Show
Some suggest this is not needed because Gleemax has some kind of blog something or other thing where people can do that in some unorganized fashion, but other feel that the forums for D&D should have a dedicated area for people to be able to review a product and hopefully then a discussion about the review could be had with those voicing their opinions on the points brought up in the review of the product. Be that review about context of the product, or the "physical" product itself.
I would agree that these very forums would gain from such a forum because visitors to the forums are more than likely already fans of D&D rather than whatever goes on on Gleemax, or whoever is allowed to post reviews on places such as Amazon, eBay, and the like. So people viewing the D&D forums would have the advantage of seeing the reviews of people that can assume are other gamers and D&D players. Of course a search for the user's posts that makes a review would reveal the truth about their D&D fan or gamer status within these forums functionality themselves.
I think it would help the community not only to allow people to see what others think before buying a product, but help to prevent clutter in other forums whenever a new product comes out to keep the traffic of reviews focused in one area to also better find them.
I would suggest if implemented that a shadow forum be created in the D&D minis forums so that the reviews of those D&D products could also be consolidated into the one "master" D&D product review forum.
This review forum of course would be allowed to include 3PP products so that the D&D community could compare and see what standards the products have against each other.
This would also give WotC a direct line to seeing quickly what the gamers of this site think about the individual products for D&D that are released by WotC, and 3PP to know what direction players are moving towards certain products and to be able to tell which direction WotC may wish to go with future products to meet the needs of the D&D community.
What does everyone else think?
I would agree that these very forums would gain from such a forum because visitors to the forums are more than likely already fans of D&D rather than whatever goes on on Gleemax, or whoever is allowed to post reviews on places such as Amazon, eBay, and the like. So people viewing the D&D forums would have the advantage of seeing the reviews of people that can assume are other gamers and D&D players. Of course a search for the user's posts that makes a review would reveal the truth about their D&D fan or gamer status within these forums functionality themselves.
I think it would help the community not only to allow people to see what others think before buying a product, but help to prevent clutter in other forums whenever a new product comes out to keep the traffic of reviews focused in one area to also better find them.
I would suggest if implemented that a shadow forum be created in the D&D minis forums so that the reviews of those D&D products could also be consolidated into the one "master" D&D product review forum.
This review forum of course would be allowed to include 3PP products so that the D&D community could compare and see what standards the products have against each other.
This would also give WotC a direct line to seeing quickly what the gamers of this site think about the individual products for D&D that are released by WotC, and 3PP to know what direction players are moving towards certain products and to be able to tell which direction WotC may wish to go with future products to meet the needs of the D&D community.
What does everyone else think?
Bel
Also not every future product review will be a first impression of 4th edition.
It would also allow for reviews of non-WotC product, those made by 3PP so not only the forums users, but WotC could gauge the response and reaction to 3PP material.
Out of curiosity, Webster, what was that "specific reason" why they couldn't make a Reviews forum? If it's a good one that outweighs or negates my reasons above (example: software limits on how many subforums they can have), then I'm fine with that.
Just my 2cp.
It is like the existing locked forums now that make little sense. Threads cannot be stater there but only moved there.
That means all the extra work that must be done to put a thread in its proper location. You might as well do that for EVERY forum if that is the case or otherwise you can't have any conplaints of "spam" by hainvg a thread in the wrong forum.
That is another problem, but not one for this thread.
Users should be allowed to create their own threads.
A while ago I did suggest a product review forum. There was a specific reason why it couldn't be done. I doubt anything has changed since then.
I'd be interested in knowing about this reason. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any problems with a forum like that, but I may be missing something.
I'd be interested in knowing about this reason. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any problems with a forum like that, but I may be missing something.
If for some reason it involved libel or slander issues with regards to negative reviews of 3pp products couldn't that be brushed off by the fact that WotC controls the space for the forums, but not the actual content of a users personal review?
Same as for any existing blog/reviews that removes fault from WotC for having a review of another companies product?
As that is the only reason I could figure out why it may not be allowed to protect WotC from slander/libel charges because something was said on their forums....
Thanks for looking into this as well as giving a product review forum at least some thought Mike.
(1) Reviews by people who haven't read the books or played the games. Some people are very emotional about certain publishers (WotC and Paizo most notably). What prevents over-zealous posters from filling up this forum with dishonest reviews and turning every honest review into a flame-war? I think this is a more serious problem in a reviews forum than elsewhere, since Joe Lurker might just assume that anyone posting a review is reasonably informed.
(2) Review spam. Again, over-zealous posters can easily spam the review section. For example, a person could use a template to write almost the same glowingly positive or violently negative review of every 4e product. Or a person could use sock-puppets to create a flood of positive or negative reviews about one product. This could happen elsewhere, but I think that a forum that specifically exists to influence people new to the game would be a big target for abuse.
(3) Review Hijackers Some people are going to jump all over every positive review or every negative review and turn the thread into a mess. Again, the fact that the forum specifically exists to influence the undecided will drive certain posters with strong agendas to feel that they must accomplish their mission.
Some possible fixes:
(1) No responses to reviews. Every thread is automatically locked after one post. Thus, a user can share his impressions without having to defend them for 20 pages. This works best if (2) is also implemented.
(2) One review per X hours or days Considering the pace at which products are written at and can be played at, there is no reason to write a lot of reviews. An informed reviewer should take time to read over a product and use it in play. Any honest reviewer should have an easy time posting, say, once per 48 hours. Honest reviews take time, whereas dishonest ones can be churned out rapidly.
(3) No reviews from new users If you haven't been around for 30 days, you can't review products. This will be bad for some, but it will stop many sock-puppets and OMG-stop-banning-me posters from making a mockery of things.
(4) Stricter posting standards If a review states or strongly indicates that the user does not own, has not read, or has not played the product, that should be reportable to CS and sufficient cause for deletion. Holding posters to some standards will increase the value of all the reviews.
(5) Segregated reviews Forums should exist for different types of products, such as WotC 4e material, WotC 3e material, non-D&D OGL material, 3rd party 4e material, 3rd party 3e material, etc. This will increase the readability of said forums.
I realize that a lot of the above may be hard or even impossible to implement, but those are some ideas for a review forum that isn't just a vicious flame-fest or an unending emotional catharsis. Maybe I'm just too caught up in maintaining some sort of credibility for these forums, but I think it's a worthy goal.
1- Not a problem. The review itself will show whether someone has read more than just the cover of the product or sales gimmick for it. Also they are reviews, not advertisements, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion based on their own criteria.
The very existance of the 4th Edition forums prior to 4th editions release is no different than your problem one. Everybody was liking, loving, waiting and every comment was a review of it when no one had read it. WotC allowed, nee created the 4th Edition forum during that time so that shows that opinions do NOT require exhaustive knowledge of the subject matter.
Readers will have to make their own minds up about the validity of a review just like any review of anything found ANYWHERE.
2- They can do that to any section of the forum, and I think some already have puppets for some thiing around here.
3- This is where proper moderation comes into play. Not locking reviews because of thread hijacking, but removing posts that are baiting, flaming, harassment, and spam that do NOT add to any discussion about the product or review.
Your fixes seem to easily to allow for biased reviews. Which could mean equally that WotC could spam the reviews with puppets giving positive reviews to their own products and negative reviews to 3PP products. Here is where assuming good faith comes into play.
You start by treating people badly and expecting them to offend, and that is what you get. Treat them like responsible people with civility and I bet you would see how well that works out. Drop all the reverse psychology and all that 80's crap and use common sense, or don't judge people before they do anything is a better premise for any forum or online community.
I just don't think the problems you mention would be fixed solely by your proposed solutions and doubt that the problems would be relegated to JUST a review forum.
Problems:
1- Not a problem. The review itself will show whether someone has read more than just the cover of the product or sales gimmick for it. Also they are reviews, not advertisements, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion based on their own criteria.
So if my criteria is that anything published by WotC is awesome, I should be allowed to write reviews that say so? Why have reviews at all if they aren't expected to have any merit?
Readers will have to make their own minds up about the validity of a review just like any review of anything found ANYWHERE.
Why should nothing at all be done to promote higher standards? Yes, people can think and evaluate, but why not cut down on the amount of garbage they have to sift through?
2- They can do that to any section of the forum, and I think some already have puppets for some thiing around here.
Yes, but why not cut down on this?
3- This is where proper moderation comes into play. Not locking reviews because of thread hijacking, but removing posts that are baiting, flaming, harassment, and spam that do NOT add to any discussion about the product or review.
My point was that undesirable responses (baiting, etc) are likely to be more common in a reviews forum. Why not brainstorm some ways to make things less of a nightmare for the mods?
Your fixes seem to easily to allow for biased reviews. Which could mean equally that WotC could spam the reviews with puppets giving positive reviews to their own products and negative reviews to 3PP products. Here is where assuming good faith comes into play.
How do my ideas make that any more likely? I get the concept, but you haven't made any connection between what I said and that outcome.
You start by treating people badly and expecting them to offend, and that is what you get. Treat them like responsible people with civility and I bet you would see how well that works out. Drop all the reverse psychology and all that 80's crap and use common sense, or don't judge people before they do anything is a better premise for any forum or online community.
Where do I talk about reverse psychology? Anyway, my suggestions would not prevent anyone from conscientiously spending time with a product, testing it out, and writing a single review. Nothing I suggested would inhibit an honest reviewer from acting as he or she would in an unrestricted setting.
I just don't think the problems you mention would be fixed solely by your proposed solutions and doubt that the problems would be relegated to JUST a review forum.
Perhaps not, which is why we could use more ideas. Even if nothing I proposed totally eliminates problems, my ideas may still mitigate them. And perhaps some of these things should apply elsewhere, sure. But that's a separate topic.
So if my criteria is that anything published by WotC is awesome, I should be allowed to write reviews that say so?
