Forums > Suggestions > Make texts optionals in game creation
DarkDante (6008) on 5/12/2015 9:11 AM · Permalink · Report
Hi all, as there are a lot of non English speakers volunteers here, I think that would help in the creation of new games to make optional the game description.
There are a pair of new games addition that I abandoned for that as it takes me a lot of time to write something long in English and not always have that free time. In addition, I think that this is the easiest contribution for an English speaker so, if you promote more the "most wanted" link and add a "description missing" option, games without description will have it added quickly.
Patrick Bregger (299646) on 5/12/2015 3:01 PM · Permalink · Report
There are more than enough game databases with huge lists of titles without content, no need to add to that. The most distinguishing factor of MobyGames compared to other sites is the guaranteed description. This would be disastrous.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 5/13/2015 6:14 AM · Permalink · Report
Yup, indeed. Remove our descriptions and we are just one of the many game-documenting websites out there.
Zorch (4828) on 10/24/2015 12:42 PM · Permalink · Report
personally I don't care about descriptions. I hardly ever read them. I have several games I could add, but I've never played them due to days just being 24h :) Collector's Curse, I guess. But I do have cover scans of those. So, maybe make it optional in this way: when adding a new game, it requires either a text description or a cover scan (front+back), or both? Back covers usually have a short description what the game is about. Sure, there may be a handful exceptions.
CalaisianMindthief (8172) on 10/25/2015 4:37 AM · Permalink · Report
The majority of games today are digitally distributed games, they have no interesting covers...
Игги Друге (46653) on 5/12/2015 11:34 PM · Permalink · Report
It's not that I don't see the problem here (my native language is not English either, and I hesitated for a long while before writing a description), since removing that requirement would greatly boost the number of added games (albeit at a skeletal level), but it would also create a class society where some games are worth more than others.
One thing I think might be a core value of MG is that a mahjongg game from 1983 released only in Japan for an obscure portable platform is deemed as basically as important to the database (and, by extension, to the history of games) as Assassin's Creed 5. If the description wasn't there, it would be for the mahjongg game, and one game would seem to be prioritised over the other.
That being said, I think there are many gains to be made from having a system for accepting partial game entries. They need not even be displayed before being completed, but just adding release dates and titles for a game, and it being put on hold until someone contributes a description, has something going for it.
Rola (8483) on 5/13/2015 6:38 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--]there are many gains to be made from having a system for accepting partial game entries. They need not even be displayed before being completed, but just adding release dates and titles for a game, and it being put on hold until someone contributes a description, has something going for it. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] This was once proposed as a solution of an integrated "missing game list" (as opposed to listing titles in a separate spreadsheet as we do now, which requires manual synchronization).
Rwolf (22790) on 5/12/2015 11:44 PM · Permalink · Report
Would parsing a native text through something like Google Translate be useful? The text would be somewhat garbled, but maybe passable, and possibly correctable by someone more familiar with English that the original contributor, who's text could be another version?
We also have advertisements and magazine reviews in non-english text, so why not descriptions too?
chirinea (47496) on 5/12/2015 11:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rwolf wrote--]We also have advertisements and magazine reviews in non-english text, so why not descriptions too? [/Q --end Rwolf wrote--]We once had them (look for duplicate descriptions in the forums), but then we didn't anymore. Having an interface translated in other languages is something that has been in our to do list for ages, but I guess it couldn't be implemented with our current system.
I wonder if we couldn't do something like the Steam Translation project does. As everything here is contributed by users, I can imagine people donating their time to translate not only descriptions, but everything in the UI also.
Игги Друге (46653) on 5/12/2015 11:55 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, there are a lot of other databases you can contribute to if you don't want descriptions. If all you want is a release date and a cover image, you can contribute to thelegacy.de.
DarkDante (6008) on 5/15/2015 8:04 AM · Permalink · Report
I never said that I don´t want descriptions or that all I want is release date and cover image. I suggest to do descriptions optional in the add new game wizard. This is compatible with your idea of collaborative submissions that, by the way, I really like it.
Patrick Bregger (299646) on 5/16/2015 5:47 AM · Permalink · Report
None. Just look at the game entries of 1999.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 5/17/2015 6:25 AM · Permalink · Report
Ouch, how could THAT get through?
I submitted a description for Exploding Lips, can any approver see it anywhere? I could only add it via Contribute + Description, no link to a revision.
Guys, this has been discussed too many times before: allowing "temporary" entries without descriptions will result in very permanent entries without descriptions, period. Unless we want to be like every other database out there, having pseudo-philosophical essays covering the breast size of a Final Fantasy VII character on one hand and pitiful stub entries for anything old and / or obscure on the other, we can't allow ourselves get sloppy with descriptions.
CalaisianMindthief (8172) on 5/17/2015 6:46 AM · Permalink · Report
Well it's from 1999.
Rola (8483) on 5/17/2015 10:40 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cor 13 wrote--]...having pseudo-philosophical essays...[/Q --end Cor 13 wrote--] I found to my dismay that they somehow have the time to go into extreme detail on those game wikis, yet they can't write mere 5 sentences for MobyGames...
Does Wikia give them a cut from ad income?
Indra was here (20756) on 5/21/2015 5:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
For now and the infinite future, this unfortunately is a big no-no. It's been widely discussed by approvers since the beginning of this site for the reasons already mentioned above, primarily due to most of us being allergic to skeletal entries or entries using publisher ad-blurbs.
Fixing descriptions is also exhausting, as most of us know, we constantly fight on what should/should not be included in game descriptions.
The quickest approach is to use google translate. Sometimes an approver may help, others may not.
Other alternatives that may have been discussed and may require coding, thus presently abandoned:
- Multi-user contributions for a new game: a game may be added by one user and added by other users before it enters the system.
- Allowing non-English contributions (currently only available for ad blurbs and ratings).
