Crimedogg32 wrote:Is the yahoo rank suppose to work for the last 2 weeks?
FSG can probably confirm this, but it doesn't appear that the rankings for 2 weeks are available, just the stats. I'll take what I can get tho.
That is correct. We have a bug filed to consider whether we should provide 2 week stats and ranks, courtesy of Mr. Buser. Part of the concern was performance stuff, and I'm trying not to look or think too hard about what your GM script is actually doing on the back end when you ask for two week stats. I expect it isn't pretty.
The rest of the concern was whether 2 weeks was the "right" other time period to consider. Because we don't want the page to eventually end up with 1 week, 10 day, 2 week, 3 week, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and season stats.
Couldnt you just make it so you could put in however many days you want?
You sort of can, indirectly; and I believe it's what the script does as well...
And just change the very last part where it says 'L30' to 'Lxy' where xy = the number of days you want it to sort by (14, for example, for 2 weeks), you'll be able to view the stats over that period of time. Works for your Watch List, etc. too.
Actually, I think L14 is the only other value besides the existing ones which will display any stats, unless I've missed some when I was experimenting. Looks like there is a fixed set of stats (L30,L14,L7,etc.), which makes sense.
Ah, sorry about that. I must've mis-read your post a page or two back. Sorry.
Yeah, I'm sure it's possible. We should be able to get that just from the main fantasy page: http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/
It would be nice to be able to flip between teams and/or leagues with one click.
That is fantastic news. Some sort of scroll tab right next to the 'teams' one with 'leagues' or something would be so sweet.
Crimedogg32 wrote:Is the yahoo rank suppose to work for the last 2 weeks?
FSG can probably confirm this, but it doesn't appear that the rankings for 2 weeks are available, just the stats. I'll take what I can get tho.
That is correct. We have a bug filed to consider whether we should provide 2 week stats and ranks, courtesy of Mr. Buser. Part of the concern was performance stuff, and I'm trying not to look or think too hard about what your GM script is actually doing on the back end when you ask for two week stats. I expect it isn't pretty.
Actually, it's not doing much at all... all that is being done is providing additional links and selections for the "L14" version of the URLs. You guys are doing all the backend work to create the L14 set of stats (minus the rankings). Here is the script source.
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:The rest of the concern was whether 2 weeks was the "right" other time period to consider. Because we don't want the page to eventually end up with 1 week, 10 day, 2 week, 3 week, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and season stats.
I understand that Yahoo wants to come up with a solution that makes the most sense for the most users. I think most on this board would agree that '2 weeks' is a great time period (really more valuable than 1 week). But, you might consider making some 'potential feature surveys' available for users to take.
Personally, I think users would be happy to try out some new features, if expectations were set appropriately. I.e., go ahead and push experimental new features to the front, just be sure to include a warning about which are experimental and they are subject to change/removal. Along with each new feature, provide a mechanism for feedback. No offense, but sometimes, I think some existing features were a result of some inhouse employees thinking it would cool, rather than actual user demand (Player Ranker, ahem).
by Fantasy Sports Genie » Wed May 23, 2007 10:06 am
Bwanna wrote: Actually, it's not doing much at all... all that is being done is providing additional links and selections for the "L14" version of the URLs. You guys are doing all the backend work to create the L14 set of stats (minus the rankings). Here is the script source.
That sounds like you're making the assumption that the L14 URL does the same thing on the backend that the other URL's do. Not so much.
Bwanna wrote:
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:The rest of the concern was whether 2 weeks was the "right" other time period to consider. Because we don't want the page to eventually end up with 1 week, 10 day, 2 week, 3 week, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and season stats.
I understand that Yahoo wants to come up with a solution that makes the most sense for the most users. I think most on this board would agree that '2 weeks' is a great time period (really more valuable than 1 week). But, you might consider making some 'potential feature surveys' available for users to take.
Personally, I think users would be happy to try out some new features, if expectations were set appropriately. I.e., go ahead and push experimental new features to the front, just be sure to include a warning about which are experimental and they are subject to change/removal. Along with each new feature, provide a mechanism for feedback. No offense, but sometimes, I think some existing features were a result of some inhouse employees thinking it would cool, rather than actual user demand (Player Ranker, ahem).
We could make a beta site, and put new features there! Oh wait...
We'd love to get feedback on new features. We tried the beta site, and that wasn't an effective means to get that feedback. We could just push them on the live site. We've talked about that. Now remember how many posts you've seen here saying, "Stupid Yahoo! They can't even get X to work right!" That's what we have to weigh when we consider pushing things to the live site that we know aren't as polished as they really should be. We're thinking of new ways to balance these concerns, almost none of which are as simple as they'd seem when you consider the scale we're working at. And while I wouldn't suggest that all our features are knock it out of the park successes, I would humbly suggest that we have data you guys don't about how these features actually get used (Player Ranker, ahem ).
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:We'd love to get feedback on new features. We tried the beta site, and that wasn't an effective means to get that feedback. We could just push them on the live site. We've talked about that. Now remember how many posts you've seen here saying, "Stupid Yahoo! They can't even get X to work right!" That's what we have to weigh when we consider pushing things to the live site that we know aren't as polished as they really should be. We're thinking of new ways to balance these concerns, almost none of which are as simple as they'd seem when you consider the scale we're working at. And while I wouldn't suggest that all our features are knock it out of the park successes, I would humbly suggest that we have data you guys don't about how these features actually get used (Player Ranker, ahem ).
If you need a few leagues to test the Beta system out on, I will give you a few leagues ID's. I would run it by all the guys first, but I have no quams nominating them as guinea pigs.
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:We could make a beta site, and put new features there! Oh wait...
We'd love to get feedback on new features. We tried the beta site, and that wasn't an effective means to get that feedback. We could just push them on the live site. We've talked about that. Now remember how many posts you've seen here saying, "Stupid Yahoo! They can't even get X to work right!" That's what we have to weigh when we consider pushing things to the live site that we know aren't as polished as they really should be. We're thinking of new ways to balance these concerns, almost none of which are as simple as they'd seem when you consider the scale we're working at. And while I wouldn't suggest that all our features are knock it out of the park successes, I would humbly suggest that we have data you guys don't about how these features actually get used (Player Ranker, ahem ).
Hey, don't forget these are just my candid thoughts from my limited perspective. I've worked with similar push/pull tensions between project/product management for years, but I obviously can't see your unique view from where I'm sitting.
I will say that for all the knee-jerk complaints you get, there are *probably* as many or more people thinking "Hmm, that has potential, glad to know at least they are working on stuff".
Again, I guess that's why tools like Geasemonkey, bookmarklets, etc work well. They allow opt-in by users who want to try some new stuff. And, people come up with new ideas which might end up as a standard feature in Yahoo based on feedback. All at no cost to Yahoo.
It's all good. Keep up the good work.
P.S. the Player Ranker is retarded (IMHO of course ).
Last edited by Bwanna on Wed May 23, 2007 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
any way to get that player ranker of IE?...............and Sports Genie i'll take Screen shots of my team page for maybe 3 days and email them to you....maybe one a day or something along with the URL ok?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bigh0rt » Wed May 23, 2007 12:34 am 
).
(IMHO of course 
