[Ninth]

Originally Posted by fov

No we couldn't. Having mod capabilities doesn't give you the ability to edit someone else's article.

It's also a lot of work to backtrack and add links if reader reviews go up after a review does... it means the author has to keep an eye on the reader review forum for all eternity. This is especially true of a new release which we (hopefully) will be reviewing before readers have played it. But with a flashback review, it wouldn't be *too* hard for the author to include a link to any existing reader reviews, if they wanted to.

-emily

Well, a mod could e-mail reviews author each time a new user review is made (which is not too often), so that they'll update their review... (hehe, more work for the mods )
And don't Jackal and/or Marek have the ability to edit articles? Or wouldn't it be possible to add a link somewhere outside the article?

[Hendroz]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I'm not questioning Claire's merits as a reviewer here, but it would be good, considering how opinions about this game seem to be pretty polarised, to have the other version.

Sounds like a good idea, but I don't have any experience in reviewing games.

Originally Posted by chapter11studios

That's a pretty good idea. I wonder how easy it would be to automate that so they get tagged to the appropriate game?

It'd be easier if the readers had the opportunity to post their reviews linked to the article, rather than posting them on the forum.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

It'd be easier if the readers had the opportunity to post their reviews linked to the article, rather than posting them on the forum.

Sure would! (And less work for the mods!)

In theory, yes, Jack or Marek or someone else with administrative privileges can go in and add links to reviews. And in theory the mods could watch the reader reviews forum, and email someone with administrative privileges when a reader review is created for which there is also an AG review. All this would just add extra work, though. The only way I actually see it happening -- consistently -- would be if it were automated somehow. And I have no idea what kind of work *that* takes, but something tells me it's not as easy as it sounds either.

It's not a bad idea, and I do think it's something individual authors should keep in mind as they're working on reviews. But I don't think it's as "easy" as it sounds.

-emily

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Yes it would. I'm not questioning Claire's merits as a reviewer here, but it would be good, considering how opinions about this game seem to be pretty polarised, to have the other version.
By the way, don't you think it could be interesting to have links to user reviews in the official reviews?

We're absolutely open to people expressing differing opinions of games. In case there's any confusion (in general; not you, Ninth), my lone objection here was just the implication that a reviewer is deemed unfit to review a game. That is something I take incredibly seriously, for obvious reasons.

Including direct links to feedback is something that has been considered, and will undoubtedly be looked at again. But linking directly to user reviews isn't likely. It's a logistical nightmare. Reviews are one-time articles that no one has the time to "maintain". It's far more than the time spent adding links. We'd still have a degree of editorial responsibility for our links, and that's just something impossibly time-consuming. The easy answer here is to add a disclaimer that we're not responsible for what's said, but that only counts for so much. Any link is essentially an endorsement of something as a valid viewpoint, and there's simply no way for us to monitor and control that. I can't think of any site that doesn't establish some kind of editorial standards about what gets linked.

Anyway, this may sound like just a high-falutin' way of just saying no, but I'll come back to where I started. We DO want to encourage feedback, so saying no to the suggestion is not the same as saying no to the general idea.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The easy answer here is to add a disclaimer that we're not responsible for what's said, but that only counts for so much. Any link is essentially an endorsement of something as a valid viewpoint, and there's simply no way for us to monitor and control that. I can't think of any site that doesn't establish some kind of editorial standards about what gets linked.

Even if you put something like "here's what our reader think about the game"? Or something...

Sorry, dad, I know you said no, but I can't help arguing anyway .

[Jackal]

You, Ninth? I'd never have guessed!

But yes, even with that disclaimer, there'd be an expectation (and quite possibly a legal one, though I'm not sure) that we have a certain degree of control over what our linked content actually says.

Really, there's probably some variation of the idea that could work, which is why I don't want to seem like I'm just dismissing it. I just don't see this exact solution being the right one.

[Hendroz]

I think the Readers Reviews forum section does its job pretty well, the only real problem about it is that forum threads tend to become obsolete when there are no more posts and they're not displayed anymore (perhaps even deleted when they're ages old, but I'm not sure about this).

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by Jackal

But yes, even with that disclaimer, there'd be an expectation (and quite possibly a legal one, though I'm not sure) that we have a certain degree of control over what our linked content actually says.

Actually, of course, AG already *legally* endorses what the reader reviews say by "republishing" them (mindbendingly technical legal term ). Imagine this scenario: Reader-reviewer publishes review of game that violates forum policy five ways from Sunday. ("Hey, all you ____ [nationality-bashing, offensive expletive, random noun]s out there, I'm going to review ___ [old game name here] which you can get from [abandonware website info here]. Of course, you won't WANT to get it, because it [expletive expletive, expletive expletive, expletives, massive expletives.]")*

The mods would certainly need to remove the review for violating forum policy--wouldn't just leave it up. (Er, right?) AG is implicitly endorsing the reviews that ARE up as okay.

