[Ide]

So I was digging around in old threads here about reviews, and one thing that came up was that Brody said he wrote a 'review' article for TMS under the old management.

Lasher, is this still something you would accept as an article?

[Threshold]

Valg, please try to avoid projecting your own opinions about players onto other people. If you think players are, to quote you, "too dumb to write reviews," then post it as your own opinion instead of slyly attributing it to someone else. I said nothing of the sort.

Real players are perfectly capable of writing good reviews. This should be obvious, since how could anyone write a review that doesn't PLAY MUDs. A good review can ONLY be written by a player.

Most people who take the time to write reviews, sadly, are not "real players" and they certainly do not write reviews in good faith. Most "real players" are so busy playing the game they like that they won't bother with a site about MUDs or writing reviews. Yes, a few will. Those are the few reviews that are actually good and worthwhile (be they positive or negative).

But the majority of reviews get written by people who are unbalanced for one reason or another. The people who actually end up taking the time to write reviews are more likely to either be blatant suckups or enraged haters. Those are the motivations that are most likely to supply that last, final bit of motivation to actually take the time to go to a site, create an account, and write up a review.

You see this same phenomenon all over the place. It is why comments on ESPN.com stories or responses to movie reviews on movie sites tend to be only the most extreme. The more normal folks with less virulent opinions can't be bothered to post.

That is why MUD reviews that are not written by "staff" are doomed to always be mostly junk. The majority of the time, the thing that motivates someone to take the time to write a review is not something that lends itself to a good, honest, objective review.

[Brody]

Originally Posted by Ide Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think TMC moderates reviews before they appear -- they never appear instantly after you write them, in any case, but seem queued up, as a bunch arrive at once. Basically what Lasher proposes is the TMC system, and I think it works well. edit: on the other hand, I don't know if mud owners can turn off reviews on TMC.

TMC has an option to refuse player reviews, yep.

[Brody]

Originally Posted by Ide So I was digging around in old threads here about reviews, and one thing that came up was that Brody said he wrote a 'review' article for TMS under the old management. Lasher, is this still something you would accept as an article?

I do recall writing a review article once. I think it was about Armageddon. Long time ago. Not sure where it went!

[Lasher]

Was it completely a review? Or was it an article on a certain type of MUD using Armageddon as an example?

I'm surprised it was published as an "article" if it was 100% review.

[Brody]

Originally Posted by Lasher Was it completely a review? Or was it an article on a certain type of MUD using Armageddon as an example? I'm surprised it was published as an "article" if it was 100% review.

Actually, the more I think about it, I recall it was an objective piece spotlighting Armageddon - so, more of an article about the game than a review.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Threshold Valg, please try to avoid projecting your own opinions about players onto other people. If you think players are, to quote you, "too dumb to write reviews," then post it as your own opinion instead of slyly attributing it to someone else. I said nothing of the sort.

Except I obviously don't think that, which is why Carrion Fields has always allowed players to write reviews, why we actively encourage our players to do so, and why I've held a consistent stance that third-party sites like TMS should allow it. My actions dictate that I do think reviews, in aggregate, are valuable feedback.

In this thread alone, you've referred to the majority of player reviewers as 'blatant suckups', 'enraged haters', and/or 'misanthropes'. You've claimed that 'anything short of professional reviews is effectively spam'. This attitude unfortunately pervades a lot of threads here on TMS. Now, if a player comes here and sees posts of that sort from MUD administrators going unopposed, how likely are they to contribute to the community? If no players are coming here, what good is your promotional material?

Individual reviews can be bad or good, which is where moderation comes in. It's no different from forums. There are plenty of posts on the forums which I don't think much of, but I'm not advocating that we shut down all forums.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Lasher I turned off reviews for Aardwolf under the old system not because of any opinion that "players are too dumb to write reviews" but because there was no way to respond to false information - you could post something in the forums but that was quickly forgotten while reviews are out there indefinitely.

While I've always left the reviews enabled, the above was one of my major concerns with the original system as well. I think allowing responses to reviews is a vast improvement, and would certainly make the site more player-friendly. You can also tell a lot about a game based on how the admin respond to negative reviews.

