A Suggestion for CotI: Traveller Reviews

[Pierce_Inverarity]

I've been wondering... I visit www.rpg.net on a daily basis, not just to check out the forums but also the review section. That section is *immense*. I was truly in awe when I first visited it--it's almost like the living memory of role-playing... almost. Because it's less than comprehensive as far as '80s RPGs go, very much including ole Traveller. Sure, there are bunches of Trav reviews up, but mostly of GURPS and after, and only of a couple non-core supplements.

This is not helpful to those of us who want to know whether Survival Margin is a great adventure or not, whether Beltstrike is worth spending $30 on ebay, so on so forth. Everyone knows DGP products are worth getting, but there's so many other things out there--FASA deckplans, minis, Paranoia Press stuff...

So, I'm suggesting that (pending Hunter's approval, of course) we might blatantly copy rpg.net's review section for our Traveller purposes. I'm sure there are people around here who're dying to write a passionate yet rigorously objective review of that one obscure supplement they love. Right? And, again, that endeavor would keep the memory of the game alive--not a bad thing, IMHO.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Pierce_Inverarity:
I've been wondering... I visit www.rpg.net on a daily basis, not just to check out the forums but also the review section. That section is *immense*. I was truly in awe when I first visited it--it's almost like the living memory of role-playing... almost. Because it's less than comprehensive as far as '80s RPGs go, very much including ole Traveller. Sure, there are bunches of Trav reviews up, but mostly of GURPS and after, and only of a couple non-core supplements.

This is not helpful to those of us who want to know whether Survival Margin is a great adventure or not, whether Beltstrike is worth spending $30 on ebay, so on so forth. Everyone knows DGP products are worth getting, but there's so many other things out there--FASA deckplans, minis, Paranoia Press stuff...

So, I'm suggesting that (pending Hunter's approval, of course) we might blatantly copy rpg.net's review section for our Traveller purposes. I'm sure there are people around here who're dying to write a passionate yet rigorously objective review of that one obscure supplement they love. Right? And, again, that endeavor would keep the memory of the game alive--not a bad thing, IMHO.

I can fairly easily add a 'Reviews' section with the new system for the website (fortunately I wrote this one so can make any changes needed).

If folks thinks a Reviews section is a good idea, we'll add it.

Hunter

 

[Granpafishy]

I think a Review section would be a great idea. I've changed my mind and bought several books just because of reviews I've read and have yet to be dissappointed.

 

[T. Foster]

There was already a reviews section on the old COTI page but it never actually had any reviews in it. My guess is that since you treated reviews like real articles (i.e. demanding that they be thorough and well-written, offering to pay the writers for them) people were afraid to submit them. Something less formal/demanding, more like amazon.com's customer reviews system, would probably get a better response. Encourage as many people as possible to post their opinions, even if all they have to say is "5 stars! This ROCKS!" or "0 stars! This SUX!" I'd be willing to help out with such a section, both by writing reviews myself and by helping proof/moderate reviews by others.

Edited to add: My 666th post! Oooh, spooky!

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
There was already a reviews section on the old COTI page but it never actually had any reviews in it. My guess is that since you treated reviews like real articles (i.e. demanding that they be thorough and well-written, offering to pay the writers for them) people were afraid to submit them.

Well I don't know about anybody else but that didn't scare me off, especially after initial raves from (iirc) Hunter about my reviews. I submitted a couple, waited patiently, sent a followup and still nothing. And he had pretty much already paid for the one. Of course this was during their evil e-mail gremlin days last fall so who knows.

Originally posted by T. Foster:
Something less formal/demanding, more like amazon.com's customer reviews system, would probably get a better response. Encourage as many people as possible to post their opinions, even if all they have to say is "5 stars! This ROCKS!" or "0 stars! This SUX!" I'd be willing to help out with such a section, both by writing reviews myself and by helping proof/moderate reviews by others.

