Adventure Gamers - Forums

For example, I rated a game “4.5 stars”, and it says the rating will go up after a moderator reviews it. Mods are going to need to review every single star rating? The system will never get off the ground fast at that rate. Plus, what is there to review about that? I’d hope any rating would be acceptable.

Also noticed the same “need to be reviewed by a moderator” thing for comments on reviews. Most sites don’t do this, I mean you have to be registered to post comments anyway. Pretty odd system.

Sure, it’s one thing to have a moderator review everything if you feel the need, but I’d say everything should go up immediately first, and the mod could take it down later if its terrible/offensive. That’s how most sites operate.

User ratings without review were always meant to be posted automatically.  We just hadn’t gotten around to it.  (Had a few other important things on our plate of late.)

As for comment moderation, the fact that other sites don’t have it is probably the reason why so many of them are full of foul-mouthed, hostile bickering and nastiness.  We’ve got a very good crowd here at AG, so we’d never be that bad, but a little moderation helps ensure it.  It’s not like anyone’s opinion is so crucial that waiting a couple hours is going to matter. 

I disagree on the latter part personally, but it is cool to hear you plan to fix the review ratings bit.

Wow, not only the pre-moderation is irritating, but it is also used for censoring critical comments. Didn’t expect that from AG.

Fien - 06 July 2012 03:43 PM

Yes, I’ve known for quite a while they do that. I was shocked when one of my comments (no nastiness, no bickering, no cursing) was refused without any explanation. That’s what I call the Gameboomer mentality, they do that over there all the time.

That’s weird. It reminds me of our TV: “We need a constructive discussion, so we’ll discuss it without opposition”

We allow lots of critical posts, including your latest absurd trolling comment about Walking Dead, Arial Type.  If comments are deleted, there’s always a good reason. 

EDIT: While we’re on the topic, I’ll take a moment to remind people that article comments are not the forums.  There’s a reason we have both.  Comments are not the place to expound your own personal agendas repeatedly, debate all the other people who comment, or carry on conversations.  Comments are an extension of the article, and are meant to offer additional insight into the topic at hand (either the article itself or the related game).  We couldn’t care less if it’s praiseworthy or critical, so long as it’s on point, sensible, and generally respectful of the site. 

Fortunately, that’s not a problem for most people.  For some it certainly seems to be.

You guys own and operate the site and you can do with comments and any other sorts of content as you please. My only complaint is that when your comment gets rejected, you never get told why your comment has been rejected - or even that it is in fact rejected. After awhile you just take notice that it never made it. It would be nice to at the very least get an auto-generated response via PM or get an actual response on why comments are rejected.

EDIT: That way it’s also easier to learn from your mistakes. I comment on a lot of sites, all with different sets of rules, so it’s not easy to always be sure what’s okay and what’s not.

That would be a very helpful feature, Kasper.  I’d prefer that users know as well, including the reason.  Hopefully we can implement something like that in future, but even if it’s possible, it’d be a long “to do” list at the moment.

Jackal - 06 July 2012 08:54 PM

We allow lots of critical posts, including your latest absurd trolling comment about Walking Dead, Arial Type.  If comments are deleted, there’s always a good reason.

Absurd trolling is abusing or misleading people, and I just commented on the high marks and on Gamespot being a bad source for ag info. It worries me, since AG has always been a reliable site, but it is getting too generous lately to mediocre games. It may be a bit offtopic, but there was nothing nasty in it. Most articles have under 10 comments - ten times less than many other gaming sites. What’s the need in distilling even those few?

Then again, I agree, it’s your site, you can do whatever you want with it. And I will stay away from comments

Fien - 06 July 2012 09:51 PM

Really? That’s exactly what AG allowed in the comments on the Kickstarter article. Endless bickering between two posters attacking the other person’s preferred KS project and defending their own. To the point where one party told their opponent to leave the discussion because their English wasn’t up to it.

Obviously there’s going to be a little more leeway with an op ed on a subject people are passionate about, but you’re correct, that thread did get out of hand.  I’d have tried to curtail it earlier if I’d been around more at the time.  In the end, though, the deciding criterion was whether each post contributed something to the discussion, regardless of whether it was addressed to someone else or not.

