Guys I lvoe this forum, but I'm getting tired of havign to click a million different subcategory's to read 1 post. I really don't think there's enough post in "PC Gaming in General" to keep it separate for PC Gaming by Title.
Not only that, due to the few # of posts per day, few people read it independantly.
When someone has a really important "general" gaming story, I thinkit gets missed. SO I am humbly askign you combine the two so we don't have to keep flipping through an extra low-count to make sure we're not missing anything.
Thanks.
-jpinard
Not enough posts for PC Gaming in General.
-
jpinard
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am
- Location: Enceladus, Saturn
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
Thanks for the feedback, jpinard. This is definitely a topic where folks hold differing opinions. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this very topic, and have come to some conclusions of my own.
But first to address the things you had to say...
PC Gaming in General
PC Games by Title
Unreleased Games (title pending)
Console Gaming
(To be a completist, I consider there to be three other sub-categories for the site: Discussions (EbG, R&P), Community (Multi, Bargains, Trading, & General Computing), and Site-related business (the rest))
I think that four < "a million different subcategory's"
. To extend your idea beyond the hyperbole, however, let me address the implication here (and please correct me if I'm off base): there are more gaming sub-categories on this site than traffic warrants.
To further extend your quote, specifically PCGiG and PCGbT should be merged because of this traffic issue.
You then go on to say, "Not only that, due to the few # of posts per day, few people read it independantly."
So it would seem that you're up to pieces of support for merging those particular forums: fewer mouseclicks and increased "critical mass" (in poster numbers) for conversations to develop. Again, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you're saying.
~*~*~
I appreciate your post for multiple reasons. First, because you spell out *why* you think there is an issue, and then you do us a favor and indicate what you think a potential solution to the issue may be. I'm certainly okay with folks just pointing out "HEY! We've got a problem in this area, but I'm not sure what can be done to fix it," but posts that also offer up potential fixes are even more welcome. I want to address your post based on those two separate concerns, however. Hopefully one could see that there are four possible action-oriented reponses to your post:
- I agree that the problem exists and that your proposed solution is the proper course of action
- I agree that the problem exists, but I think your proposed solution is off-the-mark
- I disagree that your evidence indicates a problem, but I think that your proposed course of action is a good idea nonetheless, or
- I disagree the problem exists, and I think your course of action would be a poor one.
As far as non-action-oriented responses, there is always the two options of ignoring what you've said or saying that we'll take it under advisement and then move on. To some extent, I'm sure certain segments of the forum orginzation committee will do each of these two things.
~*~*~
The Problems Lack of enough posters reading the PCGiG forum means dull conversations (or conversations that peter out too quickly), Too many gaming-related forums impede my ability to quickly navigate the site to find conversations of interest
PCGiG currently has 133 topics and 2674 posts in those 133 topics since the inception of this forum in mid-October. Posts related to gaming in the past five weeks have comprised between 965 and 1881 (average=1270, median= 1371) each week, always greater than 20% of the entire post count for the site on any given week (and closer to 40% of the entire forum content on the week of the US Thanksgiving holiday). The number of topics break up similarly. Clearly gaming-related conversations are taking place on a significant level, forum-wise.
The other primarly category of the boards (in my classification scheme, at least) is "Conversations" (defined above). Over the same time-frame this category has encompassed between 50-70% of the total number of posts. (The remaining 10% of posts generally fall into the other two categories I identified.)
This forum has about 150 posters who keep their posts per day(PPD) on the order of 1.0 or higher. I am going to categorize this segment of the population as "active posters."
If we break the total number of active posters up based on the percentage of posts by category, I think it'd be fair to say that the 150 active folks would fall into ~100 people actively posting about "Discussions," and ~50 folks actively posting about "Gaming Stuff." This is a raw estimate, of course, but one the numbers support.
With about 50 total active posters in the gaming areas of the site, we now ask ourselves, are the numbers we see in PCGiG being crippled by the nature of how the site is segmented (be that because of conversation fracturization {the "critical mass" issue} or by needless mousework on the part of the user {the need to "click a million different subcategory's" as you put it})? One cannot look purely to these statistics to answer the question of "could it be better?" but one can at least look to these numbers to identify "are things doing as well as we'd expect based on the number of active posters?"