I'd see one 'review' like that and never bother to return that area. Such 'opinions' are useless. Unless the person takes the time to at least outline the reason(s) for their opinion they can keep it because it won't help me in the least. I do think with careful moderation and proofing it might work. The biggest problem I see with a payed review is you gotta think only the positives will get published. A free system encourages honesty.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I vote for a Reviews Section.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
There was already a reviews section on the old COTI page but it never actually had any reviews in it. My guess is that since you treated reviews like real articles (i.e. demanding that they be thorough and well-written, offering to pay the writers for them) people were afraid to submit them.

Waitaminute... offering people money as an incentive to write reviews that are up to a decent professional standard puts them off submitting?!. You're not all so insecure are you?!

I mean, JTAS works by paying people who submit articles, and that works fine

.

The only way I can see for your logic to work is if QLI simply didn't pay people for their work in a timely manner, and that's what puts people off. But I have no idea whether they do that or not, having never submitted an article here - I'd hope that they pay promptly!

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Pierce_Inverarity:
I'm sure there are people around here who're dying to write a passionate yet rigorously objective review of that one obscure supplement they love. Right? And, again, that endeavor would keep the memory of the game alive--not a bad thing, IMHO.

*SNORK*

I'm sorry, but if there's one thing I can rely on in the Traveller community, it's lots of extreme opinions and frothing rage about some aspects of certain versions of the game! I suspect objective reviews would be rather few and far between!

 

[Gallowglass]

I'm not sure a reviews section per se will work - even with rigorous editorial control it will probably contain too much skillfully disguised personal opinion (which is what the vast majority reviews are) and agenda bashing. Without rigorous editorial control I suspect it will rapidly degenerate to contain pointless ramblings that are neither use nor ornament.

Instead, a forum in which people can specifically solicit opinion of a particular product, with frequent polls to focus attention on rating small groups of products (What was the best FASA supplement? Which GDW boxed supplement is a must buy? etc) would encourage focused debate in a way that people could (relatively) easily trawl to help buying decisions.

Sort of what happens now in Lone Star and elsewhere, just giving it a specific home really.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

Personally, I don't think either editorial control or paid reviews are the way to go...

Editorial control: As a former editor, I'm very aware of just how thin the line is between improving an argument and changing it in a way you, the editor, happen to like better. Let people write whatever they want, including spelling mistakes and factual errors. And let the responses in the review forum be your guide as to how trustworthy a given review is. (This is assuming there can be a review forum. If not, well... that would not be so good.)

No payment: Because money has a way of adversely affecting your sense of objectivity?

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Pierce_Inverarity:
Editorial control: As a former editor, I'm very aware of just how thin the line is between improving an argument and changing it in a way you, the editor, happen to like better. Let people write whatever they want, including spelling mistakes and factual errors. And let the responses in the review forum be your guide as to how trustworthy a given review is. (This is assuming there can be a review forum. If not, well... that would not be so good.)

I disagree. I think the last thing the world needs is something like the rpg.net review forums. And look at some of the crap that gets sent to rpg.net as reviews too. Having totally unedited, anything goes reviews is a recipe for disaster and mass flameage I think.

No payment: Because money has a way of adversely affecting your sense of objectivity?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that if people see that they get paid for reviews they'll lose their sense of objectivity?! That's just nonsense. This isn't corporate sponsorship we're talking about here it's paying money for a well written review!

 

[RainOfSteel]

Why not have both?

"Open Reviews" A section of open and freely submitted reviews, and freely submitted user comments on those reviews.

"Closed Reviews" A section of closed reviews where those who have contracted or those who have done speculative work for hire and been paid can have their material posted. No user comments here.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pierce_Inverarity:

No payment: Because money has a way of adversely affecting your sense of objectivity?