Besides, Americans suck in English grammar (see wikipedia for further info). :p
Harmony♡ (21851) on 6/24/2015 3:59 PM · Permalink · Report
What about an English/grammar help thread? People would still have to write the descriptions for any entries they wanted to add, but if they were really concerned about how good their English writing was, they could post what they had in the thread for more proficient speakers to proofread.
Indra was here (20756) on 6/24/2015 7:08 PM · Permalink · Report
You could, but grammar isn't exactly the most interesting topic around. Especially since English is the exception to the rule language, where grammar rules have about as much consistency as a psychotic liar. That and not really having an absolute authority on English grammar (subject to country by country), due to the British colonizing half the planet back in the day. :p
If all else fails, it usually is better to refer to the Queen's English via Oxford grammar rules rather than American English. Best explained by an English comic with a joke [paraphrasing]: 'Gasoline? Gas? Only Americans would call a liquid, a gas.' :p
Harmony♡ (21851) on 6/24/2015 8:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Pff, I'm a native speaker and there are still plenty of things that completely mess me up.
I figure a proofreading thread could at least help with things like sentence structure, consistent tenses, general flow, etc. Even if it doesn't result in a grammatically perfect entry, it can still help ensure the writer's ideas are being communicated clearly. imo, there's few things more frustrating than seeing an informative page that I just can't follow because it looks like it came straight from Google Translate.
Adzuken (836) on 6/25/2015 12:51 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra is stressed wrote--]If all else fails, it usually is better to refer to the Queen's English via Oxford grammar rules rather than American English. [/Q --end Indra is stressed wrote--] Does this mean I can go through and drop Oxford commas on all the descriptions?
Actually, I'd have to wonder if such a thread could exist without it quickly devolving into arguments about grammar rules.
Indra was here (20756) on 6/25/2015 6:46 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Adzuken wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra is stressed wrote--][1] If all else fails, it usually is better to refer to the Queen's English via Oxford grammar rules rather than American English.
[2] Actually, I'd have to wonder if such a thread could exist without it quickly devolving into arguments about grammar rules. [/Q2 --end Indra is stressed wrote--] Does this mean I can go through and drop Oxford commas on all the descriptions? [/Q --end Adzuken wrote--] [1] Actually, if were to use Oxford as a point of reference, we'd continuously be using the Oxford comma. :p At least its use does make sense. I didn't use it before. There's topic on that issue in the approver forums.
[2] It definitely will.
ZeTomes (36265) on 8/18/2015 3:46 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I had the same question a few days ago and I think the solution is very easy:
Imagine there are temporary descriptions, and that doesn't mean they're sloppy, it means they allow new entrances of games to be made except they weren't or will not necessarily be "written" by the same person who submitted them. These temporary descriptions are quotes from magazines, newspapers, properly corroborated and validated, until a "handmade" original description overlaps them.
Neither there's an obstacle for a new entrance, neither there's plagiarism, neither the quality standards of Mobygames get low, neither there are skeletons of games, neither there are people deserting because they got tired of not being allowed to participate.
The person who submits a new game who can't write a description by whatever reasons simply has to make a librarian home work searching for credible sources who include valid descriptions of games.
I think it's simple as that, like an entrance of a game does not necessarily have to have a cover or a screenshot included, I think the same applies not for a non existent description but for a "hand made" description.
Cavalary (11445) on 8/18/2015 11:09 AM · Permalink · Report
-
Quoted descriptions or marketing stuff, are specifically forbidden.
-
As a look at older submissions, when the standards were looser, tells you, "temporary" ones tend to never get replaced.
I'd still go for some sort of collaborative work here, sort of implementing the bounty board in the submission pipeline, somebody adds as much as they can, "bounty" shows up for the remaining required info, until all is filled properly. But, as with everything that requires a serious coding overhaul, not expecting that anytime soon.
ZeTomes (36265) on 8/18/2015 12:14 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I admit I hadn't pondered about new (contemporary) sources, I was thinking about defunct literature where the marketing concept would be considered obsolete. Like an archaeological wok. Also I was being not general about the type of computers, I was only thinking about 8 bit computers or also defunct computers. But as you said and you are right, one has to take in consideration the marketing stuff.
One of the things I think might be very problematic, is that making imperative to have a description in a submission of a new game, many games might be lost or forgotten in the process, either because the submitters get tired, or because the memory of the game is lost. Imagine World of Spectrum, the undoubtedly best Spectrum database gets down because the creator who is now a father, doesn't have more free time to take care of it, ultimately abandoning it. A hypothetical question when a strong "memory" database is lost, except in the memory of certain members... Do you happen to know Imagine's Schizoids? Or the Portuguese Paradise Café?
I'm apologetic that this question is more important than the process of submitting. I agree with your idea of having if not at least, a list of new added games already validated by approvers, but not accessible as database except for members for adding descriptions. That would be a easy formula I think.
DarkDante (6008) on 10/2/2015 10:49 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]2. As a look at older submissions, when the standards were looser, tells you, "temporary" ones tend to never get replaced. [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--] But games are in the database, maybe with good screenshots (not commercials), trivias and release info. Do you want a description? Search a forum thread in Google.
When I use Mobygames, I usually look for screenshots, cover art and release info. Never description and I´m not sure if a personal description text will be ever useful to me. I put it at the same level of the ad blurb. I maintain my opinion that is better to have a game entry without description but some data than no game entry at all. By the way, is more probable that a description will be sent than a bad description will be edited.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/2/2015 12:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I agree with that and also think Ad blurbs or anything related to original literature is perfectly enough and in many cases is much more accurate: Transcriptions of the manuals or something related to the game's literature.
For an entry to be accepted having an ad blurb would will be just enough I believe. Descriptions would be secondary for that acceptance to be made. I it would be much more easier for both sides adding the fact that this formula wouldn't take any rigour to the submission of a game itself, by the contrary, it would give much more sense of documentation and accuracy to it.Also, reviews could inherit the properties of the present concept of description. Allowing reviews to be more accurate although with a personal interpretative touch.
