Important Announcement - Please read

[Kaladron]

The argument that changing feedback to a private system will not discourage abuse of writers is wrong. Think back to many of the most infamous misuses of the feedback forum and all of them came about because the person who used the feedback to make personal attacks did it in the public eye. Almost all of them were showboating to other readers.

Remove the public audience and the bullies won't have a reason to continue - that's what I'm getting at.

[Madbury]

The argument that changing feedback to a private system will not discourage abuse of writers is wrong. Think back to many of the most infamous misuses of the feedback forum and all of them came about because the person who used the feedback to make personal attacks did it in the public eye. Almost all of them were showboating to other readers.

Remove the public audience and the bullies won't have a reason to continue - that's what I'm getting at.

I feel we're going round in circles here. I'm well prepared to work with the new system of feedback. I just think the old system is better at generating feedback in the first place.

I think marcus' point and mine are similar in that you've got to expect a couple of posts from idiots who just want to have a dig because you gave their favourite game an 8 instead of a 9. If the writer isn't getting any benefit from these comments then they can ignore them or ask for them to be moderated if appropriate.

By moving it away from a corporate discusion of the review to private one on one exchanges I fully expect to see the amount of useful feedback to diminish to near zero. I guess we'll see (or won't see as it happens) over the coming months.

[Kaladron]

Well the past few days have already proven that a feedback fourm is not essential to generating useful feedback. Take a look at the Guitar Hero First Play thread. I've recieved a couple of interesting comments for my GH review in there and it has been some of the most useful feedback I've ever had. Only time will tell if this was the right thing to do, but I think it will work out well.

[marcus]

Out of interest I had a look back over the last dozen or so feedback threads, apart from an incident of someone linking to an external review which was rightly removed, and comments on Backdrifters FIFA review which probably wouldnt of been viewed so negativly had the site of stated it as a 'mini-review' from the outset (ie - not Backdrifters fault), on the whole the feedback has been good, not abusive, and surely of value to the site and its writers.

Point Im making, is that I dont see widespread abuse of writers going on here, and the feedback Ive seen has been constructive. Surely the benefits of feedback from the people you write for outweighs the occasional upset caused by misguided comments which if handled correctly shouldnt result in writer fallouts at all?

[gingerj]

aint getting involved....

[Madbury]

Well the past few days have already proven that a feedback fourm is not essential to generating useful feedback. Take a look at the Guitar Hero First Play thread. I've recieved a couple of interesting comments for my GH review in there and it has been some of the most useful feedback I've ever had. Only time will tell if this was the right thing to do, but I think it will work out well.

Good points.

I hope it does work out well and I'm willing to give it a go (in the absence of an alternative )

Often the posts in feedback should really be in first play and as you've pointed out the reverse is true. I can only assume that any comments relating specifically to a review will be removed from now on and redirected through pm or email in the future.

[Il Postino]

I think marcus and Madbury have covered most of what I wanted to say here.

Anyway, it's not my site, but to me this seems like madness. For the record (prove me wrong here), I've never posted (certainly not in a negative fashion) in this part of the forum. Saying that, I do/did read many of the threads contained within and very interesting they are/were.

Originally posted by capcom_suicide
I fully support the notion that unpaid writers, would rather not have their work publically debated. The guys are doing this for free,

If they're willing to have their opinions displayed in public, then they should be willing to have their opinions discussed in public, (marcus has already said this really). Also, I don't see how writers being paid/unpaid comes into this debate.

Originally posted by DaiSuki
As a one-time writer here, I have to say that while getting positive feedback did feel great, negative feedback did made me think, "pfft, I dunno why I put myself through this".

Imagine how some of those developers feel when an unpaid ("hey, he's doing it for free") writer, from some Internet site, calls the game they've worked months/years on, "a load of old rubbish". Pfft.

Originally posted by John Beaulieu
If you want to talk about the game, then we request that you use the First Play thread which will, more likely than not, already be in place.

Fair enough, but will members be allowed to quote, refer to a site review in a negative (not abusive) manner? Or is this against the rules now?

Originally posted by Madbury
... the existing system gives both writer and reader the comfort of peer review by the forum members. If the writer is talking rubbish the forum will let them know if the person leaving the feedback is talking rubbish the forum will let them know.

What more can you say?

Put it this way, if I were to put a review into the public domain and I couldn't defend points made in it from reasonable attack, then I'd have to accept that the review was (at least for some*) flawed. Hey, that's what it's all about, opinions, and isn't it nice when we can voice (in a polite way, of course) these in public? Isn't it?


*Before anybody says anything, yes, I accept that there is no such thing as a right or wrong review, but if you're going to be a critic you do need to be "thick-skinned".

[John Beaulieu]

You can still discuss a review with the writer - only now you do it privately instead of publically.

Is there some reason that you would want an audience for your discussion with the writer?

[Il Postino]

You can still discuss a review with the writer - only now you do it privately instead of publically.

Is there some reason that you would want an audience for your discussion with the writer?

Public debate, isn't the same as attention seeking you know John? Not that anybody was getting confused. Actually, somebody may have said that a few pages back, but hey, it's almost time for bed now, so no matter.