[Spoke]

If you prune the name calling and gross generalizations from Threshold´s posts you end up with his main (and strong) valid point. Forcing open reviews on all MUDs would force upon the administration of said MUDs the policing and following of the reviews on their MUDs, knowing that even though a good response to a flaming review from a disgruntled player could be as powerful (or more) than a good review, a bad and unfounded review left unanswered will at best be ignored by some visitors at worst negatively affect the game´s perception by the audience.

I think I do agree that a change of this sort should be at least carefully thought because it would force administrators to spend more time here (opposed to coming here because something interesting is going on or because they want to contribute, this "feature" would encourage coming just to cover their backs). On the flip side, if a player is interested enough to be checking reviews, as soon as he/she notices that a game has blocked reviews but sees that there are tools in place so administrators can respond making the review system a solid one, his/her opinion might just be that the administrator does not care to hear criticism or deem them inferior just for that. In this case not allowing reviews would only affect the unlisted game, as Lasher pointed out.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Spoke Forcing open reviews on all MUDs would force upon the administration of said MUDs the policing and following of the reviews on their MUDs, knowing that even though a good response to a flaming review from a disgruntled player could be as powerful (or more) than a good review, a bad and unfounded review left unanswered will at best be ignored by some visitors at worst negatively affect the game´s perception by the audience.

Indeed it would, but is that necessarily a bad thing? It's extra work for the admin, certainly, but it could also bring in a great deal of extra traffic to TMS and give free publicity to the mud in question. Players are going to complain and flame anyway, and I'd rather they did it here where (1) it's immediately brought to my attention, (2) I can refute or respond to their claims on neutral ground.

But I think the real question is whether Lasher wants to make TMS primarily a website for admin to promote their muds, or a website for players to find and review muds. If TMS is primarily aimed at mud owners, then it makes sense for mud owners to be able to switch off, control and/or filter reviews. If TMS is primarily aimed at players, then it makes sense to allow players to post their views about all muds.

Right now TMS is geared towards mud owners, and I suspect that's a big part of the reason why the traffic is fairly low. Most of the active posters are developers, while the players typically have little to discuss and usually only log on to vote. The only time I really see lots of players joining in the discussions is when one mud or another is being flamed.

As has been pointed out already, the Mud Connector has more active discussions than here - however its reviews are pretty quiet. I suspect this may have much to do with the moderated nature of their reviews compared with the unmoderated nature of their forums. There's not much point posting negative views about a mud if you know it'll just be removed (assuming it even makes it through the review filter), but if the forums are unmoderated you know you can vent your (non-libellous) frustrations without being censored.

[Isildur]

Originally Posted by Lasher Although it received great feedback on release, the new forum is getting very little use. I'd love to hear feedback on why, if only to discover whether further investment in time on this site has any value to the MUD community.

Speaking as someone who is pretty active on some other forums that are specific to a particular MUD, I can tell you why I haven't been very motivated to post here. Basically it comes down to the fact that I don't know anyone else who posts here, so the "community" aspect is absent. Also, most of my involvement in other forums revolves around game-play and/or culture topics that are specific to one MUD. TMS is by definition aspecific, and I'm not sure there's any aspecific information I need/want.

Note: this isn't a knock on you, the site, or the forums. They seem to be designed well, and I'm sure there are intelligent and helpful people posting here.

Originally Posted by Lasher I think you will like the new MUD database and review system, fully integrated with the forum and its permission system, but if nobody cares one way or another that would also be good to know

When it comes to reviews, I think individual reviewers can post useful information, but I also admit there's a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio.

[Brody]

Originally Posted by KaVir Indeed it would, but is that necessarily a bad thing? It's extra work for the admin, certainly, but it could also bring in a great deal of extra traffic to TMS and give free publicity to the mud in question. Players are going to complain and flame anyway, and I'd rather they did it here where (1) it's immediately brought to my attention, (2) I can refute or respond to their claims on neutral ground. But I think the real question is whether Lasher wants to make TMS primarily a website for admin to promote their muds, or a website for players to find and review muds. If TMS is primarily aimed at mud owners, then it makes sense for mud owners to be able to switch off, control and/or filter reviews. If TMS is primarily aimed at players, then it makes sense to allow players to post their views about all muds. Right now TMS is geared towards mud owners, and I suspect that's a big part of the reason why the traffic is fairly low. Most of the active posters are developers, while the players typically have little to discuss and usually only log on to vote. The only time I really see lots of players joining in the discussions is when one mud or another is being flamed. As has been pointed out already, the Mud Connector has more active discussions than here - however its reviews are pretty quiet. I suspect this may have much to do with the moderated nature of their reviews compared with the unmoderated nature of their forums. There's not much point posting negative views about a mud if you know it'll just be removed (assuming it even makes it through the review filter), but if the forums are unmoderated you know you can vent your (non-libellous) frustrations without being censored.