I already made a poll, but aborted it. I think it's time to make a new one.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/2/2015 12:46 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I think that even more important than that (one of the reasons I chose to be here contributing) is the accuracy of things and the impassioned hard work of everyone priming for rigour and documentation - for the sake of VideoGaming Art and History. That I think is the composition of Moby's heart. Not discrediting descriptions because they are very important and give a personal taste to Moby (reviews also do) but not that much to the point of becoming fundamental for the acceptance of a new entry.
As my observation goes, descriptions and reviews (users) are very close in concept because both are personal one being more straight forward and the other more prone to prose and personal expression. The first is not that necessary when games have their own original released information. That information is much more valuable for me in historical terms: to understand how publicity works, to understand the passion deposited on those games, how radical they were at that time, and to understand the companies own perspective of themselves and theirs about the consumer. I think this is much more important and valuable, to document how a game described itself on a certain period of time.
For example, Jawz, obviously used the movie title to promote the game, even the cover suggested that with a big menacing Shark on it. The consumer would thought the game to have and incredible similar stressful tone as the movie did. Wrong... Only 30 something years after, I discovered that that school of minuscule fishes swimming on the screen was indeed composed of sharks (??)! I never imagined those ridiculous fishes to be sharks, honestly. This to say that even if a original description of a game is biased by the company, that does not mean it loses its self value or its quality.
Rola (8483) on 10/2/2015 4:27 PM · Permalink · Report
Ad blurbs are not only bloated propaganda, they are often wrong/misleading. "Experience a grand adventure" may fool you that the game belongs to "adventure" genre - it usually isn't true. "Fantastic 3D graphics" were often bitmaps shown in fixed isometric projection.
^^ oh and our descriptions should not be personal!
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/2/2015 6:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
That's why commas exist at the first place! ^^<
So that people understand that what they are reading came from somewhere and it's not an absolute correct version. Anyway this is not a store (I hope it's not) and people aren't coming here necessarily to buy games after.
The propaganda stuff is historical, imagine History without Proto-historians?? Or the 2nd World War II without propaganda? Between us... (imagine Star Wars without the infamous Special Christmas)
Ok, I'll give you the merit of having descriptions, but not clumsy ones as we can see all over the place, and not with such a burden of being indispensable for the validation of a submission. It's not practical to demand such from people that aren't native English speakers, or simply don't know how to write or have problems doing that, or the act of writing takes such an immense portion of time that simply it will kill the submitters willingness. It's not affordable to dismiss so many potentially valuable submissions just because of a non perfect description. In that case the minimal for the validation of a submission should be the official literature. No doubt it factually exists and it is exempt of everything except the way it was written by official sources at the fist place.
Sciere (930484) on 10/2/2015 7:02 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
None of the descriptions on file are personal or subjective. If they are (within reasonable consideration), they should be edited. A game entry without a description is like data without context. Lots of pretty numbers, but no one to interpret them. Most of the mistakes in incoming entries is just assuming that game entries have similar or identical names, so they are the same game. Tell that to Terok Nor who is on a lifelong quest. Who is going to explain that Rogue Galaxy is not quite Rogue Galaxy, or that Tomb Raider is quite, but not quite Tomb Raider, or why Bejeweled Live+ is the follow-up to Bejeweled Live, but not quite Bejeweled Live, or why Madden NFL 06 is a bit like Madden NFL 06, but not really Madden NFL 06 and worlds apart from Madden NFL 06? If you need other sites to point that out, assuming they even take an interest in that if it's not a triple A title, we're doing it wrong. It's one of MobyGames' unique selling points, because other sites are not paying for what is sufficient through being a mouth piece for publishers' ad blurbs.
I just rejected a well-intended additional platform you submitted for a game entry, but where the description makes clear it is not the same.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/3/2015 2:26 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Perhaps it's my limited English or my poor expression that causes such bad interpretations, but I never said descriptions were to be dispensable.
What I am trying to underscore here, specifically mentioning past videogame history, is that having so many non English speakers potentially valuable contributors, voluntarily and willingly sharing their personal stuff (covers, media, passion) it's not fair to vehemently reject their submissions just because they have flaws on their descriptions. The paradigm of assuming a perfect description is essential on the act of approving a new entry, in my not at all humble opinion but a frank one, has as consequence the effect of repelling the willingness of many valuable people that may have many valuable things to share. Not to mention that those things could be lost in time, from generation to generation. As I told previously, not discrediting descriptions, but people and what they share are more important than them.
I agree, descriptions could become a very important tool for documentation as an exempt way of telling videogame's history, and they surely give a special touch to the site for which I'm totally apologist, but they aren't the only available data for one's interpretation of a game and when we mention history we mention past not present. And propaganda or marketing are both susceptible to "oxidation" for which they loose properties in the way as time goes by.
There are magazine reviews, user's reviews, documentation, screenshots, youtube videos, internet by itself, tons of available sources for one to clarify himself about something. The internet paradigm tell us one thing: there isn't a single site where you can clarify yourself about everything. And propaganda or whatever we may call the phenomenon of extrapolating things, as I illustrated previously, is part of our History since the beginnings. Past propaganda is history, documentation, part of Historical research, not a thing to blindly believe in it, instead inclusive material to contextualize the time it was made. Collateral information.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/3/2015 2:32 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Of course there are more reliable sources for certain specialities as video-gaming, like Moby, World of Spectrum, Internet Archive, etc, but all of them are fallible, either we like it or not. That's not by accident I chose to participate in here... I have been around MobyGames since 1999, not as submitter but as a user, and even with the turmoils Moby has been through I always deposited trust in here. But I'm getting away of my point.
Yes, I already had a chit chat with Terok and can you wonder by the way, how many time I have spent just with this text for example? 2 hours. And it isn't finished yet. I already told this to him, I already shouted this everywhere, but generally speaking it seems this is faced as an affront or taboo, or an attack when in fact it's precisely the opposite.
I perfectly understand your point of view but one as to balance things. If descriptions are so vitally important why their "currency" is so mediocre? The current state of the system point is another example of a paradigm that should also be reviewed. There's a demand for perfection on one side, there's voluntarism and a frankly mediocre reward for that demand on the other... something is somehow unbalanced, isn't it?
