14 Jun, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 42nd comment:
*chuckle* You know I wonder if it could be set up so that those 'larger' MUDs that had votes are put at the end of the list and the few votes are at the top of the list. That way those 'smaller' MUDs are seen first and are more likely to get checked out… (Just a thought)
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 43rd comment:
No reason it couldn't be. That's simply ordering.
As for the small mud view… I had a vague idea of grouping muds into "large", "medium", and "small" based on how far up they were on the list, and displaying the top muds for each category.
This way the category isn't determined by the listing, but rather the number of people who vote for it… And the muds with lower votes can also be viewed on the list regularly.
Not really sure I like those category names… but you get the picture.
As for the small mud view… I had a vague idea of grouping muds into "large", "medium", and "small" based on how far up they were on the list, and displaying the top muds for each category.
This way the category isn't determined by the listing, but rather the number of people who vote for it… And the muds with lower votes can also be viewed on the list regularly.
Not really sure I like those category names… but you get the picture.
14 Jun, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 44th comment:
Something else brought up in certain places, is to have one of the fields for a MUD to be "Free?". Of course we'd have to define exactly what that means, but I think you all understand what I mean. I hope.
14 Jun, 2006, Davion wrote in the 45th comment:
This is assuming there's something to vote on. The more I think about 'votes' the less I like the idea. Also, if you read the 'linking to mudbytes' thread, adding voting encourages "Vote for us here!" with a direct link to the vote button :). Don't think we want that. But that's not the only reason. I do think reviews should be allowed. However the filtration process for the reviews is interesting. If we leave it us to us admins or make some sort of gamelist moderator, it falls on them to varify the information provided in the review. If we leave it up to the game owner, nothing bad will ever be said about the MUD. If we have no approval feature… well, you know how that'd go :).
It really sucks we can't rely on not having idiots. I'd like for the possible game list to function a lot like the repository (the comments there don't require validation) but that just seems like a bit much to ask of people.
It really sucks we can't rely on not having idiots. I'd like for the possible game list to function a lot like the repository (the comments there don't require validation) but that just seems like a bit much to ask of people.
14 Jun, 2006, Davion wrote in the 46th comment:
Zeno said:
Something else brought up in certain places, is to have one of the fields for a MUD to be "Free?". Of course we'd have to define exactly what that means, but I think you all understand what I mean. I hope.
Ya, I'd think there would be three options there. Free, Pay-for-perks and pay. Should cover all the bases.
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 47th comment:
Davion said:
Ya, I'd think there would be three options there. Free, Pay-for-perks and pay. Should cover all the bases.
Possible an option for muds that accept donations but don't give perks.
14 Jun, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 48th comment:
Hmm, I guess. But would that really matter? I personally wouldn't ever care if they did or not.
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 49th comment:
Doubt it would matter to many people, but I've seen a few muds that do it over the years.
14 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 50th comment:
Midboss said:
Another thing I'd like to see is a form to report inaccuracies other than dead MUDs, such as lying about average players online, or license violations.
The only problem I'm having with this idea is that it means that each time someone decides to log a report even out of spite, some one has to follow up on it to verify it's veracity. Personally, I'm still a little unclear on how most admins calculate average players online, on my mud, for example, we seem to have periods where we can go hours, or more rarely, days at a time with only imms online, then we'll get weeks where we get no less than 2 players in addition to our imms and no more than 15 players in addition to our imms. When we have no mortals online, we still usually have 5-8 imms online.. so what's my average? 6-10? 10-25?
14 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 51st comment:
Justice said:
Doubt it would matter to many people, but I've seen a few muds that do it over the years.
So you're saying that if the admins are willing to accept donations, but they have no game impact that qualifies as a whole separate category or that it's still considered the free category? Again, I know of several muds, including my own, that are willing to accept donations, but (here I can only speak for my own) we don't solicit donations and we've never recieved one to date, but we have had a couple of offers to which we very readily provide an address to send the donation to with a clear understanding that the only thing the person can expect in return for their donation is a mention of thanks in our 'news'.
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 52nd comment:
Well I'm pretty sure just about anyone would "accept" donations… but I was specifically referring to those which speficially provide information for donations while at the same time don't give any specific in-game benefits for them.
15 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 53rd comment:
Quote
If we leave it us to us admins or make some sort of gamelist moderator, it falls on them to varify the information provided in the review. If we leave it up to the game owner, nothing bad will ever be said about the MUD. If we have no approval feature… well, you know how that'd go :).
It really sucks we can't rely on not having idiots. I'd like for the possible game list to function a lot like the repository (the comments there don't require validation) but that just seems like a bit much to ask of people.
It really sucks we can't rely on not having idiots. I'd like for the possible game list to function a lot like the repository (the comments there don't require validation) but that just seems like a bit much to ask of people.
I'm sure you can get some volunteers to moderate the reviews. I'll volunteer, and something tells me Hades Kane wouldn't be too opposed to helping out either. But I really think the reviews should have an unbiased entity moderating them, so in any case I wouldn't moderate reviews for my own MUD (or End of Time, for that matter).
15 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 54th comment:
Oh, another thing I just thought of. It should be fairly easy to edit your MUD's listing, say, for massive changes. From what I remember you had to have changes to your MUD's listing approved by resubmitting the entire listing everywhere else. Another thing that would be nice is the ability to set another user as an administrator for your MUD, allowing them to edit the listing as well.
15 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 55th comment:
Justice said:
Well I'm pretty sure just about anyone would "accept" donations… but I was specifically referring to those which speficially provide information for donations while at the same time don't give any specific in-game benefits for them.
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I'm not sure that I see the difference. :sad:
15 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 56th comment:
He basically wants to force people who solicit donations to keep their MUD running to add a warning label. MUDs that solicit donations tend to be very annoying about it. Same as with voting.
15 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 57th comment:
Midboss said:
Oh, another thing I just thought of. It should be fairly easy to edit your MUD's listing, say, for massive changes. From what I remember you had to have changes to your MUD's listing approved by resubmitting the entire listing everywhere else.
Having just recently gone through that process myself due to increased number of areas, I'll heartily second that motion.
Midboss said:
Another thing that would be nice is the ability to set another user as an administrator for your MUD, allowing them to edit the listing as well.
Actually, that'd be really nice too, on my own mud, Dragona is my partner and usually handles our daily voting (most sites won't accept a vote from each of us because we're behind the same firewall) and it'd be really nice if either of us could check our listing's stats or update the listing. And recently I tried to add a listing to Mud Magic for the Smaug Building Institute because I'm the host of that facility and Zeno, who's the real admin, is currently banned from Mud Magic, but if I'd been able to get the listing up for him, and then some day that ban was lifted, we'd have no means there to transfer the listing to him. :sad:
15 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 58th comment:
Midboss said:
He basically wants to force people who solicit donations to keep their MUD running to add a warning label. MUDs that solicit donations tend to be very annoying about it. Same as with voting.
Ah, so if I create a help file to refer folks who offer donations rather than typing out an address for them each time, that's not the same as actively pestering for donations, right?
And those of us who once every couple of hours or so make a general mud-wide announcement that says something like "Please remember to vote for us!" are evil scum of the earth, right? :wink:
15 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 59th comment:
Not evil, just annoying. I have no problem with wanting votes, but I have a gag on the word 'vote', so I never see the announcements anymore. And what I'm referring to is a few MUDs I've seen in the past that had hourly announcements begging for donations…
15 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 60th comment:
No, we're not that bad, just one of the imms every couple of hours sends out a polite request for votes, but we don't solicit donations nor demand votes. *shrug*
Random Picks
BTW lets hear it for the underdog