Personally, I think the long-term life of TMS relies on the site being for players (and the encouragement of playing/supporting MUDs) rather than just a haven for MUD owners who want to protect their projects from bad reviews.

MUDs aren't like restaurants. They're effectively clubs people can join. TMS, in my opinion, should act as a sort of matching service, introducing newcomers to MUDs and giving veteran players information about which games are getting good word of mouth and which are getting slammed. I really like the idea of reviews that take into account questions about different criteria and then allow reviewers to add a full-fledged comment, if they like, while also giving others a chance to respond to those reviews.

As for how we might generate more activity in the forums - well, maybe we need to broaden our minds a little bit and do more brainstorming in the forums about how to find new outlets for publicity, potential new resources for players, and articles that spotlight games that are listed here.

Also, reinvigorating the Articles section - perhaps making it part of the forums - would help a lot too. I know that in the earliest days of TMS, Synozeer's efforts to get articles brought in a lot of voices from the MUD community and that helped build recognition for the site.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Isildur Speaking as someone who is pretty active on some other forums that are specific to a particular MUD, I can tell you why I haven't been very motivated to post here. Basically it comes down to the fact that I don't know anyone else who posts here, so the "community" aspect is absent. Also, most of my involvement in other forums revolves around game-play and/or culture topics that are specific to one MUD. TMS is by definition aspecific, and I'm not sure there's any aspecific information I need/want. Note: this isn't a knock on you, the site, or the forums. They seem to be designed well, and I'm sure there are intelligent and helpful people posting here.

Thanks for the insights Isildur, and absolutely not taken as a "knock" of any kind. You phrased my original question better than I did - there is no doubt that each MUD has a community, but is there really a "community" at the macro level? Is the shortage of activity a symptom of this site, or a symptom of MUDs in general? By definition each MUD is a silo that will develop it's path independently of others.

Most traffic to TMC is one of two kinds:

1. A player came to vote for their favorite MUD and may or may not stick around for a while to read a post/review/etc. Generally, someone coming to vote for their favorite MUD isn't in the market (right now) for a new MUD, but you hope your MUD somehow catches their attention (banners, rankings, forum posts, reviews, etc) then maybe they'll check you out later.

2. After Wikipedia, which ranks #1 for pretty much everything informational, TMC and TMS rank #1 and #2 for the phrases "MUD" and "MUDS" in Google. The other type of traffic is people interested in MUDs following those links and other links to TMS from various sites coming to learn more about MUDs, browse the database, read some reviews and maybe try a MUD out. I think we could do more to help these folks out with general information on MUDs, what the classifications really mean and, as Brody suggested, this is where a revived articles area could be a big help.

Most of the traffic is not active MUD players coming to discuss MUDs in general, because they don't care about MUDs in general, they only care about the MUD they play - until some time in the future when they might be interested in a new MUD for whatever reason. MUD Admins tend to care more about the kind of issues that affect MUDs at a global level and, if anything, that is why TMS is more aimed towards Admins. It would be interesting to hear if this was by design right from the start or if it just turned out that way - but I don't think Adam is around even lurking anymore...

[Brody]

I recall back in the day that the original design was pretty much for MUD owners to list their games and MUD players to vote/rank their favorite games and compete for the top spot each cycle. The forums became, more or less, a water cooler and free advertising venue.

Not for nothing, but I think a lot of the stagnation on TMS has been a result of a stagnation in the top tier of MUDs in the rankings. There's no competition, really. New games don't stand a chance of ever seeing the front page unless they pay for it through TMS advertising. The top games are always going to be the top games.

I think if there was some way to give other ranked games an opportunity to hit the front page - sort of like TMC's random MUD links - then the site might become a little more energized by visits from players and admin alike.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Brody I think if there was some way to give other ranked games an opportunity to hit the front page - sort of like TMC's random MUD links - then the site might become a little more energized by visits from players and admin alike.

What might not be a bad idea too is to be able to enter your selection options when searching the database and have a "Random MUD that matches these options" link. This may already be how the TMC link works - not sure.