When people are doing their best that by itself should be more important than a perfect description that's my point. Specially because the same people are willingly doing voluntarism, many don't speak English as their native language and this is not a corporation (I hope) therefore what is indispensable are not the descriptions but insetad taking into account people's opinions and limitations because this is a "communitarian" work, or not?
And you are right, it was my mistake, and I will do many many more not because I want to but because I'm imperfect and I'm progressively learning and therefore doing my best.
Cheers
Rola (8483) on 10/3/2015 5:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Nowhere did I say that we shouldn't record ad-blurbs (we even plan to include press ads someday). What I did say is that there are no substitutes for our descriptions. Part of their virtue is that we try to remove all (commercial) hype or (gamers') hate, also we try to use consistent categorization where the marketing loves to create new confusing buzz-words.
It's true descriptions yield too few points, but even if you got 100pts for each, where can you ahem "cash" them? By the way, how many points does Wikipedia give for all my meticulous tracking of source material?
There will never be "true" justice compensating you for your time/work on any similar project (not just MobyGames). Consider this: one user documents currently popular game with all information readily available, second user documents a rare forgotten game from 1979 which takes him days in hunting old sources etc. Should the second guy get extra points?
ZeTomes, instead of this academic debates, what we really need to improve this site:
1) a skilled web programmer(s) who would improve existing outdated code, enhancing frontend & backend usability (less time wasted); also adding new features which would expand site functionality (quite a few ideas I've proposed to the site owners)
2) new helpful users, who would like to devote their free time to expanding of our database
At least with #2 you can help. I can tell you which users here I've personally invited to join.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/4/2015 1:56 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Greetings Rola, I question:
Isn't this a forum where users debate ideas? Perhaps this is not the right categorization...
Those "academic debates" were meant to discuss an important thing and a paradigm that in my view (not exclusively), and this is common sense by the way, has to be reviewed. I'll try not to be academic because as I stated and I would appreciate this to be considered, on each text I wrote neither its subject is taken lightly and for each one at least half an hour is spent (this one already took 3/2 + 1/2 hour reviewing).
A - MobyGames information is composed by the voluntary work of many people from every corner of the World.
B - English is not the only language present in the word.
C - Not every non-native English Speaker can fluently express himself in English.
D - There are other linguistic obstacles besides the expression in English.
E - There are potentially many non-native English speakers that want to contribute by submitting new entries of games.
F - If the acceptance of a new submission depends on a flawless description, certainly the willingness to contribute of many non native English speakers is put in the toilet and flushed away because his entry was rejected (when I say reject, I mean the never-ending process of being sent away, another face of the "official" term for rejection), not to mention that valuable information could also being flushed in the process.
G - Not forgetting that many native English speakers either don't have to necessarily be gifted on literary matters or could also have many difficulties (of many aspects) in writing.
H - The process of approving takes even more time (because there are already a limited number of approvers, taking into account the tons of material they constantly lead with), multiplying the usual amount for the number of times the approval of a game is turned back because the description has enough flaws.
I - If Moby is composed by voluntary work certainly It has to account for these kind of problems. Unless it is composed by a few that dictate things despite other's opinions.
J - The Adburbs could be a solution for the cases on which descriptions weren't perfect - they would be enough. Please read again what I wrote about marketing.
With points you earn stimulus to continue sharing. Moby is not perfect neither its approvers are. There are many who lack the abilities to communicate properly with a submitter. The points at least are meant to compensate that disturbing paradox of sharing and being treated as a bad employer. Of course there are many others which go against this paradigm and try to create a positive relation with the submitter in which you as far as I could tell are also included.
So why don't you abide of all of your points if they don't mean that much to you?... and as for as there is a human system there's the possibility to improve its respective Justice system. The System point just by existing it can be improved.
The deduction: if MobyGames wants to be congruent with itself, concerning it is composed by a multitude of multi-cultured participations, it has to change this paradigm of exclusivity concerning descriptions as a visceral aspect to the acceptance of a submission, and not be closed to pertinent subjects like this one.
Let's make a poll, why not?
Rola (8483) on 10/4/2015 7:10 PM · Permalink · Report
Descriptions is what makes MobyGames different (I'd say: better) from other video game databases like GameFAQs or UVList, which offer empty lists of titles. If you remove this rule that was the pillar of this site for 15+ years, you'd make MG weaker when compared to its competitors (including Wikipedia).
This site was created by a pair of students from the USA. And English is still holding strong on the Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_used_on_the_Internet
Is it fair? Not. In a perfect world we'd all be communicating in the same language, in a nearly-perfect world this site would have the funds and manpower to provide interface & content in multiple languages, like Wikipedia tries.
How about you find us funds or coders, instead of proposing diminishing of the site's unique advantage?
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/4/2015 10:33 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
You surely have to take a better look at what I wrote, at least spend a tenth of the time it took me to be written and don't underestimate the power of everyone's efforts, you should be proud of what has been done here on Moby, despite descriptions. They deserve the merits and should be considered.
Please, don't jump into easy conclusions about my purposes, that's not nice nor proper coming from an approver, specially when those are biased conclusions.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 10/5/2015 3:23 AM · Permalink · Report
Your points are all solid, yet do not quite apply to this website. I agree with Rola and other approvers that being too lenient with descriptions will result in the demolition of the very concept upon which this site was built.
Honestly, I'm a little bit surprised by the amount of requests to lower (or even eliminate completely) the standards of the site concerning descriptions. Seeing as descriptions are one of those unique things that make MobyGames so different from other websites, I do not quite understand the desire to turn it into yet another one of those countless database with blank entries. It's simply not the way this website has been working for 15+ years.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 10/5/2015 6:23 AM · Permalink · Report
A - MobyGames information is composed by the voluntary work of many people from every corner of the World. B - English is not the only language present in the word. C - Not every non-native English Speaker can fluently express himself in English. D - There are other linguistic obstacles besides the expression in English.
