JackT said:
Fewer articles by people who I'm pretty sure don't know what they're talking about.<----dicky comment but true
....
It's clear that much effort has been spent, and its free, so complaints don't carry much weight, IMO.
THIS GUY.
What can CardgameDB improve upon?
Mathias Fricot said:
Except the premise of the thread was how YOU could improve cardgamedb.
JackT said:
Mathias Fricot said:
Except the premise of the thread was how YOU could improve cardgamedb.
Was it? I don't see that in the title or OP.
imrahil327 said:
Was it? I don't see that in the title or OP.
I'll walk you through it.
"What can CardgameDB improve upon?"
"I guess the only counter to that is to have you write something for us ."
The use of "us" in the second quoted sentence implicitly identifies the poster with CardgameDB, the subject of the thread title.
Now here's where it gets tricky: CardgameDB is a website, and as such, can improve on nothing. The reader is left to understand that "CardgameDB" is meant to identify the people responsible for the site's content.
-
Edited by Mathias FricotJackT said:
imrahil327 said:
Was it? I don't see that in the title or OP.
I'll walk you through it.
"What can CardgameDB improve upon?"
"I guess the only counter to that is to have you write something for us ."
The use of "us" in the second quoted sentence implicitly identifies the poster with CardgameDB, the subject of the thread title.
Now here's where it gets tricky: CardgameDB is a website, and as such, can improve on nothing. The reader is left to understand that "CardgameDB" is meant to identify the people responsible for the site's content
I bet you get invited to all the best parties.
Mathias Fricot said:
"My solution to your problem (people not knowing what they talk about) was that you could contribute (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do, in fact, know what you are talking about). You present that as an impossibility. "
I did not present that as an impossibility, I presented it as contrary to the supposed premise of this farcical thread: what can CARDGAMEDB improve upon. Reacting to my answer with what *I* should do is counter to that premise. I assure you I have no interest in doing anything for your site. Then again, I never claimed that I did.
Mathias Fricot said:
"Saying that a website can't improve on anything is foolish, it isn't static, where there is change there is potential to improve. I recommend you rent the facebook movie.
You should probably do some reading in business as well; there is a whole thing about a company being an entity in its own right while remaining intimately linked with it's employees. You are correct in that CardgameDB identifies the people behind it, the way Canada identifies the people within it as Canadian. But you must also see that Canada is more than just the people in it, and the people in it are more than just Canada. I'm not an expert, but I don't stand in front of you an idiot either. "
You're going to hurt yourself.
imrahil327 pretended to not understand my above statement, and I pretended to take him at face value. Yes I'm sure I need to read up on business, and Canada, and rack and pinion steering, and spray on truck bed liner and whatever else you mentioned.
Here's the thing: don't make a thread pretending to solicit criticism if you don't want to hear it. If you want to make a thread where people talk about your website and where you promote your website, then just do that and spare us the charade.
JackT said:
My solution to your problem (people not knowing what they talk about) was that you could contribute (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do, in fact, know what you are talking about). You present that as an impossibility.
[/Quote]
I did not present that as an impossibility, I presented it as contrary to the supposed premise of this farcical thread: what can CARDGAMEDB improve upon. Reacting to my answer with what *I* should do is counter to that premise. I assure you I have no interest in doing anything for your site. Then again, I never claimed that I did.
Saying that a website can't improve on anything is foolish, it isn't static, where there is change there is potential to improve. I recommend you rent the facebook movie.
You should probably do some reading in business as well; there is a whole thing about a company being an entity in its own right while remaining intimately linked with it's employees. You are correct in that CardgameDB identifies the people behind it, the way Canada identifies the people within it as Canadian. But you must also see that Canada is more than just the people in it, and the people in it are more than just Canada. I'm not an expert, but I don't stand in front of you an idiot either.