Because I need to massage my ego and the only way I can get off (following 'the accident') these days, is to take cheap shots at reviews of videogames on Internet sites, in front of an audience (of course).

I don't know what you're trying to get at here John

Is there some reason for you being so scared of public debate? I'm well aware of how swift you come down on inappropriate material, so I don't see what the problem with the old system was, at least in terms of moderating it.

Public review, followed by mature public discussion of the review. Where is the problem here?

I'm sure they're lovely, but you can't wrap your kids up in cotton wool, if you do that then they might turn out a little bit, well, odd. You know.

[marcus]

Is there some reason that you would want an audience for your discussion with the writer?

Its got nothing to do with anyone wanting an audience, if you were to take on board what has already been said here surely you must see that?

As much as I think you have, and are, doing a good job here, but posts like the above really rile me, its very hard for anyone to debate things like this when replies like that are so wide of the mark

Theres a lot of valid points in Il Postinos posts, which have remained unaddressed. Youre entitled to make decisions as you see fit, but if theres to be no accounting for them then its best not to leave threads like this open for debate, and just stick with the 'like it or lump it' attitude.

[DaiSuki]

Imagine how some of those developers feel when an unpaid ("hey, he's doing it for free") writer, from some Internet site, calls the game they've worked months/years on, "a load of old rubbish". Pfft.

I do see your point, but I can't say I agree with the parallel you draw. Still, I've said my piece

[John Beaulieu]

This wasn't a debate on whether we should or shouldn't get rid of the feedback forum - that debate has already taken place internally - it was an announcement to a change which has already been implemented, to let members know that the feedback system has been altered (ie there are no more feedback threads being created every time an article goes up, there are no longer links to the forum thread at the bottom of new articles etc).

Yet again, what difference does it make to anyone if their feedback to an article is publically or privately made? Is your feedback intended to let the writer/staff of ntsc-uk.com know whether you thought the article was good or bad, whether you agreed or disagreed with points made, whether you found discrepancies in the text or whether the writer hit the nail on the head? Since the intention of 'feedback' is to converse directly with the staff, then this can just as easily be done in private as it can be done publically, in fact by doing it privately it becomes a more personal affair, a 1on1 with the writer in which every point you bring up can be addressed.

Unless, that is, your intention is to make a public statement, addressing each of the points which can be just as easily made privately. This, I see, as seeking an audience, and it gets even more apparent when a feedback post is created by someone who's sole intention appears to be writing their own mini-review of the game in question.

The Feedback Forum, as the name implies, was for feedback - not for gameplay discussion, not for debates about the merits of a particular game etc etc, we have forums and threads already in place for debating games in this manner. Yes, a number of good debates sprung up in the Feedback Forum, but this was limited since no other member of staff, apart from the writer, was supposed to get involved in any particular feedback thread.

A valued member of staff recently left the site due to issues with 'feedback' people have given (I say feedback, it was anything but that - it was just a member looking to garner brownie points (ie seeking an audience) by stating that he hadn't even read the article in question but it was ****) - now I am not going to be drawn into a debate over whether a person who puts their work in the public domain should develop 'thick skin' or not, as far as I am concerned a single writer leaving over 'feedback' is a writer too many.

[marcus]

I disagree with the removal of the Feedback forum myself, but its your call and all the best with it.

Id suggest though that the presence of the regular updates is maintained somehow though within the forum, perhaps by way of closed threads (maybe in these you can give direct links to the writer of the article etc), as by removing it altogether you go some way as to detaching the forum from the main site, when the two should probably be intertwined. Theres a number of people who probably never read the main site which this wont matter to, but theres also a group who do read the main site if they see an update on the forum that points to an article that interests them.

In any case, all the best with it and I hope it solves the issues of writers being unhappy at feedback they recieve, so noone else leaves.

[Madbury]

It would seem that a reasoned exchange with the admins is impossible reading through the above. Threads like this one degenerate so quickly into some sort of stand-off and the tone becomes unnecessarily aggressive.

All I can add is that since the admins are so disinterested in the comments and opinions of the site's readership and this thread serves only as "an announcement to a change which has already been implemented". Why leave it open for replies? Just lock the damned thing and direct us to correspond via PM or email.

One final point (and I promise it is final). Please don't lose sight of the fact that this site revolves around the forum members and their contributions as much as it does around the staff, if not more so.

[lordcookie]

It is a shame to see the feedback section going as I know I enjoyed reading it over the years. Sure there was derogatory posts at times but I can't quite see why reviewers can't just ignore them for the trolling crap that they were. I can't see many people PMing writers now though which means there is a continued seperation of writer and forum (not helped with the likes of Writers Bloc being started).

One of my favourite aspects of the feedback forum was that you could gain a greater insight into a particular game. If the review neglected a particular aspect (perhaps due to space) then it was the ideal place to address the issue. I found this especially useful for games that I had not already bought as the First Play threads can be incredibly daunting as you have pages of (potentially superfluous) information on 'how to beat boss B' etc. The feedback provided a concise yet thorough look at the game.