See, each statement is true, just not really applicable in the context of MG. This website is in English and descriptions are one of its cornerstones. Therefore, the ability to write at least a basic description is required.
E - There are potentially many non-native English speakers that want to contribute by submitting new entries of games. F - If the acceptance of a new submission depends on a flawless description, certainly the willingness to contribute of many non native English speakers is put in the toilet and flushed away because his entry was rejected (when I say reject, I mean the never-ending process of being sent away, another face of the "official" term for rejection), not to mention that valuable information could also being flushed in the process. G - Not forgetting that many native English speakers either don't have to necessarily be gifted on literary matters or could also have many difficulties (of many aspects) in writing.
Well, these points do come across as a slight exaggeration. Surely no approver has ever demanded a "flawless" description (whatever that means). Also, describing the story and the gameplay of a game in a few sentences certainly does not require the submitter to be gifted in literary matters.
I think it all depends on priorities. In other words, people who do not like writing descriptions simply do not like writing descriptions, period. The level of their English and their ability to put thoughts into words does not always matter. I started in 2001 and back then my descriptions were awful; yet I loved writing descriptions and I gradually improved.
Why can't we just work on things we like working on without calling for reforms that undermine the quality of the site? For example, I don't like adding credits - I find the system too complex, the process too time-consuming. So I rarely contribute credits. There are other people who like doing that. Those who don't like writing descriptions can still do plenty of work on existing entries.
H - The process of approving takes even more time (because there are already a limited number of approvers, taking into account the tons of material they constantly lead with), multiplying the usual amount for the number of times the approval of a game is turned back because the description has enough flaws.
Approving process is painful indeed, but that's the only way to ensure the quality of the site. Again, it's all about personal preferences. For example, I don't care for release dates. So I used to be sloppy and just submitted unverified dates from GameFAQs or whatever for my new game entries. They were WIPed back to me regularly. So I had to find obscure Japanese databases where I had to hunt for exact release dates. Complaining about having to do this research and demanding it to be removed as a requirement for release date verification would be equivalent to your proposal to have entries without descriptions - yet I'd never think of making such requests because I understand this is needed to maintain the site's quality.
I - If Moby is composed by voluntary work certainly It has to account for these kind of problems. Unless it is composed by a few that dictate things despite other's opinions.
MG is composed mostly out of people who share a certain vision. This vision includes, above all, the desire to see a different kind of site - one that is bent on quality and precision rather than just offering empty lists of games like every other site out there. Everyone are welcome to contribute, but suggestions that seek to destroy that core philosophy of the site will be, understandably, met with opposition.
If I may make a comparison: working for MobyGames and at the same time demanding from it to give up description requirements would be tantamount to working in Vatican and asking everyone there to renounce Catholicism. It is not a question of good or bad ideologies - rather, the fact is that MG follows this particular ideology, which transcends everything else.
J - The Adburbs could be a solution for the cases on which descriptions weren't perfect - they would be enough. Please read again what I wrote about marketing.
Oh no, they really wouldn't be enough. We preserve Ad Blurbs for their historical value. As descriptions, they have no value whatsoever.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 10/6/2015 7:48 AM · Permalink · Report
Umm... I referred to each one of your points. There's nothing else I can add :)
Patrick Bregger (299646) on 10/6/2015 3:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
When using the threaded forums view, a bug cuts off long posts. You need to temporarily change the forums view to flat or click on reply (then the whole message is displayed below the text box).
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/6/2015 5:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
...Therefore, the ability to write at least a basic description is required.
- And so I ask you: do my writings (new game entries, forum) fit into that standards?
...Surely no approver has ever demanded a "flawless" description (whatever that means). Also, describing the story and the gameplay of a game in a few sentences certainly does not require the submitter to be gifted in literary matters.
- Yes it happened, at least concerning my own submissions of new ZX Spectrum entries. All of them were systematically sent back. And that attitude is still present since I already have a new one pending. If not by the action of some attentive people those entries of mine would still be getting dust on a limbo zone... 2 months later.
I think it all depends on priorities. In other words, people who do not like writing descriptions simply do not like writing descriptions, period. The level of their English and their ability to put thoughts into words does not always matter. I started in 2001 and back then my descriptions were awful; yet I loved writing descriptions and I gradually improved.
- Simply it's not a question of liking or not, because that's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about difficulties and effort mixed together resulting in "the best one can do". It matters otherwise this process of systematically sending back entries of games because they have grammatical flaws on their descriptions wouldn't simply occur baceuse in fact it happened to me. I expect nothing less of myself to gradually improve, as I don't expect nothing less from an approver to be also a guider, pointing beneficently our mistakes. That didn't happen except for the cases referred and on certain circumstances after I persistently asked for answers about this subject. I love writing too, particularly in Portuguese, my native language.
Why can't we just work on things we like working on without calling for reforms that undermine the quality of the site?... ...Those who don't like writing descriptions can still do plenty of work on existing entries.
- Surely you don't want me to believe that this subject hasn't been discussed in the past? I am not calling for reforms, nor I want descriptions to be destroyed, I am simply putting in the table an important matter that is transversal not exclusively to approvers and administrators, but specially to submitters - and for those cases where difficulties are high on the submitters side, the descriptions would become secondary for the acceptance of a new entry, not to let games nude of their descriptions but to attribute the task of properly editing them to skilled approvers. The canonic concept of Moby Descriptions can coexist with particular cases where people lack the tools to correctly write descriptions. I want to do plenty of work, but I want also to add new games, hundreds of new ones for Spectrum, and to be constrained without understanding why, is something that I cannot accept, because I as everyone else here, is volunteering and modesty apart, I think my descriptions aren't that bad to the point of being sent away persistently.
...Complaining about having to do this research and demanding it to be removed as a requirement for release date verification would be equivalent to your proposal to have entries without descriptions
- That's not my point even if I might sound confusing. Please read my writings carefully. This in not about laziness and easiness as every approver I cooperated with can corroborate that fact.