[/Quote]
You're going to hurt yourself.
imrahil327 pretended to not understand my above statement, and I pretended to take him at face value. Yes I'm sure I need to read up on business, and Canada, and rack and pinion steering, and spray on truck bed liner and whatever else you mentioned.
Here's the thing: don't make a thread pretending to solicit criticism if you don't want to hear it. If you want to make a thread where people talk about your website and were you promote your website, then just do that and spare us the charade.
Logic: I should point out to you that your criticism was not backed up with any evidence or suggestions for improvement.
you have said that your previous comment was dickish = right you are, sir!
you have also said that peoples opinions on the content of the site doesn't matter as it is volunteer and that they all work hard = oh you are so good at this!
they are indeed soliciting criticism, just not half cocked douchery from people whom's opinions don't matter in the first place.
as you so aptly put.
alexfrombeyondthewall said:
JackT said:
My solution to your problem (people not knowing what they talk about) was that you could contribute (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do, in fact, know what you are talking about). You present that as an impossibility.
[/Quote]
I did not present that as an impossibility, I presented it as contrary to the supposed premise of this farcical thread: what can CARDGAMEDB improve upon. Reacting to my answer with what *I* should do is counter to that premise. I assure you I have no interest in doing anything for your site. Then again, I never claimed that I did.
Saying that a website can't improve on anything is foolish, it isn't static, where there is change there is potential to improve. I recommend you rent the facebook movie.
You should probably do some reading in business as well; there is a whole thing about a company being an entity in its own right while remaining intimately linked with it's employees. You are correct in that CardgameDB identifies the people behind it, the way Canada identifies the people within it as Canadian. But you must also see that Canada is more than just the people in it, and the people in it are more than just Canada. I'm not an expert, but I don't stand in front of you an idiot either.
[/Quote]
You're going to hurt yourself.
imrahil327 pretended to not understand my above statement, and I pretended to take him at face value. Yes I'm sure I need to read up on business, and Canada, and rack and pinion steering, and spray on truck bed liner and whatever else you mentioned.
Here's the thing: don't make a thread pretending to solicit criticism if you don't want to hear it. If you want to make a thread where people talk about your website and were you promote your website, then just do that and spare us the charade.
Logic: I should point out to you that your criticism was not backed up with any evidence or suggestions for improvement.
you have said that your previous comment was dickish = right you are, sir!
you have also said that peoples opinions on the content of the site doesn't matter as it is volunteer and that they all work hard = oh you are so good at this!
they are indeed soliciting criticism, just not half cocked douchery from people whom's opinions don't matter in the first place.
as you so aptly put.
Read my post. It was as detailed and specific as anyone's. I made MANY suggestions for improvement, in addition to providing compliments.
Evidence? What are we in court now?
Suggested alternative thread title "What can CardgameDB improve upon? PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Also be willing to implement improvements yourself."
Guys! Listen, this is the AGoT forums. Let's keep it classy in here! Also, all this talk is really taking away from how awesome my articles are, so please start discussing that instead.
Staton said:
Guys! Listen, this is the AGoT forums. Let's keep it classy in here! Also, all this talk is really taking away from how awesome my articles are, so please start discussing that instead.
Understood, Staton. Sometimes I turn into a protective moma bear over Mathias.
Jack can you provide a constructive and substantiated criticism on how to improve things? Namely on how you arrived at the conclusion that the writers on the small council doesnt know what its saying?
This I am wondering.
Oh come on, Staton, no one actually discusses your articles in the comments or anything.
But seriously, this is getting weird folks. It's not that worth getting worked up on for either side.
To folks with complaints- Go right ahead, I certain have no problem taking constructive criticism. Just make sure that it's legitimately constructive, please. Something substantial in the suggestion on how to remedy your complaint would be good.
To Small Council folks- Staton started the thread here, implicitly for all of us, and when you ask for people's opinions, you're bound to get useful ones, and not useful ones. This is the interwebs, so a thick skin is useful.