Yes, why wouldn't you be able to write nothing but glowing reviews about a particular company? Nothing stops you from doing this now on Amazon or RPGNow or DriveThruRPG or Gleemax.
Users who read reviews need to understand that they ought to read a wide variety of reviews in order to get as much of an impression of the product as possible.
Yes, why wouldn't you be able to write nothing but glowing reviews about a particular company? Nothing stops you from doing this now on Amazon or RPGNow or DriveThruRPG or Gleemax.
Users who read reviews need to understand that they ought to read a wide variety of reviews in order to get as much of an impression of the product as possible.
I see that, but I guess the question is this: Should a forum exist so people can have yet another place on the net to say whatever they want about books? I guess I just don't see the value of a review forum if it ends up looking exactly like 4e General, except perhaps with a thin veneer of purpose.
Let's say a user writes a review of the gift set: "4e: The Game That Killed Role-Playing." OK, we've actually seen this before, but not premised as a review. We know what the review contains and we know how the next 20 pages will go. We also know that several angry people will write reviews of the gift set in response, with titles like "4e: The Game That Saved Role-Playing." These new threads will be indistinguishable from the original after a few pages.
In this scenario, a curious reader will not find out anything of value unless he digs through pages of garbage. Well, unless the review section gets its own Mega-Thread to discourage endless redundancy. The writer isn't doing anything different from what he would be doing in 4e General. So where is the value? It's just more work for the mods.
For finding a review about a specific product, the search feature exists.
All you really need is a sticky thread to help sort the intial reviews.
First post for pro, second for con or something like that.
The review would be contained in the first post of any thread. All other posts are superfluous.
For finding a review about a specific product, the search feature exists.
All you really need is a sticky thread to help sort the intial reviews.
First post for pro, second for con or something like that.
Well- as I pointed out, the gleemax personal pages already allows for reviews. It has the search feature (And people can set up tags, "review" is a category, but you can add your own tags to your review.)
Plus, using gleemax doesn't limit to D&D books.
If "All other posts are superfluous", then there's no need for "discussion".
Plus such a forum would quickly just become another C&C forum, a place where people would come to just dump on 4e. (Unless that's the intent... It's already been decided the C&C forum isn't returning.)
And again, the powers that be don't want a "review forum".
If "All other posts are superfluous", then there's no need for "discussion".
And again, the powers that be don't want a "review forum".
They would not be eneded to read the review. That does not mean they have no other value.
G_Z asks about that above....Mike is out of the loop on this one?
The review would be contained in the first post of any thread. All other posts are superfluous.
The point of a "review" isn't to discuss it, though.
That doesn't mean there is no room for discussion about a review.
Haven't even the FLs or VCLs noted reviews from other sites, and didn't Mike mention the potential for D&D Across the Web type of forum?
Do the existing "review" features of Gleemax allow for comments?
If any of these are true, then there is also potential for a review forum for those not interested in Gleemax versions of such things, but prefer a simple forum interface.
Do the existing "review" features of Gleemax allow for comments?
Yes.
I'm not convinced that a Product Review forum would work, at least not yet. However, I am certainly not convinced that there is some ruling that prevents us from doing anything along those lines.
My questions:
Where would it live?
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
I'd need to get some volunteers to help make sure this forum was healthy and successful. We'd also have to get one of the VCLs on board before I'd want it to happen. Either Webster for D&D, CrazyMonk1956 for the General RPG area, or Mudbunny for the D&Di area.
Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
I know that it's no surprise that I haven't been a big fan of the Gleemax blog site and the limited functionality it's provided us since it's alpha release.
Actually... that is a surprise, at least to me. It's interesting to hear (well, see) you say (well, write) that. We agree on something else. Now I feel all dirty inside. :P :P
I'm not convinced that a Product Review forum would work, at least not yet. However, I am certainly not convinced that there is some ruling that prevents us from doing anything along those lines.
Reviews happen, whether we want them to or not. A prime example, really, is all the stuff that was dumped into the "First Impressions" thread. Some of that (certainly not all) would've made wonderful threads in a "Review" forum; I can say that with confidence because there were quite a few threads that had good conversation going before they were merged - and the merger killed the conversation.
If we would've had a Review forum, those conversations could've continued in a more appropriate venue. That keeps people interested in and invested in the community, which makes the entire site stronger.
My questions:
Where would it live?
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
The more I think about it, the more I think we actually need two forums.
D&D Product Reviews
Where would it live? In the D&D forum, as part of the D&D HQ section. My ideal spot would be right under or right above Future Releases, but anywhere in that section would be fine.
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum? Open to discussion, but my initial thought for this forum would be WotC products as well as 3rd party material for 4e.
Would it be directed discussion...? I think it works better as an open discussion forum. If I just grabbed a copy of a new Goodman Games adventure, I should be able to start a thread about it. If my group just finished playing through Keep on the Shadowfell, I could offer up my impressions of the adventure. And so on.
RPG Product Reviews
Where would it live? Gleemax forum, RPGs section.
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum? It would cover any other RPG product not covered by the one in the D&D forum. That would include OGL, WotC 3e material, White Wolf, GURPS, Hackmaster, Pathfinder, whatever else. If it's an RPG product and it's not 4e, it would go here.
Would it be directed discussion...? No - see above. If I pick up a copy of Monte Cook's World of Darkness (it's awesome, for anybody who has thought about it ;) ), I should be able to start up my own review. Yadda yadda yadda.
I'd need to get some volunteers to help make sure this forum was healthy and successful. We'd also have to get one of the VCLs on board before I'd want it to happen. Either Webster for D&D, CrazyMonk1956 for the General RPG area, or Mudbunny for the D&Di area.
I'd be willing to serve as a forum lead, at least initially, to get things rolling. Assuming, of course, that I'd be welcome in such a role.
Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
I did, and you're welcome.
The point of a "review" isn't to discuss it, though.
That doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion. For example, I might post a review about Complete Warrior, and in that review I might whine about the utter brokenness of the Frenzied Berserker. I would go on and on about the sheer amount of damage the character can do and all that.
That's open to discussion. You can come along and point out the class has some pretty heavy weaknesses - like not being able to end a rage voluntarily, a weak Will save which makes them a target for all sorts of mind-affecting spells, they fly into the rage at the slightest provocation, and so on.
You offering your counter-opinions about the product makes the overall review of the product stronger for somebody who reads it. They see my point about something I think is borked, then they can read your counter point. They then get to make a more informed decision about the product.
I'm not convinced that a Product Review forum would work, at least not yet. However, I am certainly not convinced that there is some ruling that prevents us from doing anything along those lines.
Why personally, I think that the 4E reviews would turn into flame-fests, I am starting to question whether my belief that it would happen is a reason to *not* try it in the first place. In the end, I would rather try it out and have it work (or not as the case may be) then to not try it and not know. I have no problems being wrong. As a married man and a father, I find out how wrong I am every day. :P
Where would it live?
I would put it in D&D HQ, next to Future Releases. My preference is to put it before, rather than after.
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
Personally, I think that it should be a general RPG Product Review forum, although I would tend to expand it farther than that to somethingf along the lines of RPGs, CCGs and boardgames as well.
Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
I would tend to prefer an open format, where anybody could start a thread, and anybody could respond. That being said, before the forum would open, there would need to be a stickied "READ ME FIRST" thread that explains the rules for the forum. Goes into clear explanations of threadcrapping, disruiption and other things. Perhaps also a boilerplate that people could put at the top of their review pointing to the Read Me post and re-emphasizing that threadcrapping, disruption, trolling and/or baiting will not be tolerated.
I'd need to get some volunteers to help make sure this forum was healthy and successful. We'd also have to get one of the VCLs on board before I'd want it to happen. Either Webster for D&D, CrazyMonk1956 for the General RPG area, or Mudbunny for the D&Di area.
I would be very willing to help, however I would prefer to do so as an FL (but would be willing to have it added to the DDi VCL task if it works out that way). RL work is starting to get busy, and while DDi VCL is, at the moment, a fairly easy task, when the DDi apps get released, I imagine things will pick up dramatically.
That being said, it seems like this would be a natrural extension of the General RPG VCL task.
I will poke C-Monk and let him know to pop his head in and provide his thoughts.
First, I think the general idea of a reviews forum is an excellent one, in principle. Gleemax Blogs' reviews system is still very limited, buggy, and unreliable. I can see a potential reviews forum being phased out once Gleemax becomes more functional, but that may be a while, so I believe there is a solid need for such a forum to exist.
My questions:
Where would it live?
The RPGs area seems a natural fit, though there should definately be a forum jump link in D&D HQ. Or vice versa.
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
Yes. :D I think there will be more demand for D&D product reviews, but I would personally like to see more general RPG reviews as well. Such an open policy may bring more traffic to the RPGs area (which is currently not doing so well).
Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
I would use the rules for the old Regdar's Repository as a model. The forum should be open to discussion by all means, but a flood of threads on one product will quickly bog the forum down. So, set up an approval system, monitored by one or more VCLs (all D&D reviews go to Webster, all other RPG reviews go to me, all D&Di reviews go to Mudbunny) for approval. The VCL starts the thread and posts the approved review and then anyone can jump in and discuss. The VCLs have the option and responsibility to allow more than one review/discussion on a product if they feel that a new submitted review offers a sufficiently different opinion and/or might foster a different sort of discussion. This will also provide a structured system for a reliable stable of reviewers to develop.
I'd need to get some volunteers to help make sure this forum was healthy and successful. We'd also have to get one of the VCLs on board before I'd want it to happen. Either Webster for D&D, CrazyMonk1956 for the General RPG area, or Mudbunny for the D&Di area.
Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
EN World has a respected stable of reviewers that has developed over the years. These reviewers often get free product from companies prior to street release for the express purpose of review. This system developed naturally over time, but it is something to consider while discussing this topic.