MG is composed mostly out of people who share a certain vision. This vision includes, above all, the desire to see a different kind of site - one that is bent on quality and precision rather than just offering empty lists of games like every other site out there. Everyone are welcome to contribute, but suggestions that seek to destroy that core philosophy of the site will be, understandably, met with opposition.
- Again you're supporting your argumentation and reacting on a basis that I am also not apologist. Why did I choose this place? Do you think it's coincidental? After 16 years using it I thought it was time to contribute (I lacked the tools back then). Hypothetically following your line of thought, If those empty lists would have to exist, they would only exist on the user's editorial domain. Not to the public eye. They would be awaiting for a proper description allowing the game entry for the time being, to be complemented with other information. One of my suggestions is to raise the amount of points earned when creating a valid description. It's not congruent not to do so.
It is not a question of good or bad ideologies - rather, the fact is that MG follows this particular ideology, which transcends everything else.
- I wasn't aware this was canonic. Since I'm an Agnostic fella, my main purpose is to balance things. If... I rephrase, IF, Descriptions are meant to be canonic... (pause + ahem), their respective point retribution has to be evaluated and you guys should invest on a tutorial about how to writing them properly. I'm not kidding. This is a contribution, not an attack... do not confuse both things.
Cheers.
chirinea (47496) on 10/6/2015 5:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start ZeTomes wrote--]- I wasn't aware this was canonic. Since I'm an Agnostic fella, my main purpose is to balance things. If... I rephrase, IF, Descriptions are meant to be canonic... (pause + ahem), their respective point retribution has to be evaluated and you guys should invest on a tutorial about how to writing them properly. [/Q --end ZeTomes wrote--]Well, this is not a tutorial, but surely there are general guidelines.
chirinea (47496) on 10/6/2015 5:24 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start ZeTomes wrote--]So you agree with me about reviewing the system points? [/Q --end ZeTomes wrote--]More points for descriptions is something that many have asked before and I agree with it. I never thought about having variable points for descriptions, though, but yeah, that could work.
Rik Hideto (473492) on 10/6/2015 5:36 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
The fake and gay point system should be abolished, simple as that. You can have 1 billion points and I still think you are a Piece of S.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 10/6/2015 6:26 PM · Permalink · Report
+1 to your latter point, also +1 to abolishing the points system. What it is I'm incrementing 1 to, then, is unclear.
Rik Hideto (473492) on 10/6/2015 6:39 PM · Permalink · Report
You will get it, I can explain.
And "Gay" is just a (cute) word. You never called a friend of yours "boiola"? =)
Cavalary (11445) on 10/6/2015 9:18 PM · Permalink · Report
I still agree that approvers should actually review entries and generally be helpful when the contributor made a honest attempt but didn't quite do it right. In case of descriptions, if they're not subjective, largely make sense and seem factually accurate but are brought down by spelling and grammar, yes, that would imply fixing them. Sure, if the submission is from someone you don't know much about, you send it back asking for it to be fixed, but if you see the person trying but just failing, or after a while if you just see something from someone you have by then learned is making an effort, you just fix it yourself, maybe send it back once to ask if it's all right and you didn't misunderstand something and change the meaning by the "fix", and if it's ok approve it then.
And, of course, still "dreaming" of collaborative entries, where one user can submit some things and another others, and it'll go live once everything is in. But that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future, so we make do...
And points are all right as a concept, can be an incentive for some and make for some reason to celebrate milestones (new since last such news post, Jo ST hit 20k and Trypticon 10k). That the system needs overhauling goes rather without saying though. But more important systems need overhauling, such as genres or even the way game entries are organized. Admittedly, this would be the easier one to do, but also the least useful.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/9/2015 2:05 AM · Permalink · Report
One of the main reasons which made me defend this position, is that information can be lost as it is pointed out for example by Mr. Simon on Moby's most recent welcoming post.
I think ultimately and succinctly, concerning niches, rare or scarce releases or computer antiques the question tuns out to become essentially binary: Should descriptions become secondary for the sake of preservation of information?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 10/9/2015 2:43 AM · Permalink · Report
I think that a description is the metadata glue that takes data and turns it into information. Without a description, all you have is data.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/9/2015 10:51 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
...You like tomato and I like tomahto...
This is a never ending cycling of explanations and re-explanations...
The question is only applicable for specific cases where the loss of information could have a more than reasonable chance of becoming true: like in scarce releases, niches, antiques, 8 bit computers, etc. And even on that cases they wouldn't be null, they would simply had to be edited by approvers skilled with the correct tools to do so.
The status of descriptions exceptionally on those cases becomes secondary for the sake of preservation of information, but the rule is kept the same out of this complex of situations.
This hypothesis not only allows descriptions to be preserved, but also guarantees that information is not lost.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/9/2015 2:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Chirinea, I consider 8bit games (Spectrum included) to belong to that group or rare birds. My odyssey goes as my game entries were submitted, sent back, reviewed again, sent back again, reviewed to the point of exhaustion, submitted once more and sent back again. Adding the fact that I had already explained my difficulties to the person that was sending them back, and the amount of time I spend writing. That and the next demands about HTML and Moby tags. I got pissed by this attitude, made some noisy and spat this question to the table. Only then, when I contacted some administrators and approvers, this was resolved and every submission was approved. Adding the fact that I posted one of those descriptions to understand how bad my descriptions were by having the feedback of others opinions. You personally read that: for the 999th time I was reviewing that description and still making some changes. What you've read were my desperate last shots to amend the last possible tinny bitty of left overs of what in my understanding could be wrong. That description of course wasn't equal to the 1st that was submitted, but it only had slight differences compared to the last one.
After all things got right, I submitted a new entry: and PoW, new minutiae, sent back again! Now it was the bold that had to be taken. Sending back a submission because of these minuscule questions? Because words shouldn't be in bold or italic tags had to be present, no commas at all? Why not amend that and state that observation for future entries? Don't tell me this is a quick process: every time something is sent back an eternity takes place. That new entry was escalated, now lies on a new limbo waiting to be approved. Theoretically you're right but in practical terms you aren't. At least my case demonstrates that and I'm sure this has been happening for a long time. Am I correct here?
