Vanishingly small numbers of Big Games, and the state of the matter

[Top Cat]

It doesn't solve the underlying problem of cruft on the Index, but it certainly helps to ameliorate it.  ^-^

[Hunter]

I could re-arrange the boards so that the most active games are on top, and we could start adding new big group games to the top of a board rather than letting it go to the bottom as a default.

Putting games from last date posted upward would give them a chronological order at least.

As creator of at least one of those no longer active big games, I feel that this would be a good idea as well.   Perhaps one could put something in the title to indicate that the game is no longer active.

[Flower]

It seems like a whole lot of work for nothing. Does anyone actually click those boards to access a group game? The appeal of big game status is that you can basically ignore other group games' existence. I don't think I've ever used that method to access a group game. Has anyone else? It's basically creating an additional step for yourself.

Got a second opinion! I change my mind. xD

[Top Cat]

I can say categorically that yes, some people DO use the Forum Index that way.

[Flower]

If that was the case wouldn't you have noticed a game hadn't had a last post for years rather than going browsing through dead games?

[Top Cat]

Everyone perceives things a little bit differently. What you notice, how you notice them, what order you notice them, and so on - nobody's going to be exactly the same as you. Trying to apply your methods to other people's methods isn't going to result in a meaningful discussion. Just accept that some people do it differently enough from how you do, that it doesn't "make sense" from your perspective.

[Flower]

I did listen to your concern.

I agreed what I saw as valid and then explained why I did not necessarily agree with your suggestions. Your original concern was that you could not determine if a game was active or not from the main navigational screen. The suggested method does nothing to address your concern about cluttering or determining activity from the main page. Don't make accusations or get snippy with me just because I pointed out the obvious.

[Top Cat]

I did listen to your concern.

I agreed what I saw as valid and then explained why I did not necessarily agree with your suggestions. Your original concern was that you could not determine if a game was active or not from the main navigational screen. The suggested method does nothing to address your concern about cluttering or determining activity from the main page. Don't make accusations or get snippy with me just because I pointed out the obvious.

I am neither making accusations nor getting snippy. I'm pointing out that your trying to point out a logical inconsistency is irrelevant when you're talking about perceptions. And no, that wasn't my original concern, but I can see how you see it that way. My concern was, and is, that defunct forums ideally shouldn't show up in the Index page.

The main Index is a good way to get a view for the site. It's far from the only way, but it was absolutely the first way I saw the site, and with how indexes are used in many other sites, was the way that I tried to use Elliquiy at first. An Index page should point out places of interest, and for the most part, it does exactly that - save for the links to long-dead games, which are still prominently positioned.

From my perspective and logic - If you're not expected to use the Index to go to those pages*, why should they even be in the Index at all?

* Which was your point, mind you.

[Myrleena]

Some people like going back and reading games in forums. I've had someone read through one of my games and send me a compliment months later. It rather blindsided me, but it happened. So the thing is, what good an Index page does you depends on what you're looking for. To be honest? I've never used the Index. So I don't care that much.

But asking for them not to be displayed could remove them from people who want them there too.

[RedPhoenix]

Just felt like chiming in to say that I agree that having a massive graveyard of games be very visible is demoralizing and creates a very wrong impression. Even moving them all to a subforum called "Archive" even if not technically an archive after they haven't been active for a year or so would be a major improvement to me.

And I see no reason at all that a social media type thread wouldn't be counted towards the total for the game, if they are IC posts why wouldn't they? People mimicking social media through roleplay isn't any less of a post than someone mimicking dogfighting in space cruisers or being ravaged in a gothic mansions or whatever the cool kids post about these days.

A time limit might be a good idea though too. I have noticed some groups encouraging lesser quality posts in favor of rocketing to big game status and while post quality of course is always a matter of preference it shouldn't be something that people try to rush to and dilute the quality of their games for it.