I'd say that 50 active posters (and some untold number of not-so-active posters) generating 133 topics and 2674 posts over the span of nine weeks is pretty good. In fact, even more encouraging is that the percentage of topics and posts in the Gaming category has remained flat over the course of the forum's lifetime, *AND* this is while the overall number of posts has basically remained level (if we discount the dip seen while the US only had a 3-day work week on the week ending 29 November). We're not bleeding posters as folks are disheartened by a lack of critical mass or excessive clicking to get to topics of interest.
As telling is the duration of posts lasting on the front-page of each of the forums. PCGiG's front-page duration is currently ranked fifth out of all the different site forums, and has remained statistically level since the beginning of November (with it taking rougly 2 1/2 to 3 weeks before a post will fall off the front-page, more posting activity is only seen in four other forums: EbG {roughly 1 day}, PCGbT {roughly one week}, R&P & General Computing {roughly ten days}). Nothing in any of these statisitics indicates that a population of the site is finding our implementation of information dissemination is "klunky" to a large segment of our active posting population. The fact that there are some people (yourself included, of course) who's personal posting habits deviate from the majority of the active posting population is of no surprise. Any statistical set of data is going to have some points that deviate from the mean behavior. You are a unique snowflake (just like all the other snowflakes)!
The Solution Merge PCGiG and PCGbT
Were I to agree that we've got post count/frequency/activity issues with PCGiG, I still am not prone to agree that the ideal method for fixing these issues would be to merge that forum with another. As it stands, we've got two other "Gaming" forums and three other "Community" forums with less activity than PCGiG, and no indication (or outcry) that these forums are unhealthy. While mouseclicks and critical mass are part of the considerations used to consider whether conversations should be separated in nature, they're certainly not the only considerations.
Of primary concern is the ease a forum *reader* would have in finding a specific piece of information. Forums should be categorized such that "drilling down" to specific content areas is easily achieved. If someone shows up on the shores of the Octopus Overlords forums with a question in mind (say: I wonder where I'd find a discussion about EA's purchase of the NFL rights), it is of utmost importance that that location is easily identified (ironic choice of topics on my part: this conversation is currently being held in two separate, but appropriate, forums).
Now you didn't raise this issue as one of the reasons you'd like to see PCGiG and PCGbT merged (and for that I'm thankful, as if you had offered that up as justification, I'd be fearful regarding our ability to agree that these are clearly defined separate types of discussions). In my mind it's clear that discussions about the gaming industry are of a very different nature than those about specific individual games. It's also clear to me that there may be people who want to discuss one of these topics but would hold little interest in the other (say I only care about how I want to build my Necromancer in Diablo 2, but really couldn't give two squats about how Blizzard as a company operates). This is also part of the "clearly defined forum topics" concern when figuring out how to divide conversations (and the primary reason why you don't see Multiplayer, Bargains, Trading Forum, and General Computing all lumped together -- each of these areas is appealing, for the most part, to different types of OO readers).
The other side of the coin, is whether there is *too much* conversation taking place in one area. For a while EbG & R&P were our two most active forums. It made sense to branch out conversations of those nature due to how quickly conversations were falling off the front page (and because they were distinct topics for which as a whole, it was clear to see certain types of posters for whom interest would only be held for one area). As a side-benefit, conversation of the R&P nature massively multipled after the split because an area built just for that type of conversation existed (and folks wanted to create R&P type topics to keep the place active). Was everybody happy about the split? Clearly not (although I think the majority of complaints had to do with how the split was carried out, not with actually splitting off the topics themselves -- but again, this is not the case for everyone, I'm sure there are a good number {but not a majority} of people bummed out that these topics aren't taking place in the EbG forum any more -- I'm stictly stereotyping forum populations here, not trying to speak for each individual).