Not many people are as much patient as I am and I'm certain many of them had quitted in the past for identical reasons. And for that cases I consider valid what I'm putting on the table: The Loss of information for a description or the lack of stimulation present on the process of "pin-balling" a submission. And if it happened once it could happen many more times. Do "you" want information to be loss because of this type of situations?
Anyway giving 1 point for a description is totally ridicule and in total contrast with what has been said here. It's not congruent with the canonical status of a description. The system point has to imperatively be renewed.
But I'll mark your words and thank you for your advice.
Cavalary (11445) on 10/9/2015 4:15 PM · Permalink · Report
This sounds like a case of a conflict between a submitter and an approver, which I can attest can get very ugly. In which case, let's see if yours will get solved in any way without needing to resort to, er, similar tactics.
But no, descriptions aren't "secondary" if that'd mean it should be acceptable to have game entries without descriptions or with bad descriptions. If it comes down to it, post here like you did with that one and somebody'll likely fix it if necessary.
Rik Hideto (473492) on 10/10/2015 11:28 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start ZeTomes wrote--] Anyway giving 1 point for a description is totally ridicule [/Q --end ZeTomes wrote--]
Giving 1/4 point for a rating is ridiculous too. 3 points for each game rated sounds fair enough... Next week I will start rating games like an animal.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 10/10/2015 1:06 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I still don't see why we can't just tally individual kinds of contributions made (including approver contributions) without having to come up with an overall score.
Cavalary (11445) on 10/10/2015 6:51 PM · Permalink · Report
Assume he means no points, but just what you see on the detailed contributions page. Guess that'd work too, but points still seem like a kind of cool gimmick, and a quick idea (that can also be displayed next to a nick) of how much the person contributed, at least once it gets past a certain value.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/11/2015 7:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I think the system points or some sort of stimulus has to exist. But to exist also has to be fair and proportioned between each type of submission, and also has to take account for a number of directives related to each one of them.
For me the artwork submission is another example of something that should be highly regarded because:
- the owner had the effort to preserve it
- the owner accepted to share it
- the material could become damaged during the process
- it has to be digitalized
- it has to be basically edited
-
Basically to state that when comparing both the submission of a screenshot (2 points) with one of an artcover (3 points) it's easy to notice how disproportioned the system is.
---
(added later)
thanks for clarifying me Cavalry. I was asking about Ricardo's point, but I wasn't also aware of Pseudo's.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 10/12/2015 4:39 AM · Permalink · Report
Agreed. Several suggestion to make the system more fair were made - none of them was implemented.
My personal pet peeve are points awarded for descriptions and reviews. 1 point for a description and maximum 5 for a review are beyond ridiculous.
Cavalary (11445) on 10/12/2015 11:20 AM · Permalink · Report
Would rather avoid points inflation though, just increasing several things significantly. But giving current review points for descriptions, including the scale, so 1-5 depending on quality, and making it 1-10 for reviews, would probably be fairer, though in this case 1 point descriptions and 1-2 point reviews probably shouldn't be approved at all.
And while I argued against separating based on type when it was suggested before, does seem fair to treat electronic covers more like screenshots, so 2 points for those instead of 3. Definitely wouldn't increase it for scanned ones though, seems to me to be a bit much as it is when compared to relevance and proeminence on the game page.
Cavalary (11445) on 10/12/2015 1:19 PM · Permalink · Report
Because until Simon and Reed came along there was nobody to change things, and since then there are several years of "stored" priorities and requests battling for tiny shreds of time to do the actual work... And issues like this may end up quite contentious, people having different opinions, so agreements may be hard to reach.
As for votes, how? On a front page poll, anyone could vote, hardly relevant. Plus, a majority vote may leave plenty unhappy.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/12/2015 3:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
.
.
.
.
.
I understand that.
So there's not in any way the possibility of creating a poll for approvers and submitters? I noticed polls aren't quite well accepted as gatherers of opinions that could somehow be "defying" Moby standards (they are considered an attack instead of an improvement), but instead they usually focus on bubble questions: do you prefer games in pink or in blue? to maintain things perfectly unchanged. But anyway polls are the only available proper tool for raising opinions about diffrent subjects here.
Even a public poll only can be voted by members, people having a profile here not simply users, and they (I think everyone of them except the minority that simply has an account and don't even bother to vote because their presence is null) also contribute independently of the amount of contributions. I think their vote is as valid as everyone's. On my opinion, one way or another, the number of people that are members and averagely participate are superior to the number of members that simply have a profile or participate punctually. I think for the majority (1st group of members) the level of participation is satisfactorily enough to consider their vote a valid one.
But what a heck!... isn't this site supposed to be a cooperation of many, the sum of contributions? Not exclusively a niche of people? And to be JUST and in accordance for the constantly mentioned RIGOUR, and QUALITY and ETC., "communitarian" or voluntary work aren't supposed to be associated with a "democratic" system of gathering opinions and taking them into account? Frankly I don't understand this. I understand Moby games needs stability, I perfectly understand that and because I'm in total agreement with that also, I know that Moby by creating paradoxes of itself destabilizes that same stability which is constantly trying to preserve, weakening it. Congruency is the strength I believe for that stability.
Like I don't digest that what is considered an official title is the American one. Is it in any way (i'm exemplifying English releases) not absurd, except for technical issues I'm not aware about (which I also don't buy because technical issues are a constant ISSUE), to consider an official 1st release title as "alternative title"? That also, in my minuscule and invisible opinion has to change. It really smells like Orwell's 1984, being true or false, that's the 1st impression one gets. I mean, one who is logical of course and who wants things to be accurate.
Rik Hideto (473492) on 10/12/2015 5:27 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
All I can say is... The Future is Bright.
And the proof of this is that tonight I'm going to eat:
http://www.newworld.co.nz/media/6441210/chineseroastpork.jpg
Vegetarians will hate me but what the heck... I like meat, you know?