Okay my rambly thoughts. :)

[Top Cat]

For whom it may be of interest, here's the breakdown for Extreme Big Groups:

41 games, 4 currently active. Of those four, two are new-ish (Zootopia and Pandemonium), SINS Academy is rebooted, and Rome seems to be holding on between the GM and one other player. There are a couple that have had posts within the last three months that I'm not counting as "currently active," but the GM (and others) might feel otherwise.

If, at this point, games were de-listed one year after the last active post, 18 would still be there and 23 would be archived. More than I expected, to be honest.

The full list

This is War - Last posts May 2011
Afterlife - Last posts 2010/2011
Dungeons of Bvan'Telvarth - Last posts in Mar 2017 (GM officially closed game)
The Rack - Last posts in 2009
The Island - Last posts 2011
Godric's Academy of Young Adults - Last posts 2012
Caprion's Lab - Died in 2010, revived for a few months in 2016
Darkest Realms: ~The Otherworld Tavern~ - Died in 2010, revived/died in 2012, revived/died in 2015
Twisted Carnival - Last posts in 2011
Fight Club - Last posts in 2013
Baron Dartmouth's School of Manners  - Closed by Moderation in 2010
Planet Bastille - Last posts in 2010
Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel of Fate - Last posts in 2011
Xavier's School for Gifted Young Adults - Last posts in 2011
Children of Dellware - Last posts in 2012
Saint Catherine's School for S.L.U.T's - Last posts in Feb. 2015
Abducted by Tentacle Monsters - Last posts in May 2016
Club Midnight - Last posts in 2012
Witch House (Hood Rat) - Last posts in 2014
Rome - Active (2 players?)
The Asylum - Last posts in 2014
Hell's Redemption - Last posts in 2014
Hotel California - Last posts in 2014
Shadowrun - Seattle 2075 - Last posts in January 2016
A World of Covens, Courts, and Packs - Last IC posts in Dec 2016, last OOC posts in Mar 2017
Age of Sin - Last posts in July 2016
The Land of Claw and Fang - Last posts in 2014
A Rogue's Fortune - Last posts in Nov 2015
Fandomverse - Last posts in June 2016
Deviations: The Outbreak - Last posts in Feb 2015 (GM officially closed the game)
Realm of the Phoenix King - Last posts Oct 2016
SINS Academy - Active
Sundown Seattle - Last posts June 2016
Drifters - Last posts June 2016
Isle of the Damned - Last posts Jan 2017
Grimm Fairy Tales Presents - Last posts Jan 2016
Mosswood - Last posts Feb 2017
The Church of the Sacred Union - Last posts Nov 2016
Zootopia: Hybrid Theory - Active
Pandemonium - Active
Ascendant - last posts Mar 2017 (GM officially closed in OOC)

Edit: Thank you, RedPhoenix. =^_^= 

[Flower]

From my perspective and logic - If you're not expected to use the Index to go to those pages*, why should they even be in the Index at all?

* Which was your point, mind you.

I never stated I had an issue with the index being there. I said I didn't see the point of reorganizing it. With the proposed change, it does not put the group game with the most recent posts at the top. Instead it is showing the group game that has most recently achieved group game status. Your issue would still be present if someone did not take a second to look at the date of the most recent post. Even if they do, it does not guarantee that the game is active or even accepting new characters. With the current system, someone would still click Hogwarts (if they didn't look at the date) and come to discover that the game has not been active for some time. If the same was done in the NC: Human-Freeform Big Groups, the second game would be inactive. And then in the Extreme boards, the first game listed would also be an inactive one. My point is with this method the problem would still be present which is why I'm all aboard for the archive once that becomes possible. :) At least this conversation created that potentiality.

Just felt like chiming in to say that I agree that having a massive graveyard of games be very visible is demoralizing and creates a very wrong impression. Even moving them all to a subforum called "Archive" even if not technically an archive after they haven't been active for a year or so would be a major improvement to me. 

