Posted: 2007-06-16 09:42:50 Note: this is a long, long posting. Please bear with me.
There has been a lot of recent attention in the forum and game comments to “problem games”. Recent threads “Duplicate Games”, “Candidates for speedy deletion”, “Too Much Spam”, “Games on Russia and duplicate Games”, and “Labyrinth of games” all deal with this problem. There are also older threads, and quite a bit of comment in the games area. I agree with a number of the comments made in these postings. The issue, I guess is how bad is it, and what can be done about it.
I think it is time to have a more general discussion of this and to make a concerted effort to suggest solutions. I am posting this as a start in that process. I do not regard it as being complete (or even a fully adequate start) in any way. But I hope that it will at least stimulate comments and suggestions.
===========================
Please keep the following points in mind:
i.] Many of the suggestions that will be made here (by me or by others in follow-up), can only be implemented by David. How much he is willing to do will determine a great deal. He’s been very generous in improving this site, and in responding to suggestions. At some point however, there is a limit to what we can ask of him. Even if he is willing to take up some of the suggestions, we will all have to realize that it will take some time – he’s not being paid for this, after all.
ii.] I don’t think the solution is ever going to be that game-making be made overly-restrictive. Part of the charm of this site is that it is easy to get on and make games. How many of us would have just bypassed this site if that were not true? Even children can make games here, and a high barrier to participation will prevent that. There may need to be something less than a completely open door, but in my opinion a baricaded door will destroy this site. (And perhaps, a too-open door will drive out people who become frustrated with the site.)
===========================
As I see it, there are several types of problem games.
A) There are duplicate and broadly overlapping games (how many “Provinces of Canada” games do we need?) These have been a problem for awhile, and recently there has been a flood of such games.
B) There are misplaced games (such as the “Pokemon” game in the “People” category. These should be moved to the proper categories. One recognizes that some that could be seen as misplaced are in an either-or condition. For example “Richest Athletes” could be equally at home in People or Sports: the placement here is not a problem.
C) Some games are full of misspellings and other errors. There are a lot of these, especially among those which have prompted recent complaints. Some are decent ideas but are poorly executed: bad backgrounds, bad dot placement, or confused layout. Some of these would be good games if their authors reworked them, but for the most part, people don’t seem to respond to corrections. These again, are well-represented in the recent crop of problem games.
D) Then there are the one and two dot games. A lot of people have objected to good thoughtful games being crowded out by this kind of “Spam” as Equestenebraum calls it.
===========================
I don’t really know what is to be done about this. I do appreciate all that David is doing to try to keep this site high quality, and I understand the desire to not be too exclusive or restrictive.
I do have some suggestions:
1) As far as I’m concerned, there should be a separate category called “Speed Games” for everything with five dots or fewer (regardless of content), and these games should not show up on the home page. PLV’s suggestion of a “just for fun” category is essentially what I’m supporting here. All the games with too few dots or that are clearly jokes could be segregated into categories like this. How that determination is to be made is another question.
2) There should be a process where people can nominate games to be relocated if they are in the wrong group.
3) Similarly, there should be a way to nominate groups of duplicate games so that the redundant ones can be dealt with. (The “survivors” would be determined first by quality of execution and second by seniority.) It is unfortunate that authors do not remove their own duplicates when they are informed of the fact, but such is the case.
4) There should be some way in which needed corrections could be suggested and implemented. True, there is the comment section, but that doesn’t always get results. Games with serious mistakes that remain uncorrected should be moved into a special “needs work” category. This could include games with factual mistakes and those which are just poorly executed.
5) It might be a good idea that “newbies” must reach a certain skill level before being allowed to create games. Many of the “problem games” are being created by people who are still at the “Novice” level. There are a couple of people who seem to have made more games than they’ve played. I’d think that people who have played a few more games would be more aware of what it takes to make a good one.
I know others have made suggestions about having games vetted, by a committee of members, and that other types of restrictions have been suggested. I’m not saying my suggestions are any better than those, but I do think we need to discuss this and make such suggestions.
6) A few people have suggested schemes of segregating better games from the general mix. That might be worth considering. Some have suggested a committee to make such decisions. (I assume those people have volunteered to serve on that panel…)
An advantage of that is that problem games would not necessarily be deleted: they could live in a separate area. And in some cases, if problems with them are fixed, they could be “rehabilitated”. A first tier game might even have links to its duplicates (and vice-versa). ("Speed Games" and "Needs Work Games" might live in this area.
7) One of my main points is that the categories are (in my opinion) overly-broad. In this sense, the site is a victim of its own popularity: there are now so many games that it is getting hard to navigate.
I would suggest the following divisions: Geography should be divided by continent. (There has to be a “world” category, and it would probably be ok to combine Australia, Oceana and Antarctica).
Similarly, Science should go three ways: Science, Technology and Math. Right now, some technology has been shunted into Miscellaneous.
8) I think that having a default category (Geography) is a mistake. There should be no default, and no game should be published without a category being selected. Maybe a check box window is preferable to the drop-down format.
9) The FAQ should be expanded to include a section on game-making procedure. For example, what makes a good game, what ruins a game, and the whole etiquette of game making. (And yes, I’d be willing to try my hand at writing such sections.)
===========================
Finally, there are two things that the more experienced users can do without major changes to the sites.
Rate the games, and use the games comments sections to make suggestions to the authors for improvements.
It will help some.
===========================
Well, that’s it: my suggestions. Take them for what they’re worth.
