15 replies to this topic

[taikara]

First of all, I would just like to apologize for any dissatisfaction that any of you may have felt with regards to the quality of the updates on the site as of late.

Several points were brought up in the Megamek thread that I think should probably be addressed:

MasterGrazzt said:

I think part of the problem here, and keep in mind that I never called Sino any names or anything like that, but it seems to me that you guys will just put whatever review you get first up without reading it or seeing that is fair and just.

Now I'm not "crying out against the decline of Abandonia" or any ridiculous bs like that, and I really do like the site a lot, but I think it's something you dudes should start paying more attention to.

And for the rest of you who want Sino to be digitally crucified... Shut up. It wasn't his fault, it was something he probably wrote naked before supper, he didn't think it would end up on there, and besides, it's just a review for a game on a website. It's not important. Why don't one of you jerks write a NEW AND WONDERFUL review for the game if you hate it THAT much?

I feel that these are all very astute observations.

Since the unveiling of AR, we have attempted to uphold quality as one of our foremost ideals. There are stringent guidelines in place for what we require from our reviewers, and we clearly have stated that we may reject content that is not up to par.

However, though we may strive for the best possible content, it must be considered that we are a community-driven site. Every single person who contributes time and effort into the site is a volunteer who does it as a labor of love. We love games. Moreover, we love games that are the product of a similar attitude - that is, the love of games, and the desire to distribute them freely, no commercial strings attached.

We all love games, but we have different tastes. We have different skills and abilities, and we all contribute as best as we can, and we do so as a joint effort. I will say it again: AR is a community-driven project.

This means that the members of this community have control over the quality and content of the site. If you do not like adventure games, write reviews for non-adventure titles. If you do not like a review that is on the site, offer to help edit it or add to it, or politely let us know what needs to be fixed, so that we can make it better, while still giving respect to your fellow community member.

Also keep in mind that although we do have standards, we also have heart, and it is unlikely that we will reject a contribution solely because it is not "up to par." We often work with members when we can in order to bring content "up to par," because we have respect for you, and the effort you are putting into the site.

In closing, I think MasterGrazzt is absolutely right. We do need to make a stronger effort to keep an eye on quality - we all do. And we also need to try to fix things rather than simply complain about them.

For now, I welcome any suggestions that any of you have regarding the current quality of the site. Feel free to share your criticisms in this thread, so we have a better idea of how to make AR the best it can possibly be. If there is a problem, we do want to fix it.

[Moogle]

Hmmm, to be honest I don't really download anything from AR or AB, and I haven't visited the site since I went to look how many refreshes it took to get to my banner and before that to register but.
After slightly scanning some of the comments, to be frank, I don't see why the heck you guys decided to upload and use a review you didn't even know who wrote it.

[taikara]

That is an excellent point, and one I don't have a good answer for, unfortunately. Normally, we wouldn't put up an anonymous review, and I believe this issue is a good deal my own fault. We're running a bit low on prepped games at the moment, and I've been away a bit due more nowadays due to school and job responsibilities, and therefore a bit lax.

I didn't prep the game (to be honest, I haven't personally prepped in a long while, but I will remedy that), and unfortunately, briefly looking over the upload, I didn't catch that this game had no reviewer named. It is my responsibility to quality-check, and be certain that we have enough acceptable content ready to go up, and I failed that responsibility in this case.

Again, my apologies to you all.

[DakaSha]

i think "what is happening" is just a normal process. the first couple dozen of reviews were of the "best" most known games.. when you review something like that your going to put more heart into the review.

now that all of the really good games are taken its really hard to get motivated to write a review (a reason i havnt contributed for a long time).

i do think that if one isnt willing to put a little effort into the review that it should just not be written but that would slow down the adding of content.

what i suggest is that reviews be put under more scrutiny like the banner submissions.

i still think the quality of this site rocks though

[taikara]

I think my head would explode if all reviews needed to be scrutinized like banner submissions

But in all seriousness, you are right. Preppers focus mainly on the screens when prepping, and therefore we sometimes tend to overlook the review, especially since it's part of the updater's job to "fill in the blanks" on the info.

I think part of the problem is also that since we don't individually play the games ourselves, it's hard for us to make a "value judgement" on whether the information presented is a fair treatment of the game. In many cases, for all we know, that really may be all there is to it.

And although I think it's unreasonable to ask the crew to play every game they are involved with getting onto the site (as prepper or updater) in order to make a valid judgement on the review's treatment of the game, I have a possible compromise in mind that may help.

The Submission Guidelines, though they are thorough for the entirety of what is required for an update, are not very specific for the requirements of a review itself. I am more than happy set up particular guidelines of what should be included in a review as fair treatment of a game (a Manual of Style, so to speak), by which we can standardize a fair review.

