Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? - Posts: 16929
- Thank you received: 10375
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
AT Database?
- Michael Barnes
-
- Offline
- Mountebank
-
- HYPOCRITE
Less
More
12 Feb 2008 14:03 #2537
by Michael Barnes
Replied by Michael Barnes on topic Re:AT Database?
Ratings are no good here- unless it's totally binary system. Good or bad. One or the other. Either you'd play it or you wouldn't. I don't want us to get involved in the whole "well, I kinda liked it, but this part knocks a point off, and this blah blah blah"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 15:55 #2549
by ubarose
Replied by ubarose on topic Re:AT Database?
Southernman wrote:
This describes a Wiki. We could do this. The biggest issues are:
1. You all would be responsible for creating the content once the framework was set up.
2. Any registered user could update it, so spammers and assholes could trash a page. Wiki's have versioning so you can revert to a prior look. However, you all would have to be the ones to spot it and fix it.
I'll need to think on this a bit and play with some options. Give me a couple of weeks to come up with something.
How about:
Alphabetical Index Page, linked to -> All games starting with that letter page, linked to -> Game Homepage, containing:
basic information. a rating (sucks, OK, great) from registered F:A users. links to any other info on F:A about it (reviews, discussions, photos). any external links.
This describes a Wiki. We could do this. The biggest issues are:
1. You all would be responsible for creating the content once the framework was set up.
2. Any registered user could update it, so spammers and assholes could trash a page. Wiki's have versioning so you can revert to a prior look. However, you all would have to be the ones to spot it and fix it.
I'll need to think on this a bit and play with some options. Give me a couple of weeks to come up with something.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:13 - 12 Feb 2008 16:16 #2553
by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:AT Database?
Given all the anonymous assholish stuff that used to go on with our blog, is there a way to make Wiki editable by only registered users? That would help.
So what do you guys think? Forum based game pages, or a wiki?
Uba, sounds like we could just plug in a Wiki and make it work. But we'd have more control over a forum-based solution.
EDIT: I need to learn to read, Uba answered the first question already.
So what do you guys think? Forum based game pages, or a wiki?
Uba, sounds like we could just plug in a Wiki and make it work. But we'd have more control over a forum-based solution.
EDIT: I need to learn to read, Uba answered the first question already.
Last edit: 12 Feb 2008 16:16 by Ken B..
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:15 - 12 Feb 2008 16:16 #2554
by jur
This is why I'm weary of this thing right now. First of all, because the idea was to only do this site if it would take little effort setting up and maintaining. This is going against that original idea.
Secondly because I want this site to last and I don't think rushing from one time consuming project to another will do much good. Uba's just done a great job on the site. I don't want to claim her time more than necessary. Even if it is a wiki, it will cost time in maintenance, somebody will whine about the colour scheme etc etc
Of course Uba and co are free to make their own decisions, but I'm putting up a warning sign.
Replied by jur on topic Re:AT Database?
ubarose wrote:I'll need to think on this a bit and play with some options. Give me a couple of weeks to come up with something.
This is why I'm weary of this thing right now. First of all, because the idea was to only do this site if it would take little effort setting up and maintaining. This is going against that original idea.
Secondly because I want this site to last and I don't think rushing from one time consuming project to another will do much good. Uba's just done a great job on the site. I don't want to claim her time more than necessary. Even if it is a wiki, it will cost time in maintenance, somebody will whine about the colour scheme etc etc
Of course Uba and co are free to make their own decisions, but I'm putting up a warning sign.
Last edit: 12 Feb 2008 16:16 by jur.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:20 #2556
by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:AT Database?
Well...Uba wouldn't be doing everything alone. She's also pretty amazing at this sort of thing, and if she indicates she's willing to get the ball rolling, I support that 100%. Ditto if it's a no go from any of us.