If mouseclicks were our only consideration, we would have zero forum organization and let all posts stand next to each other in one big melting pot. This would also solve the critical-mass issue. However, such a forum "dis"organization would turn off a big number of people who don't care about the majority of posts being made in the melting pot forum, and would also ensure (assuming that everyone didn't just quit in protest!) that posts would be dropping off the front page with an astounding frequency. Concerns over traffic and keeping together individual *types* of posts dictate that we break things up. Have we broken things up too far? As things currently stand, I don't think so. And as we look forward to opening the main site for business (and have an expected surge in forum traffic), I think it's even *more* important to not let smallish traffic numbers for individual forums lead us to consolidation. If anything we're currently geared up to handle a larger number of forum users in the gaming area, and I think that's wise considering that we're expecting to see more posters in that area in the near future. (But again, I think we're appopriately segmented for our current, flat, levels of use right now, too.)
Anyway, sorry for such a concise answer to your question. There are clearly many ramifications behind your request that I could not address is such a short space.
Hopefully this helps give you a clear piece of my own personal opinion. If we did see forum traffic declining over the course of time (and I think that two months is a bit too quick for my own tastes, but that, too, is debatable) then I would agree that potential consolidation of forums would be a great solution to have on the table.
~Neal
But first to address the things you had to say...
We currently have, in my consideration, four gaming forums:I'm getting tired of havign to click a million different subcategory's to read 1 post. I really don't think there's enough post in "PC Gaming in General" to keep it separate for PC Gaming by Title.
PC Gaming in General
PC Games by Title
Unreleased Games (title pending)
Console Gaming
(To be a completist, I consider there to be three other sub-categories for the site: Discussions (EbG, R&P), Community (Multi, Bargains, Trading, & General Computing), and Site-related business (the rest))
I think that four < "a million different subcategory's"
. To extend your idea beyond the hyperbole, however, let me address the implication here (and please correct me if I'm off base): there are more gaming sub-categories on this site than traffic warrants. To further extend your quote, specifically PCGiG and PCGbT should be merged because of this traffic issue.
You then go on to say, "Not only that, due to the few # of posts per day, few people read it independantly."
So it would seem that you're up to pieces of support for merging those particular forums: fewer mouseclicks and increased "critical mass" (in poster numbers) for conversations to develop. Again, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting what you're saying.
~*~*~
I appreciate your post for multiple reasons. First, because you spell out *why* you think there is an issue, and then you do us a favor and indicate what you think a potential solution to the issue may be. I'm certainly okay with folks just pointing out "HEY! We've got a problem in this area, but I'm not sure what can be done to fix it," but posts that also offer up potential fixes are even more welcome. I want to address your post based on those two separate concerns, however. Hopefully one could see that there are four possible action-oriented reponses to your post:
- I agree that the problem exists and that your proposed solution is the proper course of action
- I agree that the problem exists, but I think your proposed solution is off-the-mark
- I disagree that your evidence indicates a problem, but I think that your proposed course of action is a good idea nonetheless, or
- I disagree the problem exists, and I think your course of action would be a poor one.
As far as non-action-oriented responses, there is always the two options of ignoring what you've said or saying that we'll take it under advisement and then move on. To some extent, I'm sure certain segments of the forum orginzation committee will do each of these two things.
~*~*~
The Problems Lack of enough posters reading the PCGiG forum means dull conversations (or conversations that peter out too quickly), Too many gaming-related forums impede my ability to quickly navigate the site to find conversations of interest
PCGiG currently has 133 topics and 2674 posts in those 133 topics since the inception of this forum in mid-October. Posts related to gaming in the past five weeks have comprised between 965 and 1881 (average=1270, median= 1371) each week, always greater than 20% of the entire post count for the site on any given week (and closer to 40% of the entire forum content on the week of the US Thanksgiving holiday). The number of topics break up similarly. Clearly gaming-related conversations are taking place on a significant level, forum-wise.
The other primarly category of the boards (in my classification scheme, at least) is "Conversations" (defined above). Over the same time-frame this category has encompassed between 50-70% of the total number of posts. (The remaining 10% of posts generally fall into the other two categories I identified.)
This forum has about 150 posters who keep their posts per day(PPD) on the order of 1.0 or higher. I am going to categorize this segment of the population as "active posters."
If we break the total number of active posters up based on the percentage of posts by category, I think it'd be fair to say that the 150 active folks would fall into ~100 people actively posting about "Discussions," and ~50 folks actively posting about "Gaming Stuff." This is a raw estimate, of course, but one the numbers support.