Arial Type - 06 July 2012 10:22 PM

Absurd trolling is abusing or misleading people

Have you played the game, or were you just slagging the game AND our review based on your opinion of what makes a good adventure, suggesting that our informed assessment isn’t worth as much as your pre-conceived bias?  If it’s not your idea of a good game, that’s fine.  An utter inability to respect that others have perfectly valid opinions you don’t share is quite another. Slagging another game series and website for no apparent reason was just another random insult added to injury.

In any case, that comment was allowed.  Your follow-up opinion of Gamespot was utterly irrelevant to anything, and that’s why it was deleted.  Apparently that’s your idea of a “critical comment”. 

Most articles have under 10 comments - ten times less than many other gaming sites. What’s the need in distilling even those few?

You mean mainstream sites, some of which have no forums?  Anyway, there’s no worse argument than pointing to other websites as an example.  I’d rather remove comments altogether than have AG turn into what I’ve seen of many, many other sites.  It’s about quality over quantity.  And if the quality isn’t there, it’s not worth having.

Jackal - 06 July 2012 11:56 PM

Have you played the game, or were you just slagging the game AND our review based on your opinion of what makes a good adventure, suggesting that our informed assessment isn’t worth as much as your pre-conceived bias?  If it’s not your idea of a good game, that’s fine.  An utter inability to respect that others have perfectly valid opinions you don’t share is quite another. Slagging another game series and website for no apparent reason was just another random insult added to injury.

Based on the first 4.5 star episode and my experience with other games. And don’t tell me about “inability to respect” I’ve been reviewing games on mainstream sites for years and never got insulted by “overrating” comments, as well as never told people to stop trolling and stuck their opinions in their arses just because they disagree with site politics.

In any case, that comment was allowed.  Your follow-up opinion of Gamespot was utterly irrelevant to anything, and that’s why it was deleted.  Apparently that’s your idea of a “critical comment”.

Irrelevant? It was an answer to the comment that followed. And it wasn’t all about Gamespot, which is indeed known for inadequate ag scoring.

You mean mainstream sites, some of which have no forums?  Anyway, there’s no worse argument than pointing to other websites as an example.  I’d rather remove comments altogether than have AG turn into what I’ve seen of many, many other sites.  It’s about quality over quantity.  And if the quality isn’t there, it’s not worth having.

Most of those have forums and other options that make site browsing more user-friendly. Even the previous version of AG allowed to see your pre-moderated comments as long as they are not removed. You make things worth just for the sake of clean space.

Lucien21 - 07 July 2012 03:16 AM

Actually The whole Gamespot is hard on AG theory is statistically wrong. I posted a couple of years ago a statistical analysis of it and a few other sites comparing the scores to AG sites and found that they all equalise out to a similar average score.

Well, I didn’t mean low scores. I was talking about their preferences. They often rate games depending on how mainstream they are. For a long time they clearly stated that adventure games are not changing and used it as a con. Today they choose only the most promising and good-looking ones, giving reviews with a nice smile and almost equal scores. I don’t think it’s much better.

Look, we remove maybe 1 out of every 50, 70, 100 posts.  This entire issue is trivial.  Frankly, everywhere there’s moderation, there are a handful of people complaining about it.  And usually it’s the people who most need it who are doing the loudest complaining.  We bust our asses to give you the best site possible, and at some point, if you don’t like it, tough. 

Arial Type - 07 July 2012 02:51 AM

Based on the first 4.5 star episode and my experience with other games. And don’t tell me about “inability to respect” I’ve been reviewing games on mainstream sites for years and never got insulted by “overrating” comments, as well as never told people to stop trolling and stuck their opinions in their arses just because they disagree with site politics.

I posted your comment, didn’t I?  Yes, a fact that you keep conveniently ignoring.  I’m simply telling you after the fact why it was 100% garbage.  Now seriously, stop wasting my time. 

Irrelevant? It was an answer to the comment that followed. And it wasn’t all about Gamespot, which is indeed known for inadequate ag scoring.

Yes it was.  A one or two sentence post entirely about Gamespot.  And no one asked you a question, so it was irrelevant to anyone but you.  It was also completely wrong, but we don’t moderate for correctness. 

They often rate games depending on how mainstream they are.

You mean like the 8 they gave Book of Unwritten Tales, and another to Deponia just last week? If you want to spout nonsense theories that don’t fit the facts on the forums, that’s entirely your prerogative.  But it’s not going to happen in the middle of our review comments, simple as that.