lawrenson wrote:PDT_Armataz_01_37 Lawrenson says THANK YOU to Xaxaxe for this useful post!

And Xaxaxe says BIG BRAVO for your wonderful avatar, which makes me want to sign on more often.

(It also gives me a tingling in my nethers ... that's okay, right?)

puterdragon wrote:
I checked my sensitivity meter, and I won't take it personally.

I certainly didn't mean for you to do so, sorry if it came across that way. Just one of my pet peeves, and the subject of an entire site call X-Geek kind of rubs me the wrong way. Having said that, I just registered on RPG Geek to delve a little deeper and give it a fair shake.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:
I certainly didn't mean for you to do so, sorry if it came across that way. Just one of my pet peeves, and the subject of an entire site call X-Geek kind of rubs me the wrong way. Having said that, I just registered on RPG Geek to delve a little deeper and give it a fair shake.

That's okay. The sensativity gauge cracked a few years ago, and no status (badge) is required. (Insert deity) knows, there're plenty of BS stickers and judgements in the world.
I'm going to the site as well to find out if it's helpful anyway.

mbassoc2003 wrote:The real problem is that for a site with 10 years of experience, it's still full of sh!t. The people who are responsible for vetting and administering all the crap people post about things know less about RPGs than your average online reseller.

I don't mind your opinion on this at all - but I have a polite request. When you say things like "the people who are responsible" I want you to use my name. My full name. I'm ultimately responsible for the data and content on RPG Geek. I pulled together the RPG Geek Consortium team. I monitor and sort and sift it all on a continual basis. I wrote the data entry guide and the user guide and the image guidelines. So I ask that you not say "The people ... know less" just say that "Dave Bernazzani ... knows less". Until you start doing that, I will continue to not take you seriously. I take responsibility for what goes on at RPG Geek - and so you may as well blame the source rather than sanitizing it.  Thanks!

-Dave

Bracton wrote:
No, and no.  Just overeducated.  

shame on you!!

wavemotion wrote:I don't mind your opinion on this at all - but I have a polite request. When you say things like "the people who are responsible" I want you to use my name. My full name. I'm ultimately responsible for the data and content on RPG Geek. I pulled together the RPG Geek Consortium team. I monitor and sort and sift it all on a continual basis. I wrote the data entry guide and the user guide and the image guidelines. So I ask that you not say "The people ... know less" just say that "Dave Bernazzani ... knows less". Until you start doing that, I will continue to not take you seriously. I take responsibility for what goes on at RPG Geek - and so you may as well blame the source rather than sanitizing it.  Thanks!

-Dave

Well, congradulations on building the site. I hadn't realised you were the 'big cheese'. I had thought you were one of the functionaries. I do see the benefits, both social and economic, of building a big site that attracts traffic. The same way I see the benefits of building a big business, like Troll and Toad. But your site falls into the same catagory as Troll and Toad, and your market presumable is similar. Mass market with no real requirement for accuracy so long as the 'churn' is created.

I suppose the fault is that sites such as Acaeum, and people who collect in niche markets and populate those sites, won't waste their time going and feeding all that information into another website so someone can profit from it. But this is compounded by the general level of ignorance of the site and it's patrons, and the lack of care any of the contributors have to accuracy or quality of information.

In the same manner that a large volume reseller may attract criticism, and in some cases contempt, for posting misleading or blatant falsehoods in auction listings in order to attract or increase bids (and then blame the ignorance of their staff for said errors), your site has a tendancy to accept any bullsh!t people post and then blame the lack of quality of information, and the level of inacuracy on the ignorance of it's users. At least that is the image that is given out.

People who value honest and accurate descriptions and information, and people who seek to trast sources of information tend to learn quickly which online sources are full of crap and don't care, and which are open and honest. Just as people who buy products online find out the hard way which companies can be trusted to tell the truth and deliver as agreed, and which companies cannot.

However, as you are the owner of said site, you deserve respect and congradulation on having built a sizable well populated website in such a short time, and if your intent is to earn money through your ventures, I wish you every luck and speed in earning an online income. I think you know your online market (which would appear to be the mass market gamer who doesn't really need to know anything about what they're playing with, and certainly doesn't need to know the difference between a first and second printing) and trust you serve that market well. You will however find it difficult to sell your site to Acaeum members, purely due to the frustrating lack of accuracy and any real information your members post and the disinterest your team have in learning about or correcting any of the information the membership feed you.

FormCritic wrote:The only thing I actually know about Delta Green is that it is a collectible worthy of an acid free baggie.

Well now you know that it's a fantastic product worthy of being played. I'd recommend you take it out of the baggie and play it

-Dave

wavemotion wrote:At least the RPG Geek has the correct information for the DMG 6th Printing. I submitted a correction for that here back in December 2009 and am still waiting for it to be be fixed. Apparently a few other Acaeum members have some issues with the content in the database here which has not been remedied.   Pot, Kettle, Black.

I have to agree with you there. There are quite a few members here who have issues with the process and the time it takes for content to be amended. I am not about to appologise for mistakes on any site that have been known to exist and gone uncorrected for any considerable length of time. A month or two, yes. Longer, maybe, six months to a year, no. It's just bad information and publishing it perpetuates falsehoods.

But building a website based on open access to all to add and amend information is a good building excercise, but it cannot be sustained. If you leave access open to everone to add information without editing it and correcting it and validating its accuracy, you end up with bullsh!t being passed as fact, an issue Wikipedia could only deal with by locking out the muppets who use the website and post bullsh!t they believed in all honesty to be true. I have no doubt that everyone who posts on RPGG post what they believe ernestly to be the truth. That makes them no less of a muppet if they get it wrong, and if you don't police it and edit it, you end up just posting bull. It doesn't take many rotten facts to taint the rest of your site if no action is sen to be taken.

Yes Acaeum has inaccuracies. Yes, people don't like it, but it remains the primary source online for easily accessible accurate information.

wavemotion wrote:Note to self: don't post any 'Geek ranking lists here again.

Not at all. This has been the most entertaining thread we've had in weeks. There is only so much soccer talk I can take before nodding off. I'll be having a look at your site soon.