Finally, I would be more than happy to help out with whatever system does develop.
For approval, what I thought of was that the initial review goes to the person whose responsabiliy it is. If approved, it gets posted. If rejected, it goes to the other two, and *both* of the other two would have to reject it as well for the review to get rejected.
Where would it live?
I agree with the others, that it belongs near Future Releases. I'm not picky as to where.
Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
I'd say make it mainly a D&D Product forum, since it's assumed people are going here to read/write about D&D. However, I'd prefer it to be a discussion of all D&D-compatible products, rather than just WotC and GSL products. That way people have a better idea of what's out there.
Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
I'd prefer it to be more open. Grouping all reviews of a given product into one thread would result in the kind of chaos that the Megathread embodies now. The sad thing is, the more popular the product, the more incomprehensible the discussion would become.
Proposal:
Title: RPG Product Reviews
Place: RPG General Forums
Style: VCL Approval before posts are shown
VCL: CrazyMonkey (Mudbunny as his back up)
We would include a link from D&D HQ and allow ALL RPG products to be reviewed in that section, including D&D. I think this is better than setting up two different forums, since I am not sure there's enough traffic to support a non-D&D RPG review forum, and I want to give the RPG General forums a little help. (especially since they are still in that long list of forums which deters folks from going there)
Let me know what you think.
I would use the rules for the old Regdar's Repository as a model. The forum should be open to discussion by all means, but a flood of threads on one product will quickly bog the forum down. So, set up an approval system, monitored by one or more VCLs (all D&D reviews go to Webster, all other RPG reviews go to me, all D&Di reviews go to Mudbunny) for approval. The VCL starts the thread and posts the approved review and then anyone can jump in and discuss. The VCLs have the option and responsibility to allow more than one review/discussion on a product if they feel that a new submitted review offers a sufficiently different opinion and/or might foster a different sort of discussion. This will also provide a structured system for a reliable stable of reviewers to develop.
While I could live with a Regdar's style forum, I'd prefer not. And if we do go Regdar's style, I'm absolutely, 100% against the underlined part. When the reviewer approves the thread, it should post under the name of the person who started the review, not under the VCL.
I was never around for Regdar's Repository - how did that work??
The idea was to have more controlled discussions there. Sort of a "Debates" forum. You wouldn't find things like QFT, "what he said," "I agree" and so on.
Any post to that forum - whether a new thread or a reply to an existing post - went to "Regdar" for approval. The post wouldn't show up on the forum until it was approved. Different folks, over time, filled the role of Regdar - Melanie, Doxxie, and Mimir all had their turn filling the task. Regdar (in theory at least) filtered out the posts prior to posting, with an eye towards only approving posts that furthered the discussion. So "QFT" would get deleted prior to posting, but a well-reasoned rebuttal would make it through.
Regdar also appreciated good spelling and grammar. Posts loaded with errors or chat speak - no matter how well reasoned - were supposed to be filtered out.
*
one other idea for the review forum(s). The "thread rating" system should be turned on for that location. While it's true that some people abuse the tool, it has the potential to be a great aid to folks looking through the forum for reviews of products.
Proposal:
Title: RPG Product Reviews
Place: RPG General Forums
Style: VCL Approval before posts are shown
VCL: CrazyMonkey (Mudbunny as his back up)
We would include a link from D&D HQ and allow ALL RPG products to be reviewed in that section, including D&D. I think this is better than setting up two different forums, since I am not sure there's enough traffic to support a non-D&D RPG review forum, and I want to give the RPG General forums a little help. (especially since they are still in that long list of forums which deters folks from going there)
Let me know what you think.
I think that it looks very good.
[D&D] H1: Keep on the Shadowfell (3/5)
The brackets indicate what game system the product is for, at a glance. The numbers in parentheses give a quick idea of what the reviewer thought of the product overall.
Thread rating could be used as a general indicator of whether readers found the review helpful or thought provoking or whatever. Certainly not a scientific measure, by any means, but potentially useful regardless.
I'd prefer to see an open forum rather than a moderator approved forum. There's a few reasons.
1) I tend to be a believer in the theory that the cream rises to the top, so to speak. If there's a bunch of crappy reviews about 4e (just as an example), those are going to sink to the bottom while the well-thought reviews will rise to the top.
2) It's my understanding that the folks who had to handle Regdars reviews would get overwhelmed with the process. Nothing in this format prevents that from happening again.
3) Regdar's was pretty much "stand alone." Nothing was (to my knowledge) ever moved there. That isn't true of this forum - it's quite likely that reviews posted in other places will get moved to this forum. To the best of my knowledge, it's an unknown factor as to how that move works -- does everything need approval? Nothing? Only the first post? If any of it needs approval, you run the risk of making lots of folks in the community angry, because their posts are going to vanish from the thread and they'll cry censorship.
4) Having an open forum where anybody can post without approval is more inviting, which increases the chances of drumming up traffic.
Anyway, there's my thoughts on why a review-style forum isn't the best choice.
That is why I think a formalized boilerplate section that the poster includes at the top of their original post would work very well.
I know that it's no surprise that I haven't been a big fan of the Gleemax blog site and the limited functionality it's provided us since it's alpha release.
My questions:
- Where would it live?
- Would it be a D&D Product Review Forum or an RPG Product Review forum?
- Would it be directed discussion, where a VCL or News Guide could start a single initial thread on a product and let everyone post their thoughts and experiences?
(Enumeration added for ease of reading)
You don't need no stinking text blog since you have your vids. :P
1- For D&D and each major forum I would suggest there be one if needed.
D&D in general has 2 main forums D&D and DDM. You would want this review forum to be for D&D, otherwise reviews might as well be off-topic discussions.
I would suggest a review forum to be located in the D&D HQ section near GSL forum and Future Releases forum.
To connect DDM there could be a shadow forum like the existing Staff Blogs has in the D&D HQ section from the DDM area to the review section so it would close a little gap between the two D&D communities. This way RPG players could see what minis players think about even minis for D&D.
2- Since the forum will be for D&D product review it should allow for ANY D&D product or compatible. Does the entire D&D community care about Star Wars RPG products? Like the off-topic tavern if for D&D players to discuss non-D&D things separate from the Thickett for Magic players the D&D forum would be for D&D players to review D&D related products. Doing this and having it allow for 3PP products should allow for enough traffic. Even lesser traffic to such a forum would not be bad as it would collect such discussions into one place for ease of viewing and finding. Also like your D&D Across the Web forum suggestion it would allow people to note reviews found other places so that the bigest possible picutre for reviews of new D&D product can be had to give people a chance to see what not just the users of these forums have to say about a recent product, but others as well.
Note: Other product lines could have there own review forum for products related to there game, and the general Gleemax RPG section could have a General RPG product review forum. I just think it important that the D&D forums be focused on D&D products and not everything RPG related. But that does not mean other areas should not be allowed theur own review sections as well.
3- I think you would need to allow for people to make their own threads. Not everyone will find every new product even in the "watch these 3PP" thread in the GSL forum do I think all 3PP are covered. It would also allow for people to discuss non-published (well professionally) products such as things on fansites, assuming that the fansite policy might also include a list of fansites somewhere here. If not people would be able to review fanbased creations there anyway. A VCL or otherwise directed discussin would mean such a singular person creating the discussions would have to spend a lot of time searching for products and maybe even review them themselves.
The first post in a review thread should contain the author's review. It would be a nice feature for those not really wanting replies to the review to be able to lock/close their own posts to prevent flames, but this would need coding for the forums software maybe, and would prevent discussion of a particular review or continued reviews on that product.
Also in the case of reviews "ownership" of a thread is a bit more important. As the megathread shows, it appears that the entirety of the posts are made based on the thread creators opinions, which is not the case. A review should feel free to be able to claim ownership of their own review by way of the forums mechanics as the thread creator.
Also a directed discussion means having to read every post in a thread to find actual reviews of the product amongst discussion of any review that came prior to the current post.
One review per thread then means you can quickly find the review, and like any thread If you don't want to participate in discussion you can just stop reading as you have seen the "meat" of the thread which is the review itself. You would of course be able to discuss any aspects of any review should you wish, and even ask the creator questions in case they may still be around about the review. For example, to expand on some though they had about a part of the review for clarification.
I think the traffic to such a forum would be decent. No worse than the Community Business forum as it having a lot of traffic means the forums are probably having problems. So you would even want low traffic for this very forum as an optimal or best case scenario. With the inclusion of 3PP products, and fansite products as all the 4th edition material rolls out then the traffic will pick up. With the number of threads in the megathread I think that it also shows enough traffic and there are only a few product out for the current edition of D&D, so as more publishers come about when the GSL products are allowed to be released then there should be a surge in traffic that would otherwise crowd other forums such as General Discussion, Forgotten Realms, GSL, etc.
Two comments on thread titles:
1) That sort of format was attempted in the RPG Gamer Classifieds forum at one point, as I recall. I think Webster can probably shed light on whether or not it worked. I recall the policy was that threads with incorrect formatting were subject to deletion. But I don't recall for sure.
If that worked in the Gamer Classifieds, I don't see any reason why it can't work for this if we take the same basic premise.
2) It might be possible to have the forum software handle it directly. I know, for example, that EN World has tags that are required on some of their forums. I think that's an option in the software, but not in the version we're running. Could somebody more familiar with vB confirm that?
Just keep in mind that if the forum itself isn't enforcing the tags, having a rule such as that is creating more work for you. Every time somebody doesn't post in that forum, you need to take some sort of action - whether it's editing it yourself (if possible), asking somebody else to edit it, deleting it, or whatever. It creates more work, when your time can probably be better spent doing other things.
I would use the rules for the old Regdar's Repository as a model. The forum should be open to discussion by all means, but a flood of threads on one product will quickly bog the forum down.
