. So I chose to go with my longer explanation. Not that I expected it to sink in. It didn’t years ago.
2 Likes
So the only burning question that remains on my mind is:
What on earth is in that Koolade they’re drinking?
4 Likes
CH was started in the right place at the right time. If it had not been NYC centric in the beginning it would not have come to the attention of Trillin , the NYT, etc. It was the only food-oriented site that got that level of media attention back then. That attention directly fed its growth.
I doubt any food site will ever achieve the level of participation that CH had back in the day. There are a lot more fish in the sea and people are changing how they dialogue online. I’m glad I was able to learn and share in those glory years.
I know on a personal, real-life level a fair number of people who still participate on CH. Most of the folks in my geographic area seldom participated in a wider way on CH. So the geographic board there still has more activity and suits their needs. That said, the SE board on CH is just a shadow of what it was even 5 years ago.
The folks I’ve met and grown to know who participate in a wider manner on CH are largely focused on the Home Cooking Board. The ones who have stayed have professed it is because they are very invested in specific monthly threads such as WFD, COTM, etc. As long as those threads stay active and keep the regular participants engaged then they are content. ALL of the folks are aware of the past drama and exodus of long term posters.
So what makes these people stay while we left? Altruism.
I’m not saying those remaining are selfish. I am saying they have a better ability to cherry-pick their method of experiencing and participating. They know what the problems are. They agree there is a litany of very bad decisions. They acknowledge those decisions have seriously wounded CH. But they still have their needs met in the slim segments of CH in which they participate. *
Those of us who tried and tried again to give feedback, laid out the cause/effect, provided well-considered suggestions were ignored, deleted and suspended. We went through that thankless task because we seriously gave a damn. We valued the community and relationships. That precious mixture of knowledge & sharing with enough folks in the mix to create great dialogue was what we feared would be lost. None of us had a pony in that race. We cried out because we believed the community we had help build was worth saving. That degree of trying and caring is altruism.
I believe the traits that ostracised us are the very traits which have created a wonderful, friendly base here at HO. We now have reached a point where folks without the CH baggage are finding us. Based on the degree of knowledge, intelligence, maturity, and quality of their contributions I think we have done something right!
*Edit: The remaining posters are a tricky group to keep. Since their investment in the site is directly tied to their degree of personal satisfaction they will quickly leave if they find a place that better meets their needs.
3 Likes
Well put.
I’m curious whether HO folks participate in other (non-CH) boards, and what drives that (different angle on xyz board, Facebook community, different people, something else)?
I know FTC is west coast focused (but appears similar to HO otherwise), egullet used to be more popular but geared to professional vs home cooks, etc.
At the end of the day, it’s about community, I think.
4 Likes
That would be interesting to learn!
1 Like
EGGGGGZACTLY.
Bingo. In the larger scheme of scheme of things, I think it was the corporate betrayal of our sense of community that caused the wholesale exodus from Chow. It’s not any or all of our rebuffs but the trampling on our community.
2 Likes
What is FTC ?
“I’m curious whether HO folks participate in other (non-CH) boards, and what drives that”.
I spend a lot of time on food gardening boards, especially January through September.
It’s a CH offshoot site run by Robert Lauriston.
1 Like
Does FTC stand for something?