Right now I'm amazingly proud of how this site is shaping up, how our content is generating conversation, how you guys are providing quality content that goes right up there on the front page with our stuff, how the forums have been hoppin'....things like that feed a desire to make stuff better. We're not talking about endlessly tweaking a website that doesn't need it, but maybe bringing functionality that people actually want that doesn't already exist for us.
Like, seriously...lots of websites are just constantly tweaking and adding shit that no one asks for. Believe me, we're too lazy to ever fall into THAT trap.
Right now I'm amazingly proud of how this site is shaping up, how our content is generating conversation, how you guys are providing quality content that goes right up there on the front page with our stuff, how the forums have been hoppin'....things like that feed a desire to make stuff better. We're not talking about endlessly tweaking a website that doesn't need it, but maybe bringing functionality that people actually want that doesn't already exist for us.
Like, seriously...lots of websites are just constantly tweaking and adding shit that no one asks for. Believe me, we're too lazy to ever fall into THAT trap.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ChristopherMD
-
- Away
- Road Warrior
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5241
- Thank you received: 3796
12 Feb 2008 16:21 #2557
by ChristopherMD
Replied by ChristopherMD on topic Re:AT Database?
Post a single page for each AT game you want to include with whatever information seems worthwhile (including links to reviews offsite). At the bottom of that page have two or three forum links to help keep stuff organized for the future. Player Comments Only and Discuss This Game and maybe one for Rules Questions Only. Also the presentation would be ten times better than BGG since you'd have a nice looking page with all the user crap in the background (i.e. linked) instead of cluttering it and scaring away new people with non-intuitive menu navigation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:29 #2561
by jur
Replied by jur on topic Re:AT Database?
I'm not going to stop you if you insist. On the contrary, I'll happily join in. Just don't get carried away just because somebody says: "he, you should be doing this"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:48 #2563
by Merkles
Replied by Merkles on topic Re:AT Database?
I agree with Jur. Not about whether or not F:AT should have some type of database--but don't just do it b/c somebody suggested it. My previous comments in this thread were merely to help mold a debate if it comes to action.
You don't want to duplicate BGG. I think whatever you pursue along these lines would be more like Consimworld in terms of content and discussions on games (but perhaps less chaotic).
Its the analysis and critique of AT games that makes this site so strong. If this helps--then do it (if you want)
Again, only do things in line with what you wanted to. Ken stated up front he didn't want to--so don't, then.
PS---I'm a techno-idiot---so I have no idea how to modify wikis or anything or if that would be a good idea. From my understanding, though, a wiki is community edited. That said--the glory of this site is that there's many strong views held---I wouldn't want a wiki to force consensus where there is none. Likely, though, I don't grasp how a wiki would work in this situation. (PS--I always feel like an Ewok will pop out at me or something when I mention the word "wiki". Or some type of a tropical drink with an umbrella in it)
You don't want to duplicate BGG. I think whatever you pursue along these lines would be more like Consimworld in terms of content and discussions on games (but perhaps less chaotic).
Its the analysis and critique of AT games that makes this site so strong. If this helps--then do it (if you want)
Again, only do things in line with what you wanted to. Ken stated up front he didn't want to--so don't, then.
PS---I'm a techno-idiot---so I have no idea how to modify wikis or anything or if that would be a good idea. From my understanding, though, a wiki is community edited. That said--the glory of this site is that there's many strong views held---I wouldn't want a wiki to force consensus where there is none. Likely, though, I don't grasp how a wiki would work in this situation. (PS--I always feel like an Ewok will pop out at me or something when I mention the word "wiki". Or some type of a tropical drink with an umbrella in it)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mr Skeletor
-
- Offline
- no gamer cred
-
Less
More
- Posts: 3674
- Thank you received: 166
12 Feb 2008 16:51 #2564
by Mr Skeletor
Replied by Mr Skeletor on topic Re:AT Database?
While I don't like ratings I think a star system could work.
I also think this would only have a chance of working if we go slow - very slow. IE not just rush through adding as many games as possibly but only add a few a week and get those pages right before moving on to the next game.
That's IF we choose to go down this path.