And I see no reason at all that a social media type thread wouldn't be counted towards the total for the game, if they are IC posts why wouldn't they? People mimicking social media through roleplay isn't any less of a post than someone mimicking dogfighting in space cruisers or being ravaged in a gothic mansions or whatever the cool kids post about these days.

A time limit might be a good idea though too. I have noticed some groups encouraging lesser quality posts in favor of rocketing to big game status and while post quality of course is always a matter of preference it shouldn't be something that people try to rush to and dilute the quality of their games for it.

Okay my rambly thoughts. :)

You hit it right on the head. The only reason why I even suggested limiting those types of threads being included is due to the fact that sometimes people are encouraged to post there (due to it being short and quick) in order to boost numbers and get that shiny new board. Hence why I felt like that's cheating or rather...abused.  You can't really report someone for that because technically they aren't doing anything wrong. I haven't seen that outside of those types of boards but I do believe it could happen. I guess the current system does its job since there aren't a lot of games that reach big game status. Still, it doesn't exactly leave a good taste in your mouth when you see it happening. It is my hope that by shifting the focus from post numbers something good might come of it. I totally understand if people rather stick to the current system though.

I really do agree with the rest so long as those archived games would still be accessible to readers. From the sounds of it, those games would still be capable of being viewed. Just not on the main page. That gets the thumbs up from me. xD

[GnothiSeauton]

As a GM and creator of two of those big game groups that have (sadly) gone inactive, I'm admittedly a little bit against an archive system if there is to be a rearrangement and change.

I do like the idea of rearranging the groups from date when they reached BGS to last posted to/updated.  I'm not sure if that's possible, or even give the GM of the group the ability to mark whether it's active or inactive with a symbol, but I think archiving them just creates more of a headache for staff and GMs as well.

I'd wonder what the process would be if, as I am a GM of two of these inactive groups, if I wanted to reactivate and relaunch them from the archived thread?  Would I have to contact staff and asked for them to be moved?  Would it be as simple as a toggle in the thread?  Would there be a new threshold of post numbers to reach to be moved back to the front page?

And as for social media IC thread, I don't think they should count towards BGS.  I agree that they're a part of the story, but if something as simple as a sentence or two or posting a picture counts towards the 1000 post mark, it does seem a bit like cheating and a loophole. 

[RedPhoenix]

Ah I see what you were getting at now Flower, yeah. :D

I was just picturing like the same thing as moving a game to Complete. If you want to move it back just ask. And yeah, publicly visible and all that good stuff, just not taking up the same space as the active games. Sort of splitting it into a "Library" of inactive games and a "Carnival" of active games if you will. Nothing all fancy or anything. Those are probably bad labels but what I'm getting at is that when newbies look at it now they might think "wow basically everything is dead" whereas if you split it up it might be "hey these look fun, wow and look at all that's already been done, man these people write a lot!" Which I think is a more accurate impression.

And I mean, most of the posts in a lot of group games aren't really more than a few sentences and pictures. If we start drawing that line we start judging the quality of posts and while of course individuals are free to do that for themselves and what works for them I don't like the idea of saying these posts are good enough to count and these aren't. That's why I think the time limit will discourage the 'rush' to big group status and help get rid of posting for the sake of increasing the post count better than making the staff make judgment calls about what qualifies as a post or not.

[Vekseid]

Automoving boards between categories is not terribly difficult.

We could create some archive boards to be placed at the bottom, and activity would automagically move them back up.

Would prefer to do this post-Elkarte as the database handler changed, and I have enough scripts to fix as is >_>

[Cecilia]

I think that the best in between solution is to put the oldest game (from last post date in the game) to the bottom with the most recent post date at the top.  In the larger boards, the first three or four games will be the ones that are active.  If a game goes in active, we can move it to its proper place as needed.  When we do the big move over, we can institute an auto move that puts games without a post after a year into a separate section that people can read. 

[Top Cat]

@Vekseid, Cecilia: Thank you.