8

Since Programmers.SE seems to be quite a good solution as a subjective stackoverflow, I proposed a new site for game-recommendations in area 51.

I don't know if it's a good idea, I don't know if it'll work, I don't know anything actually, except that I like to run experiments.

Check it out if you want, if this becomes a trend, perhaps every site should have its fourth subjective place.

Update: The proposal is now in commitment phase
Update: This proposal has been deleted

| |
  • +1 for a fourth site, which should be a place with lots of lists ;-) – Ivo Flipse Sep 13 '10 at 16:15
  • Strangely MSO isn't just about the site. And with MSO around, we don't need it for supporting the site's functionality. Perhaps such questions could have their place on Meta, after all there's no rep there anyway – Ivo Flipse Sep 13 '10 at 17:52
  • @Ivo Oh, we shot that down long ago. It is best we try to keep the Meta site for what it is for. – Grace Note♦ Sep 13 '10 at 18:19
  • 1
    @Grace, lol at that link – juan Sep 13 '10 at 18:27
  • I forgot the disclaimer: The link to area51 contains a referral link. – juan Sep 13 '10 at 18:36
  • 2
    @Juan I didn't even realize it before, but it's even the same question that I linked last time. Maybe it's the Lost Woods, if I'm always running into the same tree. – Grace Note♦ Sep 13 '10 at 18:38
  • This is the answer to the subjective swarm of list questions we have on gaming.se. Personally, I feel that people are hestitant to even consider a list based question because they get closed so often. It might even be creating bad blood. A se site devoted to gaming rec and other lists is perfect. – Robb Sep 13 '10 at 20:58
  • @Juan just use the [text](link "this is a referral link") syntax... – Zommuter Sep 14 '10 at 7:23
  • Update: "This proposal has been deleted." – NVZ Aug 7 '17 at 4:28
1

We have chat for subjective chit chat.

If having multiple rooms doesn't work (and I believe it really doesn't right now) we can just have everything on a single room.

| |
  • 2
    I think there is a desire from some people to have a place that feels more like a traditional forums. Chat is awesome, but its still not what some people want. Please note, I'm fine with just chat, I'm merely guessing what others want. – tzenes Sep 13 '10 at 16:37
  • meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/943/… – juan Sep 13 '10 at 17:02
  • 1
    @tzenes Transcripts are permanent and searchable... – badp Sep 13 '10 at 17:47
  • you'll notice I said: feels more like a traditional forum. While there is a degree of permanence in chat, it has a very different feel. I think that's what we're getting here. – tzenes Sep 13 '10 at 21:13
5

Because of the decision reached here, I have now committed to this proposal, for the reasons outlines below. Go Juan!

I've been holding my opinion on this for a long time, different arguments running around in my head. I think I've finally understood what I like and what I dislike about this suggestion.

Juan, I think your idea to put game-recommendations on their own SE sites is great. It really is. It would be a good home for these questions. Unlike other users here, I believe the SE engine is a decent engine for game recommendations, though of course there could be better engines.

And the best thing is, we could have an off-topic migration option from gaming to game-recs. That means that people who ask for game recommendations would not feel rejected when their questions get closed - and nobody likes getting their questions closed* - but instead, they'll get a much friendlier auto-migration to somewhere where their question is welcome.

So what's the problem? The problem is that it seems to me to be very bad for stackexchange in general. First of all, almost every site could use such a parallel SE for recommendations - [bike-rec], [camera-rec], even [library-rec] for stackoverflow.com itself. And worst, this fractures a community for (what I see as) no good reason; since the crowd for the normal site and the crowd for the recommendation site is the same. Same userbase, same expertise. Why split it? In my eyes, the people qualified and willing to answer questions about gaming problems are precisely the same people qualified and willing to answer questions about game recommendations.

[game-rec]s for me are the sort of questions that approach the same crowd as the other questions, most people occasionally want to see and they can also be clearly tagged as what they are (I believe we've had a success so far in tagging all game-rec questions appropriately) and ignored via that tag. I definitely feel they have a place here.

Two final points:

  1. Juan's suggestion does have one interesting aspect, that it's actually a recommendation site paralleling more than one site - in particular, video games, tabletop games and role-playing games; but on the other hand the crowd for these three is not necessarily the same.

  2. I've heard suggestions of some mythical 4th place that could be used for polls and opinions, thus providing a sort of built-in recommendation site for each of the websites. This is absolutely the best option in my opinion, and if it ever gets implemented I will most likely be strongly in favor of migrating all game-recs there.

| |
  • I agree it can be built in in every site (I say it in my question) -- and recommendations are valid for every site IMO (books, cooking, etc) – juan Nov 15 '10 at 0:48
  • +1, one of the reasons I feature-requested the fourth per-site place – Zommuter Nov 15 '10 at 9:33
  • yay me! ` ` ` ` – juan Dec 23 '10 at 18:19
0

I think if we have clear concise regulations, people will at least try to obey it so that they will answer and formulate question in a civilized and non-fanboyism matter.

Really it's somewhat the same problem SO has with the homework tag. You get thousands of results using Google, but you need someone to say the "why". Why is that game good, why do you recommend it, etc. Sure not the whole implementation but just the idea and a little why.

At FAQ we should add that when you post your question you should give a little feedback about your play style or what similar games you have played so far, so that the users that answer don't recommend Gears of War, then find out that the questioner wanted a Mafia Wars action type.

And to compensate the votes given i think we should limit the number of votes given, aka you are allowed to vote once per question, either up or down, don't know if this is possible but it's worth a shot.

| |
  • I don't think homework and game-rec is a good comparison. The "why" of a homework is something all people in the know will explain with the same principles, and possesses the potential for a conclusive solution for all who have the same problem. The "why" of a rec, on the other hand, varies based on what is being recommended alongside who is giving it, and is not nearly as likely to be conclusive for the people who seek the same question. [more...] – Grace Note♦ Sep 14 '10 at 12:19
  • While more information is better for a rec, I don't find it healthy for the site. Two people might both be looking for basically the same criteria in terms of genre/platform/features, but because their playstyles are different they aren't satisfied by the other's question and a new question is opened asking for effectively the same group of games. This basically multiplies the permutations even more, which is dangerous considering the nature of these. As for 1-vote-per-rec-q, I think it doesn't mesh well when you take into consideration all the flaws of 30+ answers to one question. – Grace Note♦ Sep 14 '10 at 12:23
  • I see your point, tho I'm a bit confused about this " As for 1-vote-per-rec-q, I think it doesn't mesh well when you take into consideration all the flaws of 30+ answers to one question ". Could you elaborate a bit? – Cristina Sep 14 '10 at 14:04
  • The Stack Exchange engine has a hard limit of 30 answers per page, which is one of the biggest problems in trying to incorporate repositories into the engine. All the high voted stuff will stay on top while new contributions get progressively pushed into earlier pages. As time passes, new things get added but no one sees them since they're not on the first page, so voting pretty much clusters to those first-page items. There's also a fact that a lot of duplicate answers show up because no one read all of the answers to notice that it was already suggested. – Grace Note♦ Sep 14 '10 at 18:36
  • Now, what really makes problems for the "one-vote-per-rec-question" system is that the default sort is randomized for questions with the same score. So even when you are perusing the pages, you may end up missing some that are just not sorted into your view. It is also difficult to place a single vote on a choice of over 30 when you can only see 30 at once. – Grace Note♦ Sep 14 '10 at 18:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .