At 6/16/07 11:24 PM, DFox wrote:
Yeah, some might have. My underlining point is that the BBS gives people a public place ON Newgrounds to question the authority. If I want to question the authority on Youtube the best I can do is contact them. Youtube constantly deletes users and videos. Do you ever see any individuals question those moves on a large scale? I know I haven't, and that's because Youtube doesn't give them the platform and most people aren't going to go out of their way to find it.
Well, I don't surf YouTube anywhere near as much as NG... but I've never seen anyone complain about moderation, no.
But I wasn't really addressing the moderation/adminning of the two sites. I was addressing the userbase of the two sites. I'd argue there's not much difference in terms of maturity. I guess your point was only that YouTube does a better job of cleaning up the trash there, and a better job of keeping the random visitor from the rest of the net from noticing the idiots than NG does, especially re: the BBS and the reviews, if not so much the portal entries themselves.
The NG admins have even admitted that the BBS uses a ton of human resources which is why they re-instituted the advertisements. So aside from creating problems, it requires a lot of attention from staff, and there's no denying that as Wade stated that as a reason for the ads. So if you don't believe my whole thing about the BBS being the root of problems, at the very least it takes human resources away from cleaning up other aspects of the site.
I haven't seen those comments about human resources. I don't know if you mean the mods (which have nothing to do with the creation of new areas of NG, the improvements to existing parts of the site, or any other adminning tasks... plus they aren't paid)... or if you actually mean admins themselves wasting time on the BBS. I can't argue that.
I was just saying the technical demands of the BBS are low. Human demands, I wouldn't make claims to.
Whether the youtube comment system is more like a BBS or review system is completely irrelevant.
I was just a bit confused as to what authors and their reviews/comments had to do with the rest of the post's conversation, but...
The fact of the matter is NG reviews and youtube comments are the way you give feedback on the sites content.
Here's what doesn't make sense about the NG review system, whether you want to look at it as a similar system to the youtube comment system, or not, either way the following applies. It's constantly said that the NG review system is to BENEFIT the content creator. Now, why should other users and review moderators have the ability to determine if my comments are helpful to the flash author. Do the other NG members and review moderators have super mind reading powers that allow them to determine whether or not my review is helpful to the content creator? If they do, then that's amazing. I was always under the impression that the only person who can determine whether something is helpful to them is the person who MADE the content. That brings me to this point, why should a content creator not have the power to delete reviews/comments? If the review isn't helpful to them, then why does it remain there?
I don't know who constantly says the NG review system is ONLY to benefit the content creators, because there's plenty of NG flash submitters who haven't been on this site for 3 years. But the reviews (old and new alike) to their flashes serve as a helpful aid, in theory, to the flash VIEWERS of the site, not just to authors.
An ideal review serves all three legs of the NG review system chair:
A) the author of the flash
B) the general audience
C) the reviewer themselves
Yes, the chair only has three legs. It's not the most stable chair in the world.... it's one of those stools that's fun but can fall over if you're not careful.
What if someone comes along, leaves a constructive review on my entry, and breaks one of the many, soft, confining review rules, and one of the many stat whores marks it as abusive, and a review mod deletes it? What if that review would have helped me improve my skills? Why should I not see any reviews that I haven't deemed unhelpful?
That's a good point. It's a point more for laxness in moderation than it is for changing who and what and why the reviews on the site are dealt with, though, IMO.
The current NG review system makes no sense if you look at it from a logical standpoint.
Only if you believe reviews are for no one other than the author. But if they were, then only the author could see them. We can all see 'em.