I also think this would only have a chance of working if we go slow - very slow. IE not just rush through adding as many games as possibly but only add a few a week and get those pages right before moving on to the next game.
That's IF we choose to go down this path.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 16:56 #2566
by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:AT Database?
Yeah, I still stand by that--I don't want to be BGG. I don't want to duplicate BGG.
But a forum-based or wiki-based source of information about AT games might be valuable. We're not going to track stats or plays or publishers or any of that junk. I see pages with game names and links to discussions about those games, and that may be similar to BGG in a way, but that's as far as that goes.
I much prefer the comparison to ConsimWorld, at least in terms of how I hope it would play out.
But slow and steady, like Skeletor says. This ain't going up next week, that's for sure. But now that things are seemingly stable and we have regular content, maybe this is something worth looking into.
I don't like the idea that without BGG our site has no context. Steve's right...you almost HAVE to come here by being channeled through BGG. So while we might cut ties in an editorial/attitude sense, we still have this undesired link.
But then again...people who use or site are already die-hard boardgamers. No one is going to happen upon this site while looking for info on that delightful Toy Story Monopoly they saw at Wal-Mart. So in light of "cultural literacy" as it pertains to this hobby, should we assume some familiarity with BGG already?
But a forum-based or wiki-based source of information about AT games might be valuable. We're not going to track stats or plays or publishers or any of that junk. I see pages with game names and links to discussions about those games, and that may be similar to BGG in a way, but that's as far as that goes.
I much prefer the comparison to ConsimWorld, at least in terms of how I hope it would play out.
But slow and steady, like Skeletor says. This ain't going up next week, that's for sure. But now that things are seemingly stable and we have regular content, maybe this is something worth looking into.
I don't like the idea that without BGG our site has no context. Steve's right...you almost HAVE to come here by being channeled through BGG. So while we might cut ties in an editorial/attitude sense, we still have this undesired link.
But then again...people who use or site are already die-hard boardgamers. No one is going to happen upon this site while looking for info on that delightful Toy Story Monopoly they saw at Wal-Mart. So in light of "cultural literacy" as it pertains to this hobby, should we assume some familiarity with BGG already?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 17:28 #2569
by jur
Replied by jur on topic Re:AT Database?
Ken B. wrote:
Ken, look, I'm used to have Barnes make a big fuss about BGG, but I'm surprised that you fall into that trap. It's out there. Most of the people here are on it or have been on it. Nobody knows the term Ameritrash in a boardgaming context unless they've been on BGG (although this will change). Adding information about AT games will draw in a couple of new faces independently, and more so over time if this thing works.
Let's not make a big deal about BGG. We're not the same. The link, in its present form and as far as I'm concerned, is not undesirable. The fact that you are still looking at it as undesirable says more about you than about BGG. It is only a problem as long as *we* treat it as a problem.
Yeah, I still stand by that--I don't want to be BGG. I don't want to duplicate BGG.[snip]
I don't like the idea that without BGG our site has no context. Steve's right...you almost HAVE to come here by being channeled through BGG. So while we might cut ties in an editorial/attitude sense, we still have this undesired link.
But then again...people who use or site are already die-hard boardgamers. No one is going to happen upon this site while looking for info on that delightful Toy Story Monopoly they saw at Wal-Mart. So in light of "cultural literacy" as it pertains to this hobby, should we assume some familiarity with BGG already?
Ken, look, I'm used to have Barnes make a big fuss about BGG, but I'm surprised that you fall into that trap. It's out there. Most of the people here are on it or have been on it. Nobody knows the term Ameritrash in a boardgaming context unless they've been on BGG (although this will change). Adding information about AT games will draw in a couple of new faces independently, and more so over time if this thing works.
Let's not make a big deal about BGG. We're not the same. The link, in its present form and as far as I'm concerned, is not undesirable. The fact that you are still looking at it as undesirable says more about you than about BGG. It is only a problem as long as *we* treat it as a problem.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 17:32 #2571
by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:AT Database?