Rik Hideto (473492) on 10/13/2015 9:41 AM · Permalink · Report
Lil' potato a murro, not my thing. Bacalhau only à Zé do Pipo.
Cavalary (11445) on 10/12/2015 6:16 PM · Permalink · Report
There could be discussions on the approvers-only forum, as there often are, but no non-approvers there, we just learn of the result.
Front page polls are front page polls, like say those on GameFAQs, just with a tiny fraction of the votes even if they run for 2 weeks instead of 1 day. And they can be voted on by non-users too.
People can have a profile here and be simply users, or just to rate games for example. Don't know how many have accounts but 0 points but there are 25771 with at least 1 point (or at least a quarter-point, actually). 9975 of them have NO MORE than that 1 point. Just 1430 have at least 100. Only 359 at least 1000.
The US title thing comes from the fact that it's an US-based English-language site. Open to the world, but that doesn't change what it is. Does cause a few oddities, which may need to be discussed on a case by case basis, but putting in launch title in developer's country regardless of language as main title would be a complete mess, no way.
... we need to snap this back to the left, not keep replying to the last.
Unicorn Lynx (181780) on 10/13/2015 6:46 AM · Permalink · Report
But what a heck!... isn't this site supposed to be a cooperation of many, the sum of contributions? Not exclusively a niche of people? And to be JUST and in accordance for the constantly mentioned RIGOUR, and QUALITY and ETC., "communitarian" or voluntary work aren't supposed to be associated with a "democratic" system of gathering opinions and taking them into account?
But the majority is unable to determine what rigor and quality are. Not here, not anywhere else. Any ideology, anywhere, is concocted by a "niche of people", as you put it. This website was created by a few individuals promoting a certain concept, not through global voting or a spontaneous outburst of folk creativity.
It seems to me that you are confusing two different things: the open, accessible, voluntary nature of MobyGames and its ideological basis. It is "democratic" in that anyone can contribute anything; but it is not "democratic" in the sense that the majority determines what it is. The opinions of approvers and veteran or prolific contributors naturally have much more weight than the opinions of the many people around here who have created accounts only to submit their developer bios.
Like I don't digest that what is considered an official title is the American one.
This is a somewhat puzzling complaint. Any criterion for choosing the official title is flawed, not just this one. Going by the first release means populating the database with loads of Japanese titles - are you sure people would react favorably to seeing all their beloved Resident Evils marked as Biohazards? Nobody here thinks that going for the US title is the perfect way - but it makes sense insofar that in most cases, the US titles are at least understood elsewhere in the world.
ZeTomes (36265) on 10/26/2015 3:50 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
But the majority is unable to determine what rigor and quality are. Not here, not anywhere else. Any ideology, anywhere, is concocted by a "niche of people", as you put it. This website was created by a few individuals promoting a certain concept, not through global voting or a spontaneous outburst of folk creativity.
That's a pretty bold statement full of dogmatic assertions. Do you speak for yourself or in the name of the administration of this site? More than 100 people here which had already contributed a lot are approvers or submitters and follow the criteria of quality and rigour. Do you think their opinions aren't valid? Do you think the gathering of their opinions and the selection of their respective prominent voice isn't necessary? Don't you think that when a certain quantity of experience of submitting / approving is acquired then it becomes the path to achieve the merit to have a voice? Do you think that a reasonable experience of the same process is equal to a spontaneous outburst of folk creativity?
It seems to me that you are confusing two different things: the open, accessible, voluntary nature of MobyGames and its ideological basis. It is "democratic" in that anyone can contribute anything; but it is not "democratic" in the sense that the majority determines what it is. The opinions of approvers and veteran or prolific contributors naturally have much more weight than the opinions of the many people around here who have created accounts only to submit their developer bios.
So imagine the votes were only accessible to people that already had contributed to this site with more than, let's say 10.000 points. Would there be a voting session in that case? But of course I corroborate with the idea of giving more weight to the opinions of people that are prolific contributors, but what does it really means, to be a "prolific contributor" in measurable terms?
What's the percentage of people that have created accounts only to submit their developer bios...? But if hypothetically "their" submissions were approved how can "they" be biased submissions? Aren't points neutral to these debatable questions? And if hypothetically "their" submissions had enough merit to be approved, and they "were" prolific contributors, taking into account "they had" already more than 10.000 points of contributions, even only submitting "their" own bios, aren't still "their" voices completely valid?
This is a somewhat puzzling complaint. Any criterion for choosing the official title is flawed, not just this one. Going by the first release means populating the database with loads of Japanese titles - are you sure people would react favorably to seeing all their beloved Resident Evils marked as Biohazards? Nobody here thinks that going for the US title is the perfect way - but it makes sense insofar that in most cases, the US titles are at least understood elsewhere in the world.
Do you think it's rigorous and is following the high standards of this site not to mention the original title as so? I'm not even saying being the first to appear, I'm saying specifying anywhere on an original title that it was indeed the first as it was created on its native language, or the first title as it was released firstly in a country...
So now people's opinions are more important and are put above rigour; their feelings are more important than everything, is that it? Some paragraphs ago Democracy was out of question, now it's relevant? Where do we stand here? By the same principle I'll return you the question: are you sure people would react favorably to seeing all their beloved original European titles marked as alternate?
I'm not saying English shouldn't be a common language for mutual understanding, I'm saying it's ridiculous that many people (born many years after me) will start to know a game for example by the American title and not the original one, as the cases Out of this World (Another World) and Kung-Fu: The Way of the Exploding Fist (The Way of the Exploding Fist).
Isn't rigorous, indispensable and fundamental to have the correct attributions to titles? Isn't totally outrageous, out of rigour, biased, to have an original title attributed with an also know as or alternate title instead of original release or first release? What a correct attribution to a title as for example (The Way of the Exploding Fist" - original title) or (Kung-Fu: The Way of the Exploding Fist - American title) has to slightly do with anything you said? This is an argumentation in favour of quality and rigour, take that into consideration please.