Don't know a thing about Regdar's, but when a new product comes out especially from WotC you would expect a flood of reviews for that product as it is the "new" thing. This is the sort of traffic you want. Everybody got a chance to right their own review, and those that mostly agree with another reviewer after a time will just be in discussion or agreement within that reviewers review thread.
I just want to second the idea of implementing tags (if at all possible). It would simplify the need for formatting of the title of the thread greatly.
Tags are going to be one of three scenarios, as best as I can tell:
A) It's already in the software. Just turn it on. Yay!
B) It's not in the software currently, but is available via a patch.
C) It's not in the software currently, but is available by hacking the code to bits and putting it back together.
A is the best-case scenario. B isn't terrible, but given the overall instability of the forums now is probably not the time to go applying patches (unless the patch also happens to fix a problem, of course). C is the worst scenario, and I'd go so far as to suggest it shouldn't happen at all in that case.
Don't know a thing about Regdar's, but when a new product comes out especially from WotC you would expect a flood of reviews for that product as it is the "new" thing. This is the sort of traffic you want. Everybody got a chance to right their own review, and those that mostly agree with another reviewer after a time will just be in discussion or agreement within that reviewers review thread.
Just throwing out an idea:
For the majority of the reviews, it will all be of diferent products. However, I wonder if for major releases (like the FR CS), it would not be better to have a VCL start a review thread, with an index for all the reviews in it. This would prevent the flooding of the forum with 300 reviews.
This would, of course, all depend on the traffic in the forum.
I disagree with anythiing that places any Gleemax related icon or imagery into my forums use. I only visit there for the C&C for CM thread, and think if a generic RPG product review forum cannot be supported, then they might not get one yet, and strongly think the thing should be held within the D&D community and have a shadow forum from DDM to combine the D&D related gamers together. As RPG players might be interested in the review of the minis game products.
Just throwing out an idea:
For the majority of the reviews, it will all be of diferent products. However, I wonder if for major releases (like the FR CS), it would not be better to have a VCL start a review thread, with an index for all the reviews in it. This would prevent the flooding of the forum with 300 reviews.
This would, of course, all depend on the traffic in the forum.
While I think each user should be able to create their own thread for their own review I agree a sticky for products couldn't hurt to just denote the review verdict.
Hellmute: Forgotten Realms Players' Guide - Positive - 3/5
Fred: Eberron Campaign Setting - Negative - 2/5
Something that helps find reviews quicker.
I think tagging would be great also. Where did those two Post Icons of thumbup and thumbdown go? Those would work for telling about the product at a glance.
The code isn't hard to "hack".
A few fields to the database. A few fields added to the New thread form/template. Then edit the SQL query for that script to include them. Then...
OK a bit more than a few but WotC_EricB could do it in about 5 minutes!
We would really need to get the forum in place and see how it works with of course some FAQ thread on making review for those caring to read to try to make them function correctly.
Just throwing out an idea:
For the majority of the reviews, it will all be of diferent products. However, I wonder if for major releases (like the FR CS), it would not be better to have a VCL start a review thread, with an index for all the reviews in it. This would prevent the flooding of the forum with 300 reviews.
This would, of course, all depend on the traffic in the forum.
I have a general distaste for "megathreads" so I guess it's not a surprise that I would prefer to allow the 300 reviews rather than one thread with 300 posts.
Each review is going to offer a unique view on the subject, and those unique views have the potential to flourish into actual conversations. Again, the cream will rise to the top - either via the thread rating tool, or by the good threads having discussion.
I just don't see the benefits of lumping it all into one thread.
I disagree with anythiing that places any Gleemax related icon or imagery into my forums use. I only visit there for the C&C for CM thread, and think if a generic RPG product review forum cannot be supported, then they might not get one yet, and strongly think the thing should be held within the D&D community and have a shadow forum from DDM to combine the D&D related gamers together. As RPG players might be interested in the review of the minis game products.
This idea is a good fit for the Gleemax RPG forum. You can change your forum settings so you never see the Gleemax skin, so I don't see why the actual location of the forum really matters.
In fact, I'll go a step further and say a link should also be placed in the DDM forum and the Star Wars forum, to make sure those communities know there's a place to post and read reviews. But the forum has to live somewhere, and this is one case where the Gleemax forum area makes sense as the home.
While OI think each user shoudl be able to create their own thread for their own review I agree a sticky for products couldn't hurt to just denote the review verdict.
Hellmute: Forgotten Realms Players' Guide - Positive - 3/5
Fred: Eberron Campaign Setting - Negative - 2/5
Something that helps find reviews quicker.
That's also a nice idea. A master index with links to all the threads is a great idea!
I think tagging would be great also. Where did those two Post Icons of thumbup and thumbdown go? Those would work for telling about the product at a glance.
The code isn't hard to "hack".
A few fields to the database. A few fields added to the New thread form/template. Then edit the SQL query for that script to include them. Then...
OK a bit more than a few but WotC_EricB could do it in about 5 minutes!
Normally, I would agree with you. But given the current state of the forums, I think it's best to not install any new code unless that code is designed specifically to fix a problem.
It's a fine idea for somewhere down the road, though, once the forums are stable again.
I am also for specific rules for a reviews forum that would dictate a title format (indicating the name and game system info only (no opinion in title)) of the product being discussed.
As far as the posts in general, i'm not sure whether it would be better that only complete reviews be allowed as posts, or that general open responses be allowed (the latter seems preferable but more likely to cause threadwars)
This idea is a good fit for the Gleemax RPG forum. You can change your forum settings so you never see the Gleemax skin, so I don't see why the actual location of the forum really matters.
In fact, I'll go a step further and say a link should also be placed in the DDM forum and the Star Wars forum, to make sure those communities know there's a place to post and read reviews. But the forum has to live somewhere, and this is one case where the Gleemax forum area makes sense as the home.
The problem is that there is no need for a review forum in a Gleemax general areas as they already have the blogs.
This would not give the independent communities anything for them. Not saying D&D is the msot important forum, but to me it is as I don't visit others.
Does Star Wars have enough products?
Does everyone that plays Star Wars also play D&D or care about reivew of the other product line?
I keep using the Off-topic Tavern and Magic Thicket as an example because it is what I think the review forums should be like. Not jsut a global place for anything to be crammed into, because that solves nothing but cram more unlike things together.
D&D has an Off-topic forum (tavern) so the D&D community can discuss things with fellow D&D players, not having to go to one of the other off-topic forums.
I think they D&D community and each independent community should likewise be allowed their own review forum. Otherwise people can just use the Gleemax blogs, and again I would question the need for having more than one global Gleemax Offtopic forum?
Electricbee:
If all threads are combined then the megathread just continues, but becomes multiple threads, and the problem with merging remains. Merging should be a last resort as threads lose ALL continuity due to forums behavior when merging threads. The forums code itself is incompetent to know how to merge other than by initial posting date, so merging is pretty much like each post being a playing card, and when you merge you just shuffle the cards together and the conversation gets all mixed up and nigh impossible to follow.
The problem is that there is no need for a review forum in a Gleemax general areas as they already have the blogs.
The Gleemax forums and the blogs are two separate entities that share the same name. The best way, really, to think of the Gleemax forum is that it's a replacement for what used to be the Wizards.COMmunity section.
This would not give the independent communities anything for them. Not saying D&D is the msot important forum, but to me it is as I don't visit others.
Does Star Wars have enough products?
Does everyone that plays Star Wars also play D&D or care about reivew of the other product line?
If there's a review forum that's intended to house all the reviews, why wouldn't we want the Star Wars community to use it? So what if they only have a handful of books. if somebody wants to review SAGA edition, let 'em. If somebody wants to read a review about SAGA edition, they'll know where to find it - because the "Product Reviews" forum will be linked right there on the Star Wars forum.
I keep using the Off-topic Tavern and Magic Thicket as an example because it is what I think the review forums should be like. Not jsut a global place for anything to be crammed into, because that solves nothing but cram more unlike things together.
D&D has an Off-topic forum (tavern) so the D&D community can discuss things with fellow D&D players, not having to go to one of the other off-topic forums.
I think they D&D community and each independent community should likewise be allowed their own review forum. Otherwise people can just use the Gleemax blogs, and again I would question the need for having more than one global Gleemax Offtopic forum?
See, this is a thoroughly poor example to use to convince me, because I'm absolutely opposed to each community having its own off-topic forum; I thought the rec room served the purpose and there was no need to go about creating a myriad of new off-topic forums.
The Tranquil Thicket is an exception, because (as I understand) that forum is more a "game chatter" forum than an off-topic forum, because (again, as I understand it) players in MOL aren't allowed to have a conversation while playing their game.
Electricbee:
If all threads are combined then the megathread just continues, but becomes multiple threads, and the problem with merging remains. Merging should be a last resort as threads lose ALL continuity due to forums behavior when merging threads. The forums code itself is incompetent to know how to merge other than by initial posting date, so merging is pretty much like each post being a playing card, and when you merge you just shuffle the cards together and the conversation gets all mixed up and nigh impossible to follow.
This I agree with. Merging in the review forum should absolutely be a last resort.
If enough reviews/traffic is generated for a non-D&D RPG, then a new forum can be created and moved to its own area.
To start, however, one forum should be sufficient.
Woah Mike! You are at work and busy and it is GREAT! you taking this much time and giving so many responses and interacting with the community, but you got to allow for a few more people to express views on things so you don't just get a spit shine look at something but can see it after the community has had a chance to polish the idea up more as you asked them (us) to.
Sorry, I often get overly excited when confronted with good ideas. =)
In fact, I'll go a step further and say a link should also be placed in the DDM forum and the Star Wars forum, to make sure those communities know there's a place to post and read reviews.
I agree. We could make this happen.