With about 50 total active posters in the gaming areas of the site, we now ask ourselves, are the numbers we see in PCGiG being crippled by the nature of how the site is segmented (be that because of conversation fracturization {the "critical mass" issue} or by needless mousework on the part of the user {the need to "click a million different subcategory's" as you put it})? One cannot look purely to these statistics to answer the question of "could it be better?" but one can at least look to these numbers to identify "are things doing as well as we'd expect based on the number of active posters?"
I'd say that 50 active posters (and some untold number of not-so-active posters) generating 133 topics and 2674 posts over the span of nine weeks is pretty good. In fact, even more encouraging is that the percentage of topics and posts in the Gaming category has remained flat over the course of the forum's lifetime, *AND* this is while the overall number of posts has basically remained level (if we discount the dip seen while the US only had a 3-day work week on the week ending 29 November). We're not bleeding posters as folks are disheartened by a lack of critical mass or excessive clicking to get to topics of interest.
As telling is the duration of posts lasting on the front-page of each of the forums. PCGiG's front-page duration is currently ranked fifth out of all the different site forums, and has remained statistically level since the beginning of November (with it taking rougly 2 1/2 to 3 weeks before a post will fall off the front-page, more posting activity is only seen in four other forums: EbG {roughly 1 day}, PCGbT {roughly one week}, R&P & General Computing {roughly ten days}). Nothing in any of these statisitics indicates that a population of the site is finding our implementation of information dissemination is "klunky" to a large segment of our active posting population. The fact that there are some people (yourself included, of course) who's personal posting habits deviate from the majority of the active posting population is of no surprise. Any statistical set of data is going to have some points that deviate from the mean behavior. You are a unique snowflake (just like all the other snowflakes)!
The Solution Merge PCGiG and PCGbT
Were I to agree that we've got post count/frequency/activity issues with PCGiG, I still am not prone to agree that the ideal method for fixing these issues would be to merge that forum with another. As it stands, we've got two other "Gaming" forums and three other "Community" forums with less activity than PCGiG, and no indication (or outcry) that these forums are unhealthy. While mouseclicks and critical mass are part of the considerations used to consider whether conversations should be separated in nature, they're certainly not the only considerations.
Of primary concern is the ease a forum *reader* would have in finding a specific piece of information. Forums should be categorized such that "drilling down" to specific content areas is easily achieved. If someone shows up on the shores of the Octopus Overlords forums with a question in mind (say: I wonder where I'd find a discussion about EA's purchase of the NFL rights), it is of utmost importance that that location is easily identified (ironic choice of topics on my part: this conversation is currently being held in two separate, but appropriate, forums).
Now you didn't raise this issue as one of the reasons you'd like to see PCGiG and PCGbT merged (and for that I'm thankful, as if you had offered that up as justification, I'd be fearful regarding our ability to agree that these are clearly defined separate types of discussions). In my mind it's clear that discussions about the gaming industry are of a very different nature than those about specific individual games. It's also clear to me that there may be people who want to discuss one of these topics but would hold little interest in the other (say I only care about how I want to build my Necromancer in Diablo 2, but really couldn't give two squats about how Blizzard as a company operates). This is also part of the "clearly defined forum topics" concern when figuring out how to divide conversations (and the primary reason why you don't see Multiplayer, Bargains, Trading Forum, and General Computing all lumped together -- each of these areas is appealing, for the most part, to different types of OO readers).
The other side of the coin, is whether there is *too much* conversation taking place in one area. For a while EbG & R&P were our two most active forums. It made sense to branch out conversations of those nature due to how quickly conversations were falling off the front page (and because they were distinct topics for which as a whole, it was clear to see certain types of posters for whom interest would only be held for one area). As a side-benefit, conversation of the R&P nature massively multipled after the split because an area built just for that type of conversation existed (and folks wanted to create R&P type topics to keep the place active). Was everybody happy about the split? Clearly not (although I think the majority of complaints had to do with how the split was carried out, not with actually splitting off the topics themselves -- but again, this is not the case for everyone, I'm sure there are a good number {but not a majority} of people bummed out that these topics aren't taking place in the EbG forum any more -- I'm stictly stereotyping forum populations here, not trying to speak for each individual).