Do you seriously expect us to believe that if people see that they get paid for reviews they'll lose their sense of objectivity?! That's just nonsense. This isn't corporate sponsorship we're talking about here it's paying money for a well written review! </font>

I think the Dr's opinion (or mine at least) is that a paid review forum will lead to a favorable slant. Where is the incentive for QLI to pay from its profits for a negative review that will lose sales, no matter how well written and crafted the review? Naturally it follows since QLI are unlikely to pay for negative reviews if anyone wants to take the time and effort to write a review in the hope of being paid for their writing skills it will be a favorable review, either ignoring faults or outright lying and spinning the product. If a reviewer can't in honesty say anything good about it they'll likely not say anything, or post the negative review somewhere else. Just my cr0.02

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Why not have both?

"Open Reviews" A section of open and freely submitted reviews, and freely submitted user comments on those reviews.

"Closed Reviews" A section of closed reviews where those who have contracted or those who have done speculative work for hire and been paid can have their material posted. No user comments here.

That might be the best solution. The tricky bit for QLI is finding reviewers it can trust to be objective and honest, as well as thorough, and reasonably good at expressing their opinion while informing on content without giving away too much. That way the public is served by knowing what they are buying and QLI and the author(s) are served by learning where they might improve. Good thought RainOfSteel.

It might be best for QLI to have a small number (say 3-6) of in house reviewers in case some can't or won't review certain publications. I know I'd like to pick up my reviewing and got the feeling Hunter liked my style but part of the reason I fell behind was computer problems (now fixed, fingers crossed). The other reason was a lack of reply to my inquiries (possibly due to their own computer problems).

EDIT - Actually come to think of it I wouldn't want either review section closed to replies. If it was me posting a review I'd want to see feedback if someone felt it was needed, even if I disagreed with the feedback. Even reviewers need reviewing.

 

[Mythmere]

Gaming stores are folding across the country, and most publishing companies are staffed with people who maintain day jobs. I would MUCH rather see QLI's money spent on new gaming materials than on nice reviews of old material.

I'd suggest that if a review section is deemed to be a good idea, QLI gives the material to the reviewers that write well, and posts the review. No money, but the game material is free and the reviewer gets recognition and some SOC points.

Allowing anyone to post a review creates something more like a poll, since most of the reviews will be little more than a "good" or "bad" no matter how much badly spelled and ungrammatical verbiage cloaks the opinion. Polls have their uses, but they should be summarized for those that don't care to scroll through the raw material.

I think the soc points and free stuff would capture decent reviewers. And I don't think it would lead to biased reviews, though it might lead to the perception of biased reviews.

My 0.02 Cr.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I think the Dr's opinion (or mine at least) is that a paid review forum will lead to a favorable slant. Where is the incentive for QLI to pay from its profits for a negative review that will lose sales, no matter how well written and crafted the review? Naturally it follows since QLI are unlikely to pay for negative reviews if anyone wants to take the time and effort to write a review in the hope of being paid for their writing skills it will be a favorable review, either ignoring faults or outright lying and spinning the product. If a reviewer can't in honesty say anything good about it they'll likely not say anything, or post the negative review somewhere else. Just my cr0.02 [/QB]

Yeah, but QLI shouldn't be publishing any reviews of its own products, just like JTAS doesn't publish any reviews of GURPS Traveller products. There is a scope for bias there, but I thought the whole point of this was that people would submit reviews of older Traveller stuff not by QLI anyway?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:


<snip>...but I thought the whole point of this was that people would submit reviews of older Traveller stuff not by QLI anyway?

Yeah, I was just realizing the same thing. It got a little sidetracked by my reply to T. Foster. So back on track and my apologies

 

[RainOfSteel]

To Pay, or Not to Pay for Reviews?

In the long run, I agree, if QLI has the choice of publishing material and keeping itself afloat, then don't pay for reviews. I was only commenting on it because it seemed to have existed at one time.

I still believe that a section on open reviews would be good. However, the Random Static Forum is right there, and anyone can post whatever comments they like in it, including reviews of existing materials.