See, this is a thoroughly poor example to use to convince me, because I'm absolutely opposed to each community having its own off-topic forum; I thought the rec room served the purpose and there was no need to go about creating a myriad of new off-topic forums.
The Tranquil Thicket is an exception, because (as I understand) that forum is more a "game chatter" forum than an off-topic forum, because (again, as I understand it) players in MOL aren't allowed to have a conversation while playing their game.
For whatever reason there are multiple off-topic forums. If the MOl area off-topic forum is NOT an actual off-topic forum then what is it for?
Since there are two forums classified as off-topic in various areas, then why cannot each area have its own review forums for realted products to THAT forum rather than a global review area?
Sure a global would generate more traffic, but it would be very unorganized. Harder to find what you might be looking for to find, and forcing users outside of their own forums, where you risk even more flame wars if someone were to compare more things to D&D in a review, that might cause even more problems.
While not having all RPg related reviews in the same place would prevent the conenction of the people that might not want the opinons of other people.
Again why the Off-topic Tavern was said to exist solely in the D&D forum for use for D&D players to be able to talk about thiings with only other D&D players primarily. At least for the D&D community to have a place to talk about things free of MAple Story, and such.
What if some new Anime related products come out in a storm and D&D people against it happen across them looking for the new Eberron product and start arguing over it.
This is where mud's idea that flamewars would start is because you have forced groups of non-like minded people together.
At least the d&D community has something in common with itself more than just RPGs in general.
Also not everyone may wish to care about other product lines when looking for a review of D&D products...it would be an organizational and sorting nightmare.
It would be like having people sit around one table to play D&D and another RPG at the same time and seat them every other seat per game. It just won't work out as well as you think if you split them to opposite ends of the table or giving them their own tables to play at so not to add confusion to the experience.
As you can tell my opinion on this matter is a bit biased towards D&D having its own review forum for obvious reasons. ;)
But I repeat that doesn't mean other forums should be denied the right to ahve their own review forums.
It will be for CM to decide in its mechanism that figures out traffick and whatnot as to how to do it.
for whatever reason there are multiple off-topic forums. If the MOl area off-topic forum is NOT an actual off-topic forum then what is it for?
Keep in mind that I'm only going based on what I've been told.
The tranquil Thicket is intended to serve as a "game chatter" style forum. It's against the rules for two players to talk about stuff (such as a movie or whatever) while playing MOL. The Thicket was created to give those folks a place to gather and talk without violating the terms of use of the game.
Again, I'm not the person to make this argument to. I think there should be one off-topic forum, and everything else should link to that one location. I'll give the example I used back when this was being discussed in the VCL forum.
I'm a hockey fan. If I want to talk about hockey, I don't want to talk about it with just people who are also D&D fans; I want to involve Star Wars games fans, and Magic players, and DDM players, and so on. By having multiple off-topic forums, I need to go to several places to talk about hockey. And, in fact, if I start a thread on the same topic in more than two of those locations, I'm technically violating the CoC by spamming the boards.
In my opinion, it's far better to have one conversation about hockey in one location, and anybody who is a member of this community who is also interested in hockey can go to that one location and join the conversation.
The same is true, again in my opinion, for this forum. One place is better. Anybody looking to read a review or write a review will know where to go to do so.
Sorry, I often get overly excited when confronted with good ideas. =)
Its like getting a character concept and planning it out for the long haul giving it a big backstory, only to find out it will be a one-shot adventure. Just don't want to see you deflate or "crash" from the high by going to fast and maybe getting too far ahead. ;)
It is hard to stop a herd of stampeding elephants in your mind. We surely don't want your train of thought to get derailed either. Just got to make sure the other passengers aren't getting sick by the blurred images speeding past the windows.
Zherog: (look I spelled it right for once!)
Not to poke a Hornet's Nest, bit then maybe the idea behind Astrid's being FOR D&D is better than the off-topic. All things there could easily relate to most RPGs right? So why does the BINGO game exist in the D&D section yet not other areas? (guessing it doesn't because I don't step foot out of the D&D area often unless I take a wrong turn.)
I have a general distaste for "megathreads" so I guess it's not a surprise that I would prefer to allow the 300 reviews rather than one thread with 300 posts.
Each review is going to offer a unique view on the subject, and those unique views have the potential to flourish into actual conversations. Again, the cream will rise to the top - either via the thread rating tool, or by the good threads having discussion.
I just don't see the benefits of lumping it all into one thread.
I would prefer not to have it like that either. It was just an idea I threw out for consideration.
While I think each user should be able to create their own thread for their own review I agree a sticky for products couldn't hurt to just denote the review verdict.
Hellmute: Forgotten Realms Players' Guide - Positive - 3/5
Fred: Eberron Campaign Setting - Negative - 2/5
Something that helps find reviews quicker.
I figure a stickied thread with a bunch of posts:
Post 1 - Table of contents with links to various Genres: D&D, Non-D&D Fantasy, Star Wars, Non-Star Wars Sci-Fi, etc, etc
post 2 - List of links to D&D Reviews
Post 3 - List of links to non-D&D Fantasy Reviews
etc
etc
I figure a stickied thread with a bunch of posts:
Post 1 - Table of contents with links to various Genres: D&D, Non-D&D Fantasy, Star Wars, Non-Star Wars Sci-Fi, etc, etc
post 2 - List of links to D&D Reviews
Post 3 - List of links to non-D&D Fantasy Reviews
etc
etc
Yeah, that's probably the best way to organize it.
Play by Post games from multiple game systems are run in the forum. The guide organizes the games by game system. So, a reviews forum sticky post would do likewise, listing all reviews by game system. Thus, someone looking for reviews for a D&D product, for example, can go to the D&D section and find the product they are looking for reviews on.
That sort of format was attempted in the RPG Gamer Classifieds forum at one point, as I recall. I think Webster can probably shed light on whether or not it worked. I recall the policy was that threads with incorrect formatting were subject to deletion. But I don't recall for sure.
The tags for the gamer classified board were set that way because the forum was set to order threads alphabetacally to make searching for your area eaiser. It did work when people stuck to the format.
As for approval methods, Regdar's was a pain. Not only will someone have to approve the initial post, but every post/reply thereafter.
I would suggest setting the forum up where only the VCL and/or guides can start threads, but anyone can respond to them. Then, sticky a queue thread at the top to request new threads/products for review. That's if you wanted a directed forum, otherwise let it just be an open forum.
And it should go in the Gleemax/RPG area. It would allow other products to be reviewed.
I would suggest setting the forum up where only the VCL and/or guides can start threads, but anyone can respond to them. Then, sticky a queue thread at the top to request new threads/products for review. That's if you wanted a directed forum, otherwise let it just be an open forum.
I would strongly argue against this (Directed forum) unless...
I don't know if this is something that CS would be allowed to do:
The VCL/FG starts the thread with a placeholder post indicating who is to be the next poster. The second post is made by the poster requesting a review thread. Then, once done, the VCL asks CS to remove the first post.
This came up in regards to mergers of a thread I was working on, and have not be able to get back to due to loss of subscription and forums downtime for a few weeks now.
Now if the forums have a merge feature they might have a split feature that would allow for the 2nd post onward to be split out and then there would be two threads and the unneeded VCL post could be deleted, or preferably recycled for the NEXT user to create a post[thread] or something like that.
IF the forums can split threads that is.
And yes, there's a split feature.
Well then!
If that is the case, and Individual posts CAN be split into new thread, then a locked forum might not be too bad?
VCL/FL start a thread about a product, and then the individual posts that contain reviews can be split to a new thread.
Might also solve that little problem with another thread in question or even a few threads that is.
This could prevent spam in the forum and allow for "ownership" of a review view thread "ownership" in the eyes of the forum software, and the readers as well.
But may still be a bit more work than allowing for a fully open forum....?
It would depend on the functions able to be utilized by the VCL/FL and if they have the power to split threads in the review forum so that CS doesn't have to always be asked to perform those duties as well as moderation.
Yes, deleting the first poste removes the whole thread.
Crap. Then I recommend having the forum open. Anyone can start, anyone can respond.
And yes, there's a split feature.
I think having a Directed forum (even with the split feature) will only make things much more difficult for VCLs and increase the workload on WizOs needlessly.
I think having a Directed forum (even with the split feature) will only make things much more difficult for VCLs and increase the workload on WizOs needlessly.
I agree, and I think it would also increase the frustration level of the community as well. An open forum is the best option, in my opinion.
I agree, and I think it would also increase the frustration level of the community as well. An open forum is the best option, in my opinion.
With a good VCL/backup VCL combo (and I think that C-Monk is one of the best VCLs out there) combined with a couple of good review guides/regulars the forum and threads could be kept quite clear of any flames or baiting.
You have C-Monk, who appears to favour a Regdar's Repository-style of moderation. That is to say, fully moderated. This is fairly work-intensive on the part of whomever has to do the approving, but ensures a forum clear of flames and baiting. (I am assuming that only clear examples of baiting and or exceptionally poor reviews[1]) would be rejected here.
Then there is Webster and G0, who appear to favour a Directed-Discussion type of forum, where the VCL (or Review Guides) can start a thread, and then anyone after can reply.
The rest of us appear to prefer a fully open forum. Anyone can start a thread, anyone can reply.
I think that there is still some discussion on the type of moderation that could take place.
I'd even go so far as to say a VCL should open a post about any new product a few days in advance of its release date specifically for first impressions, with the format of "thumbs up, thumbs down, top three reasons." This allows people to give a quick impression--a microreview, if you will--without cluttering the boards excessively. Any other microreviews can be merged with the original thread. If a microreview starts a longer discussion--say, for example, whether or not a particular system promotes roleplaying or not--a longer review could be posted for that discussion.