I honestly have to say that I share Jack's opinion, and every single person that has read the articles, including the members of the small council know exactly who he is talking about. I guess part of my career in management has taught me that a team is only as good as its weakest member, and I think that what Jack may have been trying to say is that the small council articles as a whole are brought down by one of the writers.
That being said the easy thing for those of us who don't think a certain writers articles are worthwhile can simply not click on them and read them. I will say that 90% of the articles that I have seen from the small council have been at the very least entertaining and at best very educational. I wish that they could all be slightly more like Clu's and Staton's articles. What I mean by that is they go over cards in detail and why they are good and why they might not be so good. I think most people who are taking the time to read about the game want to know better strategies and tricks. Each article still could represent its main theme, Shagga players love to hear about awesome combo moves, especially ones that are practical and game changing. Ned players, I assume, still like to win, they just want to remain more true to their ideas.
Personally being part of a 3 player meta, I like to read about deck concepts that others have thought up that can win games. I like to be aware of what is out there and what counters their are to it. I think, and could be wrong but those that I have talked to agree, that this is what players in general want to read about. Newer players might only have the core set and some expansions, but if the 'first tilt' articles were more about how to make solid decks out of limited cards, or more importantly the number 1 most asked question for player just into the game 'what should i buy.' I think specific articles about what sets/packs were good for newer player getting into the game for each house would be much better received.
-
Edited by Mathias Fricot+1 to the search thing.
aside from the short searches - took me an age to find "Val" earlier. it also messes up with any kind of special characters. Can't think of an AGoT example, but I was using the Cthulhu section earlier, trying to find all the "Mi-Go" characters, and drawing blanks.
Also not on an AGoT note, it's a pain that the LoTR card search only has player cards, not encounter cards.
I think limiting the articles that come in is the worst thing that CardgameDB could do.
I hear a lot of generalizations about the game that in my experience are not true at all (3x of X card! in every deck! X plot MUST be in your plot deck to have it be tourney worthy!) even things I said months ago that just make me want to groan.
I do not want the same people screening articles as they come in.
That's why a rating system and comments are in place, if you don't like an article, rate it accordingly, and voice why in the comments. Some interesting discussion can easily turn a poor article into a great one.
I like the small council's articles, some more than others, yes, but it doesn't matter, because they are not the official voice of the LCG, nor an elite training force.
They are simply dedicated players who are willing to write about their experiences on a regular basis. I appreciate the time and effort that each of them puts into their work.
Great post Rave! I agree 100%
Ratatoskr said:
Great post Rave! I agree 100%
You 100% agree that a content-based web site should not exert editorial control over it's content? Really?
No, what he is saying is he wants varied viewpoints from the articles. He doesn't want content control to narrow down perspective into just one viewpoint.
Second, especial during the auto popup. Also, I hate having to close the popup. It would be nice if it disappeared after the courser was moved from the card name. EXECELLENT SITE THOUGH. KEEP IT UP!!
Archrono said:
I wanna see all the old ccg cards. Oh and maybe when you're searching for a card, it tells you what chapter pack its in (instead of just the first letters of the title of the chapter pack, and having to reference the spoiler section to figure it out.)
Otherwise a pretty solid site. I use it pretty much all the time.
JackT said:
Ratatoskr said:
Great post Rave! I agree 100%
You 100% agree that a content-based web site should not exert editorial control over it's content? Really?
I don't even know why I take troll bait like this, as it is clear that are just trying to rile people up, but here goes:
If you have a problem with one part of what Rave said, why not respond directly to Rave's comment and give a reason why you think that one point is flawed? Why be so passive-agressive about it?
Hey, Kennon/Staton.
I thought it would be fun to post an article, and I set it to publish tomorrow so I could touch it up real quick before I submitted it, but I can't seem to find any record of ever posting it.
Will it just upload tomorrow? If it does can I edit it at all once it's up there? It should be fine, but I was just curious.