If mouseclicks were our only consideration, we would have zero forum organization and let all posts stand next to each other in one big melting pot. This would also solve the critical-mass issue. However, such a forum "dis"organization would turn off a big number of people who don't care about the majority of posts being made in the melting pot forum, and would also ensure (assuming that everyone didn't just quit in protest!) that posts would be dropping off the front page with an astounding frequency. Concerns over traffic and keeping together individual *types* of posts dictate that we break things up. Have we broken things up too far? As things currently stand, I don't think so. And as we look forward to opening the main site for business (and have an expected surge in forum traffic), I think it's even *more* important to not let smallish traffic numbers for individual forums lead us to consolidation. If anything we're currently geared up to handle a larger number of forum users in the gaming area, and I think that's wise considering that we're expecting to see more posters in that area in the near future. (But again, I think we're appopriately segmented for our current, flat, levels of use right now, too.)
Anyway, sorry for such a concise answer to your question. There are clearly many ramifications behind your request that I could not address is such a short space.
Hopefully this helps give you a clear piece of my own personal opinion. If we did see forum traffic declining over the course of time (and I think that two months is a bit too quick for my own tastes, but that, too, is debatable) then I would agree that potential consolidation of forums would be a great solution to have on the table.~Neal
-
setaside
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:17 pm
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Damn, Meal ... do you think you could squeeze a few more numbers into that post.
My thoughts in a few less words ... We are planning ahead. We are hoping that once we get a front page presence established and start gaining more traffic and forum members that the gaming forums will fill out. I've always thought that the General Gaming Discussion board drew a respectable amount of traffic at Gone Gold and I think that once things start to build, the same will happen here. I think this is also the main reason we started out with the R&P forum as well. We actually had discussions about rolling it back into EBG due to low traffic but we decided that in the long term, it would probably be best to keep them separated so we wouldn't have to deal with possibly needing to split it off again in the future (well ... that and the other reason).
Besides, PC Games by Title is a pretty well organized forum right now. I personally (thinking as a forum member, not staff) don't think I'd like it if that organization was broken by throwing general gaming discussion in there with it. If anything, I'd probably merge it with EBG and just call it general discussion. But see that doesn't really work either cause then you gotta search for the gaming stuff.
Oh ... and the View Posts Since Last Visit link is awesome.
My thoughts in a few less words ... We are planning ahead. We are hoping that once we get a front page presence established and start gaining more traffic and forum members that the gaming forums will fill out. I've always thought that the General Gaming Discussion board drew a respectable amount of traffic at Gone Gold and I think that once things start to build, the same will happen here. I think this is also the main reason we started out with the R&P forum as well. We actually had discussions about rolling it back into EBG due to low traffic but we decided that in the long term, it would probably be best to keep them separated so we wouldn't have to deal with possibly needing to split it off again in the future (well ... that and the other reason).
Besides, PC Games by Title is a pretty well organized forum right now. I personally (thinking as a forum member, not staff) don't think I'd like it if that organization was broken by throwing general gaming discussion in there with it. If anything, I'd probably merge it with EBG and just call it general discussion. But see that doesn't really work either cause then you gotta search for the gaming stuff.
Oh ... and the View Posts Since Last Visit link is awesome.
-
jpinard
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am
- Location: Enceladus, Saturn
Well, I feel humbled... First of all as usual I have a bazillion typos and grammatical errors. It's too late now for me to go back and rectify that, as I've arleady embarassed the crap out of myself.
My concern came up today based on my post about EA Sports trying to Monopolize the sports market. I KNOW there are more indiviausl who visit the "PC Games by title", than the "PC Games General forum".
A post like I made (which I consider very important to the future of pc sports gaming), I wanted it to getthe most exposure possible so more people would sign the petition - and more importnantly understand what threatens this segment of our hobby. I can't post it in the forums that get the most traffic. Since I have to split my time between 2 different forums like most of the people here, I'v ecut down the number of palces I go to EBG, and PC Games by title. With a sporadic visit to hardware and sales when necessary. I do the same at consolegold, and the same at Qt3.