I think a big point I want to make is that I don't see this as strictly a review forum. It's a review and discussion forum. Otherwise there really isn't a difference from just using a blog post. I see this as a place where people can post their impressions of a product, and then have a discussion as to whether those impressions are valid. This is mostly because there are a lot of things I'd have never thought to say about a game in a specific review, but might consider a strength when I site them in response to someone else's criticism.
2 Threads:
1st thread
post 1 10:00 am
post 2 10:01 am does not quote post 1 but replies
post 3 10:10 am does not quote post 2 but replies to it
post 4 10:20 am quotes post 1 and replies
2nd thread
post a 10:02 am
post b 10:03 am does not quote post a but replies
post c 10:15 am does not quote psot b but replies to it
post d 10:21 am quotes post a and replies
Currently the threads as easy enough to follow the conversation.
Now these threads get merged into the 1st one.
post 1
post 2
post a
post b
post 3
post c
post 4
post d
Those posts that don't quote which post they are responding to appear to be responing to post 1 that is the initial post for the merged thread. All continuity is lost because the merge is done by the forums in chronological order based on time the post was created.
It might be better if the merge function were to work to try to maintain some sort of continuity for PEOPLE to read such as the merged thread looking something like this:
post 1
post 2
post 3
post 4
{merge 2nd thread}
{append all posts in order to current thread}
post a
post b
post c
post d
This way will at least keep the point of merger to have continuity in the conversation.
Sadly the forums software merges based on initial posting time so merged threads just end up a big mess of confusion, and you lose the ownership of your own review.
Why did the person whose review was merged not have a right to be the initial post in the thread, and the other person did?
Was the persons thread who was merged some second class citizen not worthy of having the right to their own thread?
Keeping the number of threads down by limiting thread starts to well written reviews (regardless of whether they are positive or negative) will prevent threads with initial posts of "This book stinks and WotC are a bunch of corporate blah, blah, blah)" from dominating the forum. The discussions that follow don't need such a heavy hand (normal posting rules after the initial review).
"Well written" cannot be a qualification for inclusion due to many things in an open forum. If it was a publication that WotC was making rather than personal reviews, it works a bit better, but turning reviews away due to race, creed, color, nationality, native language, level of language comprehension is BAD.
So, you've got two problems here:
1) Keeping discussions on the front page long enough so that real discussion can develop.
2) Preserving the continuity of ongoing discussions.
Whatever solution you have needs to balance those two goals. I think having the ability to append old discussions to the megathread instead of time-sort them would be ideal, but that's not an option we have. In this case, the product review forum with it's own "first impression" megathread is, I think, a good compromise (which means that no-one will like it :-p). The option of a megathread should help to keep the front page from going spastic, but the fact that it's a review forum would keep many of the (useful) discussions that were previously being merged from ever being merged in the first place.
As for how to determine what ends up in the megathread and what doesn't, I think that needs to be clearly explained in a stickied thread in the forum. Spell out what constitutes a good, fleshed out review, and be clear that any threads that don't meet that standard will be folded into the megathread. This would also make the point that such posts should be posted to the megathread to begin with, which would intrinsically preserve continuity.
This leads to the question of how to define a good fleshed out review. Perhaps that's a discussion we should have now?
I'd say one standard is that the reviewer needs to define some sort of metric--playability, balance, "promotes RPing," or whatever. Alternatively, the review could merit its own space because of comprehensiveness. I also think there should be an originality standard--if the reviewer is addressing the same issues as a previous reviewer, than the poster should have posted in reply to the original thread. Finally, a good review should address "why" as well as "what." The megathread is for things like "I don't like product X because it's too much like WoW." A review could say "I don't like product X because it's too much like WoW for Y reasons, and it's bad that a product is like WoW for Z reasons." Any future discussion of why the product is like WoW (and that's a bad thing) would then go under that review.
One of the advantages of this proposal, IMO, is that it adopts an "innocent until proven guilty" approach. The moderators won't have to do anything until after the post has been made, which should cut down on their workload. Theoretically, all of these posts would still be submitted, and the moderators would have to review both the good and the bad. This way they only have to review the "potentially" bad. Even if 80% of the posts are potentially bad, that's still a 20% reduction in their workload.
Again, this is a compromise position. It's not going to perfectly address every issue, but it should at least be an improvement.
I actually like the idea of an open forum and a VCL who makes a stickied post for each product to be reviewed. The VCL would select only reviews that meet criteria for the stickied thread, and post links to the approved reviews. The criteria must be neutral as to whether it is a favorable or unfavorable review. That would help direct traffic to good reviews, but allow everybody to post whatever they want. Hopefully, the desire to make it into the stickied thread will encourage people to be civil. If not, the VCL will be reporting posts for deletion.
This is a good compromise to my system as the sticky post would provide an index of reviews. The sticky post compiler (the VCL) could also use the post to post an average rating for each product.
That way all the "I think 4e blows chunks" reviews that are bound to pop up don't necessarily get linked in the index, but the reviewer does get to have his/her say. I would recommend, however, that the standards for getting into the index be clearly delineated - thread title in a desired format, opinions (positive or negative) backed up with reasons, and so on.
Front page means little. That is a problem it seems to be around here. The only reason something is or is not on the front page is the settings chosen by the user.
You can have up to 50 posts displayed per page, and 50 threads displayed per page, and you can sort them in various ways.
That is why those functions exist to allow users to choose how the view the forums. All other things should happen naturally.
It is as with any forum that you have to read a thread and choose to post or not. If you don't wish to discuss something in the thread, you are not required to since you opened it, you can just go back to the subforum and choose another thread hoping to find one you with to contribute to, or if none suit your needs, then you may create your own.
I actually like the idea of an open forum and a VCL who makes a stickied post for each product to be reviewed. The VCL would select only reviews that meet criteria for the stickied thread, and post links to the approved reviews. The criteria must be neutral as to whether it is a favorable or unfavorable review. That would help direct traffic to good reviews, but allow everybody to post whatever they want. Hopefully, the desire to make it into the stickied thread will encourage people to be civil. If not, the VCL will be reporting posts for deletion.
While I think this a good approach, there is little need for this except in the case of thread age, as each thread has a voting system intact, and the VCL/FL would need to be willing to do the work to make the sticky thread. That would be at the discretion of the VCL/FL to do so, but don't think it should be required of them.
The question then is how would the sticky thread be organized, and would it prevent from others posting to it without too much trouble with CS having to lock/unlock it for changes to be made by the VCL?
That keeps extraneous posts out and helps keep the thread focused on its purpose of highlighting reviews that show products from both sides of the review.
Front page means little.
Well, it means little to you. To me, and to many other people that posted on CM while the Edition Wars were in full swing over on the General boards, it means quite a bit. Perhaps I'm not explaining my concern clearly enough, but the point is that a large number of (non-productive) threads is annoying and makes things difficult for a fair number of users. You may not agree with us, but nevertheless our experience is important too.
Basically, anyone could make a post or a reply, but it wouldn't show up until it was approved by either CrazyMonkey or Mudbunny (or other VCLs, as CrazyMonkey designates). While this style of moderation wouldn't work well for active forum discussions due to the delay of hours, or even days between time of post and time of approval, it seems well suited for something like a review, which isn't time sensitive. It would also serve to help highlight good quality reviews while not approving stuff that isn't a healthy contribution.
And who decides what's of value? The VCLs assigned to that forum. They are unpaid community volunteers who know our community well and do their best with an inherently imperfect system in our inherently imperfect world.
If it doesn't work out how we want after a 4 or 5 weeks, we can always change it. But I'm curious to see what quality stuff we get when people can make themselves heard in that environment.
If VCLs can edit locked threads -- this one is easy. Create the thread, lock it, and then the VCL maintains it going forward.
If VCLs cannot edit locked threads -- In this scenario, a choice has to be made. On one hand, you can keep the thread open with instructions that others not post, and ask CS to delete posts when they're made; or you can keep the thread locked and coordinate with CS whenever an edit needs to take place. (or, a third alternative, of course, is to leave it open and leave any posts there)
I've gone with the third alternative before, and it works fine. The CoF FAQ I maintain, for example, has some posts after the "informational" posts. That's fine, it doesn't really harm anything.
The decision, though, would be up to the VCL, in consultation with CM and CS. At least in my opinion.
I would like to give the moderated version a shot, if only as an experiement. I believe that form of discussion may have some value in some circumstances and since our policy now allows us to utilize VCLs at that level it's worth exploring.
I strongly recommend C-Monk (or whomever) include a sticky thread with "standards" that posters can use as a set of guidelines for determining what will (or will not) get posted.
I strongly recommend C-Monk (or whomever) include a sticky thread with "standards" that posters can use as a set of guidelines for determining what will (or will not) get posted.
I will work with C-Monk to get something like that written up.
After a few people have them, others often want to here what they are like before going to even look t them.
Take for example the Character Sheet thread in the Future Releases forum that reviews that product.
Many people are appalled at what is there, and thankful for that "review" of the contents of the product.
Had the review not been live when it was, some people may have bought the product with little chance to being able to see the review and have already bought a product that they feel was not worth their money.
Not buying a bad product and wasting money, makes you feel a bit better than wasting your money on something and feeling like you got shafted by the quality afterwards.
So for newly released products the reviews are time sensitive.
When taking about older products that have been out for a while, then they are less time sensitive.
Afterall, a review really is a little bit of a buyers guide built into it and a look at the item that may otherwise be sealed without having to spend your own money on it.
So they need to be live within time for people to be able to make their decision about buying the product within the review rather than after they have already bought it and the review no longer has meaning or can provide any help in making a choice whether or not to buy the product within the review.
I'm on the boards throughout the day most days of the week and Mudbunny and any Forum Guides I may be able to appoint for this task will likely be able to cover the times that I'm not.
I can't make a solid guarantee of exact turnaround time, but it would be exceedingly unlikely to be more than 24 hours in most circumstances.
Scary!