@Rave- PM sent to you on CGDB.
[i'll just state my personal opinion that may or may not be held by others.]
I enjoy reading other people's opinions on topics that interest me. I enjoy reading the opinions of those who are credentialed experts as well as those that are admitted novices. I read articles/blogs written by the former for a different reason (learning and improvement) than I do the articles/blogs by latter (entertainment/curiosity). When the line is blurred, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as to which category the author of the article that I am reading belongs too, it is hard to enjoy the content because I do not know how to interpret what I am reading. Should I be reading this as entertainment? Should I take these suggestions seriously and implement them into my decks? The answer to the question is very important, and should be known before reading begins.
Whether intentional or not, cardgamedB is representing the authors of their articles as experts in the field of aGoT by giving them two separate and distinct labels from the rest of the users on the site ("Advanced Member" and "Small Council"). By not making it clear what these labels lend to their owners, the average user (me) is left to assume that they have some credentials in the subject area for which they are posting (aGoT), and that their opinions and thoughts should carry some weight. Nowhere on the site could I find a definition for these labels saying that they are just aGoT enthusiasts and not experts (not saying it isn't there, just saying I couldn't find it). So when an article is authored by such a person, I would assume to give it some weight. (For purposes of this post, I'd consider an 'expert' anyone who has won a Major thrones tournament in the past 12 months).
After reading a few articles, I see in their own forums one of the article authors ask a question who's answer is clearly given in the core rulebook. Now, as a reader of these articles feel a bit duped. If this guy does not know the answer to such a basic question, why am I giving his opinion on strategy any weight. This now also leads me, without any other evidence to the contrary, to start questioning the other member of this group as well. After all, if this guy can get this label without the knowledge that such a title should bestow, whose to say all the others aren't just as unknowledgeable, and why should I care about any of their articles either.
Had that same article included a quick bio/resume of the author, I could have read the article with complete confidence of the authors credentials, taken the information learned within' with a grain of salt, and enjoyed it simply for its entertainment value. But because I was left assuming that a title he held actually meant something, when in fact it meant nothing, I now feel duped. And a content driven website never wants their readers to feel duped.
My suggestion would be to either remove these labels altogether (after all, what purpose do they really serve), or at least put a quick bio box within each article giving the authors credentials (thrones experience, years playing, tournies won etc..). Even if he has none people will appreciate the honesty. Anyone who watches sportscenter will notice that ESPN has started to do this during their broadcasts. When a sportswriter is being interviewed or delivering an opinion, a little box pops up with info like "Played on the Giants 1990-1999, QB Coach for the Eagles 2000-2005, etc.......".
To reiterate, I have no issue with anything cardgame is doing, nor do I assert that this misunderstanding with their content providers credentials was intentional (in fact I'm positive it wasn't, they are all great people), and I enjoy reading their articles AS ENTERTAINMENT only. The above is just my own personal opinion and I do not claim it is held by anyone but myself.
First off, thanks for the constructive criticism, Dennis. I agree with you that we should've made it clear what level of experience each writer has. We failed to give context to each article, and as such people were forced to make assumptions on how we were presenting each writer. The initial planning did have a short bio for the writer, but it was just something that was forgotten about. I think that would have helped to give the reader some context when reading the articles for sure, and it's something that we should look at implementing in the near future. As for the "Small Council" tag, it is more for our benefit than anyone else's. We use it as a way to group everyone together for forum access, there is a separate forum for the Small Council, as well as other permissions and whatnot that made it easier to just add someone to the group than change permissions and grant access each time we added someone. Plus it does help somewhat to distinguish who is who. If you see Will or myself or one of the other Small Council writers (again, there are exceptions) answer a question or give their opinion I think it adds a bit of extra weight. We are looking into making all the changes suggested here (it does take time though, and most of them will have to wait until Darksbane makes some updates to everything) and we do appreciate the (again emphasis here) constructive criticism.