I dont' want you to be offended this is not my only place of residence. I ahve so many friends from GG, and some from QT3, that to keep my forum based communication alive, I have to hit all of them. I may like this place best, but I can't pass up corresponding with my other friends as well. I think that the majority of people here are in the same boat as myself.
I figured you were, "planning for the future", but there's nothing to say you can't make that split later. Look at the date list for "PC Gaming in General". Besides a couple of days with extar posts, there's plenty of time with none.
That's my feeling. I'm not giong to tell you what to do, but I'd like to suggest that upon my experience I end up skipping some of it, because it becomes too many categories to sort through every day. Id' rather have a consolidated list, where I see all the activity at a glance.
And to be honest none of the forums here have "too much activity"
You want to see activity? You go to the WoW forums. It's insane.
My concern came up today based on my post about EA Sports trying to Monopolize the sports market. I KNOW there are more indiviausl who visit the "PC Games by title", than the "PC Games General forum".
A post like I made (which I consider very important to the future of pc sports gaming), I wanted it to getthe most exposure possible so more people would sign the petition - and more importnantly understand what threatens this segment of our hobby. I can't post it in the forums that get the most traffic. Since I have to split my time between 2 different forums like most of the people here, I'v ecut down the number of palces I go to EBG, and PC Games by title. With a sporadic visit to hardware and sales when necessary. I do the same at consolegold, and the same at Qt3.
I dont' want you to be offended this is not my only place of residence. I ahve so many friends from GG, and some from QT3, that to keep my forum based communication alive, I have to hit all of them. I may like this place best, but I can't pass up corresponding with my other friends as well. I think that the majority of people here are in the same boat as myself.
I figured you were, "planning for the future", but there's nothing to say you can't make that split later. Look at the date list for "PC Gaming in General". Besides a couple of days with extar posts, there's plenty of time with none.
That's my feeling. I'm not giong to tell you what to do, but I'd like to suggest that upon my experience I end up skipping some of it, because it becomes too many categories to sort through every day. Id' rather have a consolidated list, where I see all the activity at a glance.
And to be honest none of the forums here have "too much activity"
You want to see activity? You go to the WoW forums. It's insane.-
Suitably Ironic Moniker
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:09 pm
- Location: Asheville, NC
When GG created the category a couple of years back for unreleased games, it took over a year of constantly having to move topics from PC Games By Title to the new category. This had to have been a fair amount of hassle for the mods. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Besides which, is it really so difficult to read one more category?I figured you were, "planning for the future", but there's nothing to say you can't make that split later.
When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-sized bed and wondered where my brother was. - Mitch Hedberg
-
Suitably Ironic Moniker
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:09 pm
- Location: Asheville, NC
-
The Preacher
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
And since you've now taken your discussion of this issue to EbG, I'll address this portion:
EA is evil (Console Gaming, Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:09 pm),
ESPN NFL 2K5 - Sayonara! (EA gets exclusive NFL license) (PC Gaming in General, Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:14 am), and yours:
EA actively seeking to corner the entire sports gaming marke (PC Gaming in General, Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:24 am).
I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with multiple topics on the same subject (be the topics created intentionally or accidentally), but it's not difficult to see how it would be easy to dismiss your request to merge the forums based on the fact that *YOUR* posts aren't getting enough attention from as many people as possible. I'm not trying to start anything here, but I want to point out that this perception will exist.
~Neal
At the time you created your thread, two other threads existed covering the exact same topic, including the link to the petition site:jpinard wrote:A post like I made (which I consider very important to the future of pc sports gaming), I wanted it to getthe most exposure possible so more people would sign the petition - and more importnantly understand what threatens this segment of our hobby. I can't post it in the forums that get the most traffic.
EA is evil (Console Gaming, Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:09 pm),
ESPN NFL 2K5 - Sayonara! (EA gets exclusive NFL license) (PC Gaming in General, Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:14 am), and yours:
EA actively seeking to corner the entire sports gaming marke (PC Gaming in General, Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:24 am).
I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with multiple topics on the same subject (be the topics created intentionally or accidentally), but it's not difficult to see how it would be easy to dismiss your request to merge the forums based on the fact that *YOUR* posts aren't getting enough attention from as many people as possible. I'm not trying to start anything here, but I want to point out that this perception will exist.