But I think that linking to it more prominently would be reasonably understood--whether legally (haven't done any research on this) or simply in terms of general internet etiquette as a further step that effectively says "looky here at our cool AG feature--READER REVIEWS". It would give an extra stamp of approval beyond the tacit acceptance that already exists. I don't think that's either 1) wise or 2) necessary. You can easily find reader reviews on the forum--it has its OWN CATEGORY--and you can search the site from the main page for any mention of a game you're interested in. Glad you share that view, Hendroz, that the thing works pretty well. (BTW, the threads just fall off the screen I think, but don't go away--it took me a long time to figure this out, but I think you can just search for them.)



As for Indiana Jones, the criticism seems a bit unfair. I think of all the times I've disagreed with a review of an album, book, television show, movie, or game . . . and it's just countless. AG's reviews give you LOADS of information--they're long, detailed, and obviously tell you enough about the reviewers own preferences so that you can discount them as necessary--otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate. You can't really ask for anything more. At the end of the day, everyone is going to have an individual opinion of a game. The only thing a reviewer can do is convey as honestly as possible the pros and cons she encountered. Reader reviews should aim for the same level of transparency. Having written reviews for other things, I can tell you it's pretty hard to achieve. Why not take a crack at it and find out?

*Edit: Of course, I'm not suggesting this hypothetical review is necessarily illegal, only that it's against announced site policies. I can think of ones that would be illegal, however. But I won't give anyone any ideas. :eek:

[fov]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

I think the Readers Reviews forum section does its job pretty well, the only real problem about it is that forum threads tend to become obsolete when there are no more posts and they're not displayed anymore (perhaps even deleted when they're ages old, but I'm not sure about this).

No they don't. They just disappear when they pass the cutoff date that your preferences are set to display.

Look at the bottom of any index page - there should be a drop down menu for how old the displayed threads can be. Select to display threads 'from the beginning' and you'll see all the threads in the reader reviews forum.

And threads are never deleted due to age. Everything on this forum should go back as far as Sept 2003, when we moved to this server.

-emily

[Jackal]

Although I was allowing for the possibility that a reader review might actually say something out of line, I was as much referring to the quality of linked material. Presumably links would result in increased participation, and when we start getting flooded with 2 paragraph "reviews", who decides what's valid? Does everything go? Should we link to 7 different personal impressions? Is one submission good enough and not others? The whole thing would require far more infrastructure than we have to handle this. Sites like Gamespot and Amazon can process it, but the first person to say that AG should have the same capabilities of those sites gets a giant



Anyway, suffice to say, we're still thinking of ways to encourage feedback.

[AGA]

Originally Posted by fov

No we couldn't. Having mod capabilities doesn't give you the ability to edit someone else's article.

It's also a lot of work to backtrack and add links if reader reviews go up after a review does... it means the author has to keep an eye on the reader review forum for all eternity. This is especially true of a new release which we (hopefully) will be reviewing before readers have played it. But with a flashback review, it wouldn't be *too* hard for the author to include a link to any existing reader reviews, if they wanted to.

-emily

I SAID "if the system existed". If you were allowed to edit games pages (which all writing staff can do, afaik), the link to the reader review (which you would add in a field in the games page entry) could automatically be generated on the review page, no need to edit the actual review itself

That's why I suggested mods could do it, rather than the article writers themselves, since mods are ever-present on the forums, and would notice a reader review as soon as it was posted

[fov]

Originally Posted by AGA

I SAID "if the system existed". If you were allowed to edit games pages (which all writing staff can do, afaik), the link to the reader review (which you would add in a field in the games page entry) could automatically be generated on the review page, no need to edit the actual review itself

Ahh... see, this is what I was thinking of as automated.

-emily

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Although I was allowing for the possibility that a reader review might actually say something out of line, I was as much referring to the quality of linked material. Presumably links would result in increased participation, and when we start getting flooded with 2 paragraph "reviews", who decides what's valid? Does everything go? Should we link to 7 different personal impressions? Is one submission good enough and not others? The whole thing would require far more infrastructure than we have to handle this. Sites like Gamespot and Amazon can process it, but the first person to say that AG should have the same capabilities of those sites gets a giant



Anyway, suffice to say, we're still thinking of ways to encourage feedback.

Man, you suck, you should have the same capacities as Gamespot and Amazon!!!
Completely off-topic, did you ever consider making forumites grade games, to plovide an alternative informative grade? (and yet another manning approaching...)

[Claire]

Thanks to Jack for his eloquent defence of my reviewing objectivity. I can only add to his comments that in all my reviews I strive to present a fair reflection of the game’s merits, and spend a lot of time considering the final score.

Although there are undoubtedly many fans of LC, I’m sure that even they can appreciate that the game has faults – it isn’t as if I reduced a five star adventure classic to two stars merely on the basis of some sort of all consuming hatred for action elements! Instead, after reasonably considering the flaws in game design, of which the repetitive action sequences form a part, I made my decision, which I stand by.