|
Sure, of course.
Exactly! That's why any particular statistic is not really going to speak to 'best'. What's 'best' in anything is always dependent on the criteria you're using, and those criteria differ for everything. MTV's movie awards can claim to rate the best movies in the world, because in the view of their procedures (I don't know how they're actually chosen, but I think it has something to do with people going to their website and voting) they do choose the top movies in the world. Someone from, say, the Toronto Film Festival might find a claim like that from MTV a bit laughable, however, because his/her definition of 'best' is going to be different.
As consumers, we all have our priorities, and we all either learn to be skeptical of -any- claim of "best", or we're suckers. Happily, most people do develop some level of individual judgement and discernment, and are able to deal with an advertising-laden world. Some people might think that topmudsites (or -any- site. There is no format that could possibly rank the best MUDs in some universal sense, as there's no such thing. There is only the best mud from a particular point of view.) does actually somehow manage to mystically determine what the best muds in the world are, but they clearly have bigger problems than playing a mud that they may or may not end up liking (like any mud).
There's actually a really good essay by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin called, "The Pursuit of the Ideal" in which he talks about how in his view two factors, above all else, have shaped human history in the 20th century. 1. The development of science and technology. 2. The "great idelogical storms that have altered the lives of virtually all mankind (stemming largely from the Russian revolution and its aftermath).
What's interesting is that I constantly see those same trends in muds, particularly on text mud boards, as opposed to general mud (including the graphical muds or mmogs as some people call them). The technology aspect is obvious (can't have muds without them), but the look at all the ideology you see. They dominate many of the boards, and people go to war (flame wars) over them. Everyone gets riled up because someone contends that this feature or that is the devil, or is absolutely required to be "the best". We've all seen the silly little flame wars over commercial vs. free muds, or over roleplaying, with people on both sides acting as if it's just unthinkable that a mud could be good with feature X or without feature Y.
In other words, while I recognize the natural inclination to tend towards exclusive viewpoints like "My idea of the best mud is the objectively correct and best idea of the best mud." there is no point in catering either to people who believe that THEIR idea of the best mud/best real world is the only good one (take the President of the US, for instance. He certainly feels that way, or acts as if he does) or to people who are willing to believe that someone else's idea of the best mud/world has exclusive claim to being universally Right.
So, in the absense of not only the ability to pick some objectively "best" mud, but the actual absense OF a universally "best mud", does it really matter what criteria you use to pick one? "Ability to drive traffic here" is just as good an indicator as "how many rooms" or "does this mud have chinchillas?". Just like any site with reviews of anything, the only way that site has any real value to you is for you to check out the "recommended" muds/books/movies/etc and then decide if the criteria that site/company/person uses fits into your idea of what's good.
For instance, I find one of the SF Chronicle's movie reviewers Mick LaSalle to have such completely different opinions on movies than me that I just ignore his reviews entirely. On the other hand, I like David Ansen of Newsweek, and Roger Ebert of the Sun Times (though I just read his website, which rocks.... Go check out his "Great Movies" section. Fantastic resource for film lovers.) The -only- way I could possibly make an accurate judgement about whether any of their reviews are useful to me is to read them, then go see the movies, and start ignoring the critics with whom I didn't agree. Everyone does that automatically. I'm sure you have friends whose opinions on a movie will influence you to go see it, and friends whose opinions on a movie you'll discount. There may be reasons to read critics you don't like, but as I read critics solely to decide which movies to spend my time and money on, it's key to find ones whose preferences are more or less aligned with mine.
Anyway, if there were a whole cadre of professional mud reviewers, I'd probably find that a lot more useful than topmudsites. But, there's not, and given the amount of time it takes to actually fully learn about a good text mud (hundreds of hours, especially in muds where the elder game is a lot different than the newbie or midlevel game) and the small size of the market, isn't likely to ever be. Without those multiplicity of opinions to pick and choose from, you're stuck. You could have an official reviewer, but his or her opinions are no better than the current system, as if the reviewer's preferences differ from yours, the review is meaningless (and regardless of your position, a majority of people are going to disagree with you on a whole bunch of things).
Thus, you may as well use a generic metric, whether it's driving the most traffic here, number of rooms, or whether or not your mud has crazy spider monkeys with banana-shaped laser guns. Of all those generic metrics, the one that is most likely to bring you the most traffic if you're trying to make a ratings site is by measuring the traffic a website brings you and rewarding it with a privileged list position. Getting people to compete to bring you business, essentially.
--matt
|