;)
So, there it is, for full disclosure. I'm interested in helping to get things kicked off, but I understand if my appearance of bias prevents it.
I'm curious about this also. Given that WotC is refocusing on their own brands with the demise of Gleemax, if a review forum were to go forward, I would imagine it would have a D&D focus.
Which is what it should have been all along.
And each other gaming forum that remains should STILL have their own review forum for those product lines.
It sounds like a nice idea, but just how many people actually use product reviews to help them gauge if they want to purchase a product?
Then we get to the issue of certain people's reviews that get a following of fans or haters. Do we really need another area that just devolves down to flames, snide remarks, angst, etc. ?
If the desire is that great, wouldn't it be better to have a group of people post their reviews on another website(plenty of free sites out there) and link it into their sigs?
Which is what it should have been all along.
I disagree. Strongly. I'll go back to the "off topic" forum example again. That's another case where there should be one forum that's linked everywhere, rather than a bunch of separate forums.
There's no need for a D&D Review, Star Wars RPG Reviews, Axis and Allies Minis Reviews, Magic: the Gathering Reviews, and so on. There's also probably not enough individual traffic for most of those.
One forum, linked to each community, really seems like the best way to go. At least in my opinion.
I disagree. Strongly. I'll go back to the "off topic" forum example again. That's another case where there should be one forum that's linked everywhere, rather than a bunch of separate forums.
There's no need for a D&D Review, Star Wars RPG Reviews, Axis and Allies Minis Reviews, Magic: the Gathering Reviews, and so on. There's also probably not enough individual traffic for most of those.
One forum, linked to each community, really seems like the best way to go. At least in my opinion.
Why would i give 2
's about a MtG product review? I don't come here for that garbage. I come here to read about and discuss D&D.I know many a forum goer is also like this.
You go to a specific forum to find information on that specific subject.
That is the very reason the silly "role"-based character building forums exist so as not to force people to have to wade through crap they don't care about, and allow them to find things related to a specific subject.
The subject isn't all WotC products. For myself at least the only one I would care about would be D&D. Star Wars: RPG can catch on fire and burn out of existence for all I care and it would not affect me at all.
From a VCL perspective, a single review forum would also be much easier to moderate/manage, thus mitigating the potential for flame wars and such.
That is fine for modearators to have an easier job, but the forums are not jsut hee for moderation. they must be usable by the users.....
Why would i give 2The review forum, assuming it gets off the ground, will have the subject lines tagged so that people will be able to easily see what the general topic will be and not worry about contaminating their brain be reading something they aren't interested in.
Personally, I enjoy reading all types of reviews. Depending on the review, it may encourage me to try a new game.You go to a specific forum to find information on that specific subject.
And you go to a reviews forum for reviews.
Why would i give 2
The review forum, assuming it gets off the ground, will have the subject lines tagged so that people will be able to easily see what the general topic will be and not worry about contaminating their brain be reading something they aren't interested in.
Personally, I enjoy reading all types of reviews. Depending on the review, it may encourage me to try a new game.
And you go to a reviews forum for reviews.
Reviews aren't some gossip column rag magazine that everyone reads just to pass the time. Again I would have no reason to be bothered by some stupid reviews of product I don't care about.
Reviews are a good source of information about a product without buying it.
Tagged titles would be fine if they could be enforced, but that would require an additional layer to the forum code to include a section in the form to force a product line choice with dropdown box or radio buttons to allow to choose on and then rewrite all the templates for scripts that display pages to show this dropdown box choice JUST for the reviews forum.
Plus you have to add a new field to every row in the table holding the thread titles.
With Gleemax just dying and the techs only now getting a chance to devote proper time to fixing the forums, fixing the database structure from where it broke, and other things...now is NOT the time to add a bunch of other code as Gleemax is removed to return to a stable forum.
This is the reason Gleemax failed because people don't want some mushed up collection of everything. They want independent areas for specific things.
I would love to see wrecan's numbers for EVERY forum to compare the actual number of topics and posts in the gleemax subform with the independent subject forums and see exactly which is higher.
I would bet a dollar to a donut that Randy has those numbers and they were a factor in the choice to cancel Gleemax. Because people weren't using Gleemax. Not using the blogs, not using the forums. Because gamers don't care about anything but their chosen gamer when they go online.
If you have to sort through 400 other games to find information on one on a website...odds are you will find another website dedicated to providing you with more concise information in a more readily available area.
For example, if, after a month of activity the overall review forum numbers look like this:
D&D Product Reviews: 30
Star Wars Product Reviews: 25
Magic Product Reviews: 15
Maplestory Product Reviews: 2
Other Product Reviews: 0
Then I would say that Star Wars is eligible for it's own review forum. I'd keep D&D in the overall review forum because D&D is the game line that is going to generate the most reviews.
Therein lies my problem with the idea. Having to wade through useless garbage to find decent reviews about something I am interested in. Might as well use Google to find them easier.
I know I've been turned on to games I wouldn't otherwise have considered by reading reviews.
One person's useless is another person's "Ooh, that looks interesting, I might have to try that someday."
I know I've been turned on to games I wouldn't otherwise have considered by reading reviews.
That is why they have junk on mini-aisles at cash registered for impulse buyers.
I have never just bought something because it was there. Needed a lighter a few times and went straight to a checkout queue because I knew lighters were there.
It is fine for a non-company oriented site dedicated to gaming. Again a reason Gleemax fell was due to one company trying to rule the gaming world, and people didn't want everything all mixed up.
I might be interested in reading other things, but I now how to search for them when I am ready rather than being forced to wade through them when I am already looking for something specific.
I wouldn't read a bunch of reviews on random stuff for a leisure activity.
All it would take is a locked forum in the main area that has shodowed links to the other forums.
Reviews:
D&D RPG
Star Wars
etc
Then someone could choose where they want to go and have the option of knowing the others exist, but not being forced to read through everything when they want a specific topic.
and a locked shadow forum takes up very little space but give a LOT of organization and usefullness.
You would then have your specific forums for discussions about things, and a palce where people can find other things also listed, but not having them all in one place can keep some people more focused.
Lets use your previous example.
Forums default is 25 threads displayed per page.
A new user comes along and stumbles into this review forum.
They find the first review and just read it.
It is about Maple Story. They want to know if more reviews about Maple Story exist. Well they don't see it on the first page and with 30 D&D and 25 Star Wars reviews per week another 2 week old review about Maple Story could be 3 pages back.
This doesn't help them any bit find what they are now interested in. This would frustrate some and just make them say "forget it". Either they lose interest in the product, or maybe even the forums because they have to waste their time with poor organization.
While the bigger product lines having their own forums would leave more room for the smaller focused products and make them more visible, so anyone going into there would then be able to see a more diverse range of reviews.
Those wanting D&D and Star Wars would then be able to bypass the other clutter and get right to what they want.
Time is money, so if someone has to waste time finding information on the product, then that is in a way a part of the cost for it, and may determine somewhat how much if any they would be willing to spend on it if they found ANY review that made them interested in the product.
Again, Google would be better than any conglomerate forum for all product reviews as someone could more easily find what they are looking for.
Google is worth a lot of money now for a reason. They know what people want and how to give it to them. Granted they also pad the search with paying advertisers, but you can still get pretty easily the information you need within the first range/page of links display from Google.
Lets use your previous example.
Forums default is 25 threads displayed per page.
A new user comes along and stumbles into this review forum.
They find the first review and just read it.
It is about Maple Story. They want to know if more reviews about Maple Story exist. Well they don't see it on the first page and with 30 D&D and 25 Star Wars reviews per week another 2 week old review about Maple Story could be 3 pages back.
This doesn't help them any bit find what they are now interested in. This would frustrate some and just make them say "forget it". Either they lose interest in the product, or maybe even the forums because they have to waste their time with poor organization.
Or, they look at one of the stickied posts that has an index of all of the reviews, organized by several methods, including subject.
Do you have any other reason for wanting them all separated other than "I don't want to see reviews of stuff I am not interested in??" Because right now, that seems to be your only problem.
Based on the actions of CM so far, they will start off with a single reviews forum. If there is a topic that gets a lot more reviews, and has enough volume that it would be worth moving into its own forum, they will make that decision after seeing that volume of posts regularly for a period of several weeks/months.
I would hope vBuleltin isn't screwed up and the reports actually give links to threads, so when a moderator has to perform their duties they are taken directly to the correct place without having to hunt it down.
Having to moderate several new forums then would be no different than now. So the extra work come from those maintaining the stickies, and the users trying to read the reviews.
The only real things i am hearing for pro on the matter is a centralized location for all reviews, which i see is a con, and difficulty in moderating which as I illustrated, the forums should handle no different no matter how many subforums there are.
So what is wrong with the two sides: "all in one place" vs "everything in its own place".
That is what the crux of the current discussion is. I am trying to be swayed to accept that a centralized forum would be better, while on the other hand I am trying to get others to understand why I feel that to be the incorrect approach.
This exchange of ideas is what a discussion is, mud. ;)
How much work will it be to check every new thread and add it to a sticky, versus mods just moderating various forums?
To be honest, there is an insignificant amount of difference in the work. In either case, a stickied Table of Contents would be done.
The only real things i am hearing for pro on the matter is a centralized location for all reviews, which i see is a con, and difficulty in moderating which as I illustrated, the forums should handle no different no matter how many subforums there are.
There are a couple of other pros that have been mentioned. The first is that by putting all of the reviews in the same forum (with tags), people will read reviews of things outside of their normal interests. They may find another game that they are interested in that way. The other is that by having all of the threads in the same forum, the traffic in the forum will be consistently higher, and thus more reviews, and responses to reviews, will be generated.
If there is a review topic that consistently has 25+ threads a day, then it may be active enough to split out into its own forum. However, it is better to start the forums small, all in the same place, and then expand if required.