Alright, "undesirable" is too strong of a word. How about the notion that the site doesn't stand on its own? Is that a negative? Several people would frame that as a negative.
I'm not anti-BGG, so don't take that the wrong way. I was just on there awhile ago researching Britannia.
I'm not anti-BGG, so don't take that the wrong way. I was just on there awhile ago researching Britannia.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mr Skeletor
-
- Offline
- no gamer cred
-
Less
More
- Posts: 3674
- Thank you received: 166
12 Feb 2008 19:29 #2578
by Mr Skeletor
Replied by Mr Skeletor on topic Re:AT Database?
Who gives a shit? I mean really?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 19:39 #2580
by ubarose
Replied by ubarose on topic Re:AT Database?
Ken B. wrote:
Only registered members could create content or edit pages. However, we can't prevent assholes from registering. We can block them after the fact, but we can't do anything to prevent the crap.
Whether you go Wiki or forum depends upon what your objective is. If you just want to discuss games, the forum is the place to do it. That will evolve naturally as people, well, talk about games.
If you want a searchable reference, then a Wiki is the way to go. A Wiki is just a very simple text based database. A page for each game. It automatically creates alpha indexes, like Tom described. A standard format for what ever information you want to include. A place for links. Possibly a discussion/comments area, depending upon what software we go with. Creating and editing pages is pretty intuitive. We have a family Wiki and my 8 year old knows how to create and edit pages, so I'm thinking you bozos could handle it.
RE: BGG. I like BGG. It's incredibly useful. Yes, some of the members are batshit insane, but you get that in every internet community. I don't understand this need to define or not define F:AT in terms of BGG. It wasn't an issue for Gone Gaming, or Yehuda, or any of the other bazillion game bloggers out there. Essentially F:AT is still just a group blog. Or maybe it has grown a bit and is more like an LJ community. The articles are our content, just like they are in every other Blog, or on the gazillion other group blogs that have gone Joomla/Mambo.
Anyway, if we eventually want to add something with game specific info, a Wiki is both easier to implement, and more robust than something forum based.
Given all the anonymous assholish stuff that used to go on with our blog, is there a way to make Wiki editable by only registered users? That would help.
So what do you guys think? Forum based game pages, or a wiki?
Uba, sounds like we could just plug in a Wiki and make it work. But we'd have more control over a forum-based solution.
EDIT: I need to learn to read, Uba answered the first question already.
Only registered members could create content or edit pages. However, we can't prevent assholes from registering. We can block them after the fact, but we can't do anything to prevent the crap.
Whether you go Wiki or forum depends upon what your objective is. If you just want to discuss games, the forum is the place to do it. That will evolve naturally as people, well, talk about games.
If you want a searchable reference, then a Wiki is the way to go. A Wiki is just a very simple text based database. A page for each game. It automatically creates alpha indexes, like Tom described. A standard format for what ever information you want to include. A place for links. Possibly a discussion/comments area, depending upon what software we go with. Creating and editing pages is pretty intuitive. We have a family Wiki and my 8 year old knows how to create and edit pages, so I'm thinking you bozos could handle it.
RE: BGG. I like BGG. It's incredibly useful. Yes, some of the members are batshit insane, but you get that in every internet community. I don't understand this need to define or not define F:AT in terms of BGG. It wasn't an issue for Gone Gaming, or Yehuda, or any of the other bazillion game bloggers out there. Essentially F:AT is still just a group blog. Or maybe it has grown a bit and is more like an LJ community. The articles are our content, just like they are in every other Blog, or on the gazillion other group blogs that have gone Joomla/Mambo.
Anyway, if we eventually want to add something with game specific info, a Wiki is both easier to implement, and more robust than something forum based.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 Feb 2008 23:27 #2595
by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re:AT Database?
Mr Skeletor wrote:
Underneath that gruff exterior is a heart of gold.
Who gives a shit? I mean really?
Underneath that gruff exterior is a heart of gold.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.154 seconds