Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Quartett» Forums » General

Subject: Tired of 'Declining" individual component (card) image submissions for this game (Geekmod) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
mbmbmbmbmb
It's as if dozens of individual card scans are uploaded weekly, which clearly violate the criteria for "Game" gallery. It is annoying to regularly have to decline these, and so many seem to slip through, anyhow.

Most of them are from a few select users. I won't call out anyone onto the mat by name...but you know who you are.

Page after page of mostly single card examples for Quartett. Sorry, but this just seems to me like a rather unethical way to reap tons of GG, and should be stopped. And this practice clutters up Geekmod.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!!!!

/rant
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
I can find in the guidelines
Please do NOT submit individual images for every mini or every card in a minis heavy or card heavy game. This is especially true for collectible minis games and CCGs.


But that doesn't apply to these cards.

What guideline are you using to decline these images?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
I can find in the guidelines
Please do NOT submit individual images for every mini or every card in a minis heavy or card heavy game. This is especially true for collectible minis games and CCGs.


But that doesn't apply to these cards.

What guideline are you using to decline these images?


Why does this guideline not apply?! It is a card heavy game, and the guideline is to not submit individual images for every card in a card heavy game.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
looleypalooley wrote:
Pinook wrote:
I can find in the guidelines
Please do NOT submit individual images for every mini or every card in a minis heavy or card heavy game. This is especially true for collectible minis games and CCGs.


But that doesn't apply to these cards.

What guideline are you using to decline these images?


Why does this guideline not apply?! It is a card heavy game, and the guideline is to not submit individual images for every card in a card heavy game.

There is a word there: every
It changes the meaning of the guideline away from "Do not submit individual images".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
mbmbmbmbmb
Fair enough. But after the first card example, which I may approve, the rest are 'declines'. My original point stands. Unless you also approve of the 'approving' of 31 cards from a 32 card game, as this also technically fulfills the letter, but not the spirit, of the guideline.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
You seem to be clear that 1 image out of 32 cards is the right way forward.

You are free to interpret the guidelines however you wish.

You seem to have a lot a of emotion around the idea of card images being put into the gallery for card games.

Where did your idea that only one image should be allowed originate? It's certainly not guideline based. The guideline just say, "No every".



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
Regardless of the exact threshold at which no further individual component images should be accepted, there is the much more obvious problem that there exists no value in having 39 pages of images for a game only around 200 people own and only 3 have rated. If, as is probably justified, the game were merged with The Game of Authors, there would be 88 pages of images, or nearly 1500 images for a public domain card game that nobody here plays and even fewer care about. This is just silly. This isn't an art museum. The two games could be entirely removed from the database and nobody would bat an eye.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
...This isn't an art museum. The two games could be entirely removed from the database and nobody would bat an eye.
Ha.

It isn't an art museum, it's a commercial board game fan site.
And if fans want lots of images of their games on the site and it's commercially viable then that's what is going to happen.

Nate; if anyone is forcing you to go through these images and look at them then you should phone the authorities.

Otherwise, let others enjoy their gaming hobby in ways that are profitable for BGG.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh snap! I totally forgot about Top Trumps and Happy Families.

Between the four galleries, there are 3,289 images. Of f*cking Go f*cking Fish.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
NateStraight wrote:
...This isn't an art museum. The two games could be entirely removed from the database and nobody would bat an eye.
Ha.

It isn't an art museum, it's a commercial board game fan site.
And if fans want lots of images of their games on the site and it's commercially viable then that's what is going to happen.

Nate; if anyone is forcing you to go through these images and look at them then you should phone the authorities.

Otherwise, let others enjoy their gaming hobby in ways that are profitable for BGG.


How is this profitable for BGG?

BGG is currently asking for donations, mostly to fund their server bandwidth....hosting all of these images hardly anyone here looks at or values and that are clearly beyond the purpose of the image galleries is a waste of that donation money.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
looleypalooley wrote:
Fair enough. But after the first card example, which I may approve, the rest are 'declines'. My original point stands. Unless you also approve of the 'approving' of 31 cards from a 32 card game, as this also technically fulfills the letter, but not the spirit, of the guideline.


Lets look at your "original point".

looleypalooley wrote:
It's as if dozens of individual card scans are uploaded weekly, which clearly violate the criteria for "Game" gallery. It is annoying to regularly have to decline these, and so many seem to slip through, anyhow.

Most of them are from a few select users. I won't call out anyone onto the mat by name...but you know who you are.

Page after page of mostly single card examples for Quartett. Sorry, but this just seems to me like a rather unethical way to reap tons of GG, and should be stopped. And this practice clutters up Geekmod.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!!!!

/rant

1. The uploaders are within the Guidelines.
2. It is you who were outside the mod guidelines when you decline these individual images.
3. The individual images "slip through" because the individual images are inside the Guidelines.
4. You have been receiving GeekGold for incorrectly declining images. Have you considered your ethical position around this?
5. You have questioned the ethics of uploaders, who have done nothing wrong, and have been acting inside the Guidelines.
6. You haven't apologised to the uploaders, or acknowledged your error in making this slur.

From here it looks like your "original point" is groundless.
And that you have some cleaning up to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:


How is this profitable for BGG?

BGG is currently asking for donations, mostly to fund their server bandwidth....hosting all of these images hardly anyone here looks at or values and that are clearly beyond the purpose of the image galleries is a waste of that donation money.
Talk with the admins or owners about if your approach will improve profitability.

Creating a storm in a tea cup with talk about deleting games and stopping unpopular game images from being uploaded is unlikely to improve BGG's profitability.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:
Regardless of the exact threshold at which no further individual component images should be accepted, there is the much more obvious problem that there exists no value in having 39 pages of images for a game only around 200 people own and only 3 have rated. If, as is probably justified, the game were merged with The Game of Authors, there would be 88 pages of images, or nearly 1500 images for a public domain card game that nobody here plays and even fewer care about. This is just silly. This isn't an art museum. The two games could be entirely removed from the database and nobody would bat an eye.


Thank you, Nate. You're far better at elucidating my point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
NateStraight wrote:


How is this profitable for BGG?

BGG is currently asking for donations, mostly to fund their server bandwidth....hosting all of these images hardly anyone here looks at or values and that are clearly beyond the purpose of the image galleries is a waste of that donation money.
Talk with the admins or owners about if your approach will improve profitability.

Creating a storm in a tea cup with talk about deleting games and stopping unpopular game images from being uploaded is unlikely to improve BGG's profitability.


It is far from my responsibility to ensure BGG's profitability, let alone to serve as consultan. The GeekMod system has been broken for years; the administration has declared by inaction that they are satisfied with it as is and that bloat is their desired method of content development. If that is the case, they have no one to blame but themselves for server woes. I didn't start the fire, so it is silly to ask me to put it out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
For the record I appreciate these sorts of game galleries as they show that vast spread across countries and across time of these simple children's games whose existence even today is so easily overlooked. (Though interestingly not by the Big K)

And I appreciate the generosity, and time and effort of the uploaders.

Thanks guys and gals, long may you share.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
Also for the record, I value traditional games highly and also think they are woefully underrepresented on the site... but there's a point at which it just starts to get silly, especially given the constant pressure on BGG for users to pay to subsidize server loads and database storage. This is the type image collection that ought to go on someone's personal site like pagat or sloperama.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
Also for the record, I value traditional games highly and also think they are woefully underrepresented on the site... but there's a point at which it just starts to get silly, especially given the constant pressure on BGG for users to pay to subsidize server loads and database storage. This is the type image collection that ought to go on someone's personal site like pagat or sloperama.
If you can present costings I'll listen to your argument.

edit: delete snarkiness
add instead: Without costing its hard to evaluate your position.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
Oh snap! I totally forgot about Top Trumps and Happy Families.

Between the four galleries, there are 3,289 images. Of f*cking Go f*cking Fish. :what:

Well I thought I might be missing the obvious, that there might be a significant economic cost to these images.
So I went and took a sample of the images in the Quartett gallery. The average size was around 700Kb.

If there were 3,289 images of that size in this Quartett gallery then that comes to 2,300 MB - roughly 2.3 Gigs of data - you remember those old DVD disks? - well they can hold 4.3 GB.

My phone has a $20 card in it that holds 32GB of data - about 45,000 of these images.
HDD storage runs much cheaper than that at around 5 cents a GB.

So the physical storage costs of these images are much less than USD$1.

Bandwidth costs seem to be in the order of magnitude of 50 cents per GB.

So around $2 to get all these 3,200 images onto BGG servers and store them.

I'm now very much doubting that the expressed concerns about these images are based on real financial considerations.

We've already seen these concerns continue even when the Guidelines are made clear.

And I predict that the concerns will continue even if the cost to BGG is shown to only be $1.

It looks to me like some are trying to impose either a fanciful narrative or personal aesthetic onto the images allowed into Game Galleries.

Presenting rational arguments or clearly demonstrating the advantages of their narrative or aesthetic might be possible.

Failing that I'd rather they just follow the Guidelines or stop Geek-modding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not these particular 3000 images that are necessarily the problem, but the general bloat and unlikelihood of GeekMod to ever decline an image that they are a symptom of. While on a lesser scale, a similar thing happens in nearly every game in the database.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
NateStraight wrote:
It's not these particular 3000 images that are necessarily the problem, but the general bloat and unlikelihood of GeekMod to ever decline an image that they are a symptom of. While on a lesser scale, a similar thing happens in nearly every game in the database.

I'm seeing galleries that are filled with images that the fans for that game want to place in the gallery and that are in line with Geek Mod Guidelines. If the BGG owners wanted something different I'm assuming they'd set things up differently.

I can understand that you could have a different vision of how BGG resources might be used. It might even be possible for your vision to be added as a refining layer on the fan plethora of images. Have you formed your vision into a solid piece and presented it to geekdom? Maybe you'll find that your idea has lots of support and could add to the experience of users, and so the profitability of the site, and get coding support.
I can see that I'd very much appreciate being able to get the basic images of a game presented to me without having to wade through 60 pages of fine examples of the History of 20th Century Graphic Art

housekeeping: This is the third thread on the same topic with pretty much the same title that Jonathan has created in the last week or so.
The original is at original thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K Septyn
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
Dereferenced variable scope line 68109: check null set failed (0xff83de47)
badge
mb
While I appreciate the discussion in this thread, it reminds me of the LilyGirl "controversy" of years past. (mb) Unless you can convince The Powers That Be that some type of sexploitation is going on, you're going to need to suffer the images.

Of course, a random perusal of images in the Quartett gallery suggest there may be a user you could contact. Perhaps a polite request to remove images from the database would work.

For my other two cents: I rarely GeekMod since it doesn't seem worth the effort, and I've never even heard of this game until I saw this thread on the front page. If it's relatively inexpensive to store the images which are likely rarely seen, is it really a big problem? /rhetorical
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Septyn wrote:


Of course, a random perusal of images in the Quartett gallery suggest there may be a user you could contact. Perhaps a polite request to remove images from the database would work.

Arrrk. I like these images. And enjoy seeing them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
looleypalooley wrote:
Fair enough. But after the first card example, which I may approve, the rest are 'declines'. My original point stands. Unless you also approve of the 'approving' of 31 cards from a 32 card game, as this also technically fulfills the letter, but not the spirit, of the guideline.


Lets look at your "original point".

looleypalooley wrote:
It's as if dozens of individual card scans are uploaded weekly, which clearly violate the criteria for "Game" gallery. It is annoying to regularly have to decline these, and so many seem to slip through, anyhow.

Most of them are from a few select users. I won't call out anyone onto the mat by name...but you know who you are.

Page after page of mostly single card examples for Quartett. Sorry, but this just seems to me like a rather unethical way to reap tons of GG, and should be stopped. And this practice clutters up Geekmod.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!!!!

/rant

1. The uploaders are within the Guidelines.
2. It is you who were outside the mod guidelines when you decline these individual images.
3. The individual images "slip through" because the individual images are inside the Guidelines.
4. You have been receiving GeekGold for incorrectly declining images. Have you considered your ethical position around this?
5. You have questioned the ethics of uploaders, who have done nothing wrong, and have been acting inside the Guidelines.
6. You haven't apologised to the uploaders, or acknowledged your error in making this slur.

From here it looks like your "original point" is groundless.
And that you have some cleaning up to do.


I argue that I am well within the spirit of the guidelines when I decline multiple "example" images of individual cards, especially given the severe bloat as Nate describes. The alternative you suggest is ludicrous--shall I "count" 31 examples to approve, then decline the 32nd?

I do Geekmod every now and then as a service to BGG; anyone doing it for GG is seriously wasting time (0.01GG/approve?!). Besides, the GG is only received if the majority of Modders happen to agree with my position that the image should be declined.

On the other hand, uploading hundreds of individual card images is a pretty lucrative means of gaming the system.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Leach
United Kingdom
Godalming
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
I'd happily see images of a selection of a particular edition's card art, but the sole value in uploading individual images is to reduce the return the publisher can make from paying for god artwork and provide the uploader a pile of GG.

I used to have a subscription to traditional card game family but after having to wade through 10 pages of Old Maid pictures on a regular basis I was forced to remove the pictures subscription. This is a waste of my bandwidth and the server's bandwidth AND my time. Occasionally I enjoy seeing a picture or two of some card art but I don't need to see every last card of the deck.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Jugular wrote:
I'd happily see images of a selection of a particular edition's card art, but the sole value in uploading individual images is to reduce the return the publisher can make from paying for god artwork and provide the uploader a pile of GG.

I used to have a subscription to traditional card game family but after having to wade through 10 pages of Old Maid pictures on a regular basis I was forced to remove the pictures subscription. This is a waste of my bandwidth and the server's bandwidth AND my time. Occasionally I enjoy seeing a picture or two of some card art but I don't need to see every last card of the deck.
And yet the site owners who have a business plan and costings have set things up exactly as they are. It's their appraisal of the utility of allowing these images that matters.

I have never seen any attempt on these traditional card game pages to upload every card of the deck.
What I have seen repeatedly are small samples from multiple editions of this game.

Would anyone like to point me to, say 3, examples of individual images for all of a edition being uploaded?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.