[Jake]

Though this piece is written for a different audience (beaten down, tired video game journalists and webmasters), I think the general sentiment is valid for other groups... possibly even other groups that I'm known to frequent regularly... could it be...

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...n=media&email=

Found the link in Steve Ince's blog. I don't know if Steve was drawing the same sort of things I was from it (probably not, especially since I was reading it as a games writer), but I hope every adventure developer in the world reads that list, and mentally recontextualizes it to relate to their own jobs. Pretend it's not about games journalists and their readers but instead is about... well, anybody, and their hardcore enthusiasts

Our ultimate goal must be to create a publication that the readers love. Their input is one of the best tools to make sure this goal is achieved. Great publications cater to the gamers themselves as much as possible.

Unfortunately it's much easier for readers to express anger than affection. If a publication does everything adequately, few readers are going to care enough to correspond. On the other hand, when one makes a mistake, steps into a touchy subject or lets its quality slip, the negative feedback will inevitably follow.

It takes content that's truly exceptional to motivate positive feedback.

Knowing this, it's challenging to discover exactly what reader feedback can help a publication improve. If a publication follows only positive feedback, it will never change, improve or adapt to market shifts. If a publication listens only to negative feedback, it will be stuck in an endless loop of meaningless change in a vain attempt to appease the unappeasable.

In truth, almost all input can be useful if taken with the right mindset. Some feedback, however, is typically counter productive and is probably best left unheeded.

1. "I liked things better they way they were."

A new friend of Media Coverage who works at Marvel Comics recently stated his theory that the most vocal readers are the most easily agitated by change. For every great artistic run in his industry, he can quote a list of angry reader complaints on the internet, in industry publications and in the comics themselves. Even the watershed books that today's fans consider masterpieces suffered endless rants when they changed the status quo.

Hardcore videogame enthusiasts aren't much different from any other group of fans. They generally dislike change, no matter how good it is (for example, just watch what happens whenever Nintendo makes the slightest modification to the Zelda franchise.). It's incredibly important to keep this in mind as a publication evolves.

The best publications keep fresh by revamping format, ditching ideas that no longer work and taking chances to innovate whenever possible. However, whenever these changes occur, negative feedback inevitably follows. Those who pay too much attention to this feedback may risk not making the steps necessary to improve their publications.

At some point, one or more courageous enthusiast press publications are going to push the well-worn enthusiast press formats to new heights. They'll certainly brave many negative comments as they drag the industry forward, but those with the thickest skins will move on.

3. "Why can't you be more like Publication X?"

Publication X may be a great publication, it may be the market leader, and it may just be the best-loved publication around - but no matter how hard Publication Y tries, it will never be Publication X.

One of the easiest reader suggestions is to try to be more like another publication, usually a competitor. This is a dangerous trap, especially for a publication that's not in the lead spot. Trying to catch an opponent through mimicry is a fruitless venture.

Letters pointing to competitors are especially dangerous when they snake their way up the corporate ladder. Nothing elicits fear in an editorial team like an executive holding a comparison letter and demanding changes to make Publication Y look, feel and read more like Publication X.

Very few magazines (none off the top of this columnist's head) have ever succeeded by copying another... no matter how great the original. That's not going to change -- no matter how often the readers tell us it will.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Jake

Found the link in Steve Ince's blog. I don't know if Steve was drawing the same sort of things I was from it (probably not, especially since I was reading it as a games writer),

Probably not then.

[LauraMac]

If a publication listens only to negative feedback, it will be stuck in an endless loop of meaningless change in a vain attempt to appease the unappeasable.

yes yes YES YES!! Change publication to developer and you win the cigar!!

sorry - touched a nerve there.

[Ninth]

Yes, it's all true. Feedback is a powerful tool, but a dangerous one too.

[squarejawhero]

... and also responsible for oft' turning good movies into crap ones too.

Mr Smoozles rocks, Steve.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Mr Smoozles rocks, Steve.

Thanks, that's good of you to say.

See, that's what the world needs - more positive feedback.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Thanks, that's good of you to say.

See, that's what the world needs - more positive feedback.

Your avatar is awesome, Steve.

Oh wait, that's Mr Smoozles, right? Well, in any case, he rocks.

[Steve Ince]

Thanks Ninth.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Is that av in flat 2D?!!

[Steve Ince]

As opposed to non-flat 2D?

[Jackal]

Aw, darn, I thought the "5 times" were going to be: morning, afternoon, evening, overnight, and twice on Sundays.

I don't think it takes exceptional content to earn positive feedback, though (Steve's great avatar notwithstanding ). I've seen tons of gushing feedback for the worst possible turds, but it simply means "you said something I agree with" rather than be a real indicator of quality.

If all he meant by "positive feedback" was genuinely constructive criticism, then yeah, that's definitely rare.

[squarejawhero]

Mr Smoozles is omnidimensional.