Reviews aren't some gossip column rag magazine that everyone reads just to pass the time. Again I would have no reason to be bothered by some stupid reviews of product I don't care about.
Reviews are a good source of information about a product without buying it.
People are different, man. I've read reviews just to read something before.
Tagged titles would be fine if they could be enforced, but that would require an additional layer to the forum code to include a section in the form to force a product line choice with dropdown box or radio buttons to allow to choose on and then rewrite all the templates for scripts that display pages to show this dropdown box choice JUST for the reviews forum.
Plus you have to add a new field to every row in the table holding the thread titles.
You absolutely wouldn't need a new field in the database (though you would need coding changes). The code can easily be written in such a way that the value entered from the tag is made part of the title when you store the post to the database. For example, if I selected the tag "D&D 4e" and I entered the title "My thoughts on the Monster Manual" then the programming could very easily make the title "[D&D 4e] My thoughts on the Monster Manual".
This is the reason Gleemax failed because people don't want some mushed up collection of everything. They want independent areas for specific things.
Gleemax failed for a whole lot of reasons. It was ugly; it was a stupid name; it was riddled with bugs; it was counter-intuitive; WotC insisted on writing code rather than buying code; did I mention it was ugly?
The concept behind Gleemax was (in my opinion) a very, very good one. Just because you want to only discuss one game doesn't mean most people do. The concept of having user-driven content for lots of different games all on one site was a wonderful idea. I saddened that it didn't work.
I would hope vBuleltin isn't screwed up and the reports actually give links to threads, so when a moderator has to perform their duties they are taken directly to the correct place without having to hunt it down.
Yes, that's how reports from vBulletin to mods works. They get a link to the post the user reported. I think the report also gives a link to the first post of the thread, but it's been a while since I've seen a report and can't remember for sure.
Or, they look at one of the stickied posts that has an index of all of the reviews, organized by several methods, including subject.
In addition to the indexes that will be built by the VCL and/or forum leads, a user has two other options.
1) After he reads that super-cool review of Maple Story, he can do something wild and crazy, and use the search feature of the system to search for Maple Story in the review forum.
2) He can do something even wilder and crazier and alter the way threads sort on the review forum, simply by clicking the words "Thread Title." If the VCL and/or forum leads have done a decent job of staying on top of things, many threads will be self-tagged. Sort the threads by thread title rather than most recent post date, and you now have all the reviews for similar products lumped together.
2) He can do something even wilder and crazier and alter the way threads sort on the review forum, simply by clicking the words "Thread Title." If the VCL and/or forum leads have done a decent job of staying on top of things, many threads will be self-tagged. Sort the threads by thread title rather than most recent post date, and you now have all the reviews for similar products lumped together.
I am working on a draft "Submission guidelines" for the review forum, and onwe of my requirements is that the subject line will start with a tag for the system.
[D&D 4E]
[D&D 3.5]
[D&D 3.0]
[PRPG]
[M:tG]
[MTGO]
etc...
Any that make it through without the tag will simply get the tag added by a WizO. It is well within what VCLs are allowed to ask for. I have done it a number of times in the Dragon/Dungeon Article discussions when soemone has started a thread in the general forums before I could start one in the Article forums.
Any that make it through without the tag will simply get the tag added by a WizO.
You could start by sending a request to the poster, so they can fix it themselves.
And why are you working on that draft instead of C-Monk? Isn't this being dropped in his forum? ;)
And and... what's "PRPG"?
You could start by sending a request to the poster, so they can fix it themselves.
Yeah. The WizO request would be the last resort.
And why are you working on that draft instead of C-Monk? Isn't this being dropped in his forum? ;)
I am his back-up on that. Plus, with C-monk going to GenCon, his brain is probably addled and scattered.
And and... what's "PRPG"?
Pathfinder RPG
I am his back-up on that. Plus, with C-monk going to GenCon, his brain is probably addled and scattered.
How is that different? :D
Pathfinder RPG
I'd recommend "Pathfinder" as the tag, though. My very first thought for PRPG was Paranoia.
How is that different? :D
Now he has an excuse...
I'd recommend "Pathfinder" as the tag, though. My very first thought for PRPG was Paranoia.
If we could get smilies in the subject lines, I would pick
for Paranoia, which is a game that I have always wanted to play, but never had a chance to.Thanks, Mudbunny, for working up the initial guidelines. You are correct that I'm a little swamped (and addled...and scattered...as usual ;)) at the moment and will be until after GenCon.
People are different, man. I've read reviews just to read something before.
Which is why I saw you can offer the best of both worlds without forcing one onto the other by having a list of where to find reviews, then allow for them to have specific areas for the major populace.....
You absolutely wouldn't need a new field in the database (though you would need coding changes). The code can easily be written in such a way that the value entered from the tag is made part of the title when you store the post to the database. For example, if I selected the tag "D&D 4e" and I entered the title "My thoughts on the Monster Manual" then the programming could very easily make the title "[D&D 4e] My thoughts on the Monster Manual".
I think most on independent fields for better searching. you could search "tags" for D&D and be quicker than searching for part of a string to contain D&D and end up with non-reviews....
Gleemax failed for a whole lot of reasons. It was ugly; it was a stupid name; it was riddled with bugs; it was counter-intuitive; WotC insisted on writing code rather than buying code; did I mention it was ugly?
Not to mention is was just plain ugly, other than that I think we agree about how bad Gleemax was.
The concept behind Gleemax was (in my opinion) a very, very good one. Just because you want to only discuss one game doesn't mean most people do. The concept of having user-driven content for lots of different games all on one site was a wonderful idea. I saddened that it didn't work.
It is a great concept, but one left for another thread to discuss, but in closing I will just state a single game company should NOT try uniting all gamers from all other companies under its roof. It hasn't worked for ANY business in the past 20 years, so why did WotC think they could pull it off with such a niche industry? You need an independent source to do this sort of thing and make it work rather than trying to generate revnue based off of other companies products.....
I am working on a draft "Submission guidelines" for the review forum, and onwe of my requirements is that the subject line will start with a tag for the system.
[D&D 4E]
[D&D 3.5]
[D&D 3.0]
[PRPG]
[M:tG]
[MTGO]
etc...
Any that make it through without the tag will simply get the tag added by a WizO. It is well within what VCLs are allowed to ask for. I have done it a number of times in the Dragon/Dungeon Article discussions when soemone has started a thread in the general forums before I could start one in the Article forums.
A big question is will the gleemax forums be leaving with the rest of that garbage, or will there be a place to house MTGO and D&D side by side?
And people please stop with the brackets.
D&D-
MTGO-
save the bytes!
if 40k people access the forum at once and all this every single excess byte adds up not to mention the retail space on the page. You don't need to use brackets to append something to the beginning of the title.
Another reason why I would prefer a single field...you could have the title appened with brackets or another way, but like the very forums are numbered not named within the table to denote which goes where and easily rename any forum at any time, you could have a code to denote the "tag" that the forms use and the output script decodes to replace it with the proper "tag".
1=D&D
2=MtG
etc...
Then each new category for review added would be appended to the end of the table list of codes and just spit out the correct tag on forms, and give the correct output without having to edit each title by hand by the VCLs, or some other time consuming method such as visually counting new threads per day, when the forum software can do the work for you.
A big question is will the gleemax forums be leaving with the rest of that garbage, or will there be a place to house MTGO and D&D side by side?
The discussion for that is going on here. It looks like the GleeMax section of the forums is going away, as well as a lot of the forums there.
And people please stop with the brackets.
Why?? Personally, I find using square brackets for the tags makes it immediately obvious and draws the eye towards the tag.
Another reason why I would prefer a single field...you could have the title appened with brackets or another way, but like the very forums are numbered not named within the table to denote which goes where and easily rename any forum at any time, you could have a code to denote the "tag" that the forms use and the output script decodes to replace it with the proper "tag".
1=D&D
2=MtG
etc...
Then each new category for review added would be appended to the end of the table list of codes and just spit out the correct tag on forms, and give the correct output without having to edit each title by hand by the VCLs, or some other time consuming method such as visually counting new threads per day, when the forum software can do the work for you.
You are assuming that the current forum software can do that. If it can, great. Otherwise, it would require a hack into the forum software. With the forums being unstable enough as it is, I am not sure that hacking more into it is a good idea.
You are assuming that the current forum software can do that. If it can, great. Otherwise, it would require a hack into the forum software. With the forums being unstable enough as it is, I am not sure that hacking more into it is a good idea.
The software can do it, but not "out of the box." For example, EN World has tags on several forums and they run the vBulletin. However, I don't know if they acquired the tags by applying a patch from the company or by hacking the code.
Regardless, though, I think the only changes to the forum code in the foreseeable future should be to remove customizations made for Gleemax, such as the login process redirecting to gleemax.com. Adding the ability to tag a thread is a great idea; but it's time will have to wait until the forum is more stable.
[x][/x] denotes BBCode elements to be converted into HTML formatting.
It is just better coding to not use command related things in standard strings. The less you have to convert around or prevent from acting like a command, then the less security risks you have.
Out of the box, no as was just said, but the PHP and SQL connections can easily do those things with slight alterations to the database and forums code if the license allows WotC to do so for vBulletin.
I am not really sure what you get for your $100 per year from vBulletin, but I prefer the similar but fully open source PHPBB that allows you to alter anything so long as credit is given for hacks, and the PHPBB Group tag is at the bottom of every page.
Like the vBulletin © notice should be on these pages, but WotC saw fit to remove them
and replace it with their own copyright making it look like they wrote the forums software....I agree not to make new additions, but to excise anything related to gleemax to return to a more stable forums as people claim they were before gleemax existed.
We have side tracked a bit from our product reviews, but you answered a bit question when you said that the gleemax forums were also shutting down and the other forums should be remaining.