For example, the review guideline could state that reviews must be a minimum of 3 paragraphs, and must cover a brief introduction, gameplay, plot (in the case of a story-driven game), graphics, and sound, and a summary. Following this guideline, we can check the review to make sure all of these criteria are in place.

And just so it is clear, it is not our responsibility to make a value judgement on the quality of the game itself - that is up to the reviewer. If someone disagrees with the opinions given in a a review, it is not the job of the prepper or updater to censor those opinions to reach a "majority consensus" as to the quality of the game (that is why we have the public rating system). If you do happen to disagree with the opinions given in a review, feel free to discuss them in the game's thread. In spectacular cases of disagreement, however, we may put a note in the review that the opinion stated in the review is contested, and to check the game thread for other views.

[A. J. Raffles]

DakaSha, on Sep 10 2006, 12:51 PM, said:

i think "what is happening" is just a normal process. the first couple dozen of reviews were of the "best" most known games.. when you review something like that your going to put more heart into the review.

now that all of the really good games are taken its really hard to get motivated to write a review (a reason i havnt contributed for a long time).

Not all good and well-known games are taken already, though. How about NetHack, for example? It's been on the list for months now...

[DakaSha]

yeah i was exagerating

[MasterGrazzt]

Just read the reviews you guys get, and have SOMEONE on your staff play the game. No, you don't all have to play it for weeks, but there are quite a few of you, and I'm sure somebody has the time to check the game out. All I'm saying is if you're going to run a gaming site, it's a good idea to play the games you're putting up. One person should be assigned that game to decide for themselves if the review meshes.

Please don't throw up the first game and review you have in your inbox because you're running late. I think we'd rather have a nice, thoughtful, fair review than one for an epic  fantasy strategy game that says "ION THIEZ GAYME U DRINK CAT PEE! KEKEKE"

Not to say that everything has been like that but I've noticed a handful of reviews where it is obvious that the writer did it between crankin' sessions. ;-)

[taikara]

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's unreasonable to expect one of us to play every single game we receive a review for. If we did that, we might as well write all the reviews ourselves, and not accept member-submitted reviews.

There are a few of us yes, but each of us already has responsibilities both IRL and to the site - we're volunteers, and we can't be expected to do absolutely everything. Contributors are just as responsible for the content they submit as we are for quality-checking that content.  We dropped the ball in this case, yes, but we also need to trust that our reviewers know what they're talking about.

Imho, what needs to be achieved here is a balance between crew responsibilities and member responsibilities, and I don't feel that means putting even heavier (and more time-consuming) expectations on the crew. We're obviously stretched as it is, or else this sort of thing wouldn't be happening.

Remember, community-driven means that the crew aren't the only ones who "run" the site - we just take on the added responsibility of keeping the site functioning smoothly. Consider that if many of our members find it difficult to submit a review every month or so, we constantly are taking screens to supplement reviews, digging up info for producer & company information, prepping games, editing reviews, conducting interviews, moderating the forum, maintaining the games list, proposing contests, and a myriad of other things.

At this point, I think we mostly need to make our system of quality-checking more efficient and straightforward. Setting up clearer guidelines for review writing will give us us better judgement as to when we need to send it back to the reviewer, and allow him to meet his responsibilities rather than doing it for him.

If that fails, then I will probably consider reorganizing the crew and creating new positions, and possibly promote more members to crew status if necessary.

[greywolf]

Although I know I'm a (relatively) new member on these forums, I'd just like to say that I'm impressed with the maturity level displayed here, and consider it an honor to be part of this community, which is why I'd like to give something back.

Since I already prep my own reviews (with Beef's permission), I don't think it'd be a problem to prep other people's reviews, too. Just for clarification, by prepping, I mean taking screenshots and resizing them to the thumbnail format used here at AR.

If there's any other way I can help, I would love to do so.

[taikara]

That is very kind of you to say, greywolforiginal,  thank you.

I will contact you after all this is sorted out and things are reorganized in order to work something out, if you're still interested (no obligation).

[Potatoe]

In the megamek thread the guy wastelander stated about older versions, since sometimes the prepping tekes so long, or even the writing of the review takes a long time, so I think that the version number should be included in the review. Or the review page. The version that you are reviewing that is.

[DeathDude]

Usually is mentioned in most reviews, or sometimes is best to mention if the game is currently still in development, mention it for example with Super Maryo Chronicles, in that the game is constantly being improved.

[DakaSha]

Potatoe, on Sep 11 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

In the megamek thread the guy wastelander stated about older versions, since sometimes the prepping tekes so long, or even the writing of the review takes a long time, so I think that the version number should be included in the review. Or the review page. The version that you are reviewing that is.

yeah one thing i think must be done is updating some of the reviews.

[Moogle]

Thats a really good point.
I agree.