~Neal
-
jpinard
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am
- Location: Enceladus, Saturn
Hehe I don't read the console forum as I don't have one. And I thought the other thread was just about the news announcement which I was already well aware of.
Mine was more of a short essay on EA's history of anti-competitive business practices in the sports gaming market. ARGGHH!!! 
And I think you're mis-understanding me, and I also think you're taking this way too seriously.
I was just making a suggestion based on my own personal preferences. That's it. I was making a selfish request because that fits my needs. I tried to lighten this up a bit, but you're sooo serious! I didn't think you'd do it, and I never expected you to - but I thought I'd throw the idea out there anyways.
I'm pretty darn anal about everything... but this I actually was not. I was surprised to see I'd have to read a novel to just get to post #3 hehehehe
Mine was more of a short essay on EA's history of anti-competitive business practices in the sports gaming market.
ARGGHH!!! And I think you're mis-understanding me, and I also think you're taking this way too seriously.
I was just making a suggestion based on my own personal preferences. That's it. I was making a selfish request because that fits my needs. I tried to lighten this up a bit, but you're sooo serious! I didn't think you'd do it, and I never expected you to - but I thought I'd throw the idea out there anyways.
I'm pretty darn anal about everything... but this I actually was not. I was surprised to see I'd have to read a novel to just get to post #3 hehehehe
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
It would be impossible to underestimate how important I take the functionality of these forums. I will 100% of the time (hopefully) error on the side of seriousness when complaints are made and when folks request a rationale for how we do things around here. I don't think I'm afforded must lee-way when it comes to user requests.
And I genuinely do appreciate you bringing this conversation up. It's been brought up in the past, and because of that it was hard for me to guess that you were conversing about it in a less-than-serious light. I'm glad to hear that you're not going to be crushed, however, if we don't move forward with your proposal.
~Neal
And I genuinely do appreciate you bringing this conversation up. It's been brought up in the past, and because of that it was hard for me to guess that you were conversing about it in a less-than-serious light. I'm glad to hear that you're not going to be crushed, however, if we don't move forward with your proposal.
~Neal
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion
And I feel bad because I didn't address a couple of things (I've been on and off the phone with the HVAC guy today, guess who lost their heat last night?). Sorry about that.
I'm 100% cool with you creating a topic very similar to one that already existed (in fact I'm not going to get all pissy if you create the *exact same* topic, on accident, to one that already existed). The fact that you wanted to focus on the history of EA's anti-competitive business practices seemed great to me.
And I do apologize about that whopper of a post up there. Many times when I go off like that (and especially when I can't seem to maintain a coherent topic, such as above), I'm not just replying to what you've said, but also creating a historical post that I could point back to, if in the future a similar query gets presented. It's a habit I've been forced into by my paying job (don't just answer the question posed, but knock it out of the park so you can simply play the highlight reel when a similar question gets asked on the next product eighteen months from now) and I can definitely understand how it'd be pretty annoying to sit through in this case (especially if you were just "ranting" about things as opposed to trying to float a serious topic). Mea culpa and all that.
Thanks again for being understanding.
~Neal
I'm 100% cool with you creating a topic very similar to one that already existed (in fact I'm not going to get all pissy if you create the *exact same* topic, on accident, to one that already existed). The fact that you wanted to focus on the history of EA's anti-competitive business practices seemed great to me.
And I do apologize about that whopper of a post up there. Many times when I go off like that (and especially when I can't seem to maintain a coherent topic, such as above), I'm not just replying to what you've said, but also creating a historical post that I could point back to, if in the future a similar query gets presented. It's a habit I've been forced into by my paying job (don't just answer the question posed, but knock it out of the park so you can simply play the highlight reel when a similar question gets asked on the next product eighteen months from now) and I can definitely understand how it'd be pretty annoying to sit through in this case (especially if you were just "ranting" about things as opposed to trying to float a serious topic). Mea culpa and all that.
Thanks again for being understanding.
~Neal
-
LordMortis
- Posts: 70230
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
-
The Meal
- Posts: 27993
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
- Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion