||[Nov. 1st, 2004|01:45 am]
So, let's talk about it. What would you like to see?|
Edit: Hello all. I'm sorry about this, but I've turned on screening for anonymous comments in this thread and the top one on the blog. We have a troll who has been spamming comments every few hours or so, and I just don't have time to keep coming in here and deleting them. Rest assured if you post anything that ISN'T vulgar, I will unscreen it as soon as I see it. Hopefully the troll will lose interest soon and I can lift this.
Edit 1/4/2005: Comment screening turned back off; thank you all for your patience. =)
Using the BBB as a sort of template and contact is a good idea, thanks. The suggestion is one that will be useful in any discussions with the IGDA, also.
There should indeed be a standard rating system in addition to text testimonials, perhaps similar to the 'star' rating system for movies, and in different categories: compensation, comp time, crunch ratio, benefits. I'd appreciate any suggestions having to do with what categories we should focus on in the ratings, and also if anyone has a clever idea of what to use instead of 'stars'.
2004-12-16 10:46 am (UTC)
Since there is pretty much nothing to stop even a registered user from rating any company however they want, where do you expect your credibility to come from?
You are right in that ratings definitely would have to be in addition to text testimonials...but that involves a bit of trust as well..in addition to the basic human fact that bad news spreads more easily than good. Why on earth would someone happy with everything at their company even visit GameWatch?
You need to figure out a way to keep it from becoming just one continuous bitch session. To that point I would like to see people pose proposals for addressing issues they raise. Pointing out problems is easy like coming up with a game idea is easy...it's solving the problems that's difficult.
2004-12-16 11:15 am (UTC)
Goodness...I posted a problem with no solution, didn't I? Shame on me.
At least I got back out of bed to address it!
Here's how you can get credibility: EA has its TalkBack survey...but it is administered by an external company. If you could hook into that data (or administer it yourself somehow), you'd have both a large data source that should include happy as well as unhappy people (although that bias will still exist) AND you would know it came from people who actually work for the company. You could offer to do the same for other companies.
I'm still thinking about the continuous bitch session problem, but going to bed for now.
When you post a comment on Amazon.com it tends to get moderated, hence why it's not displayed for about 24 hours. People also review the reviews, judging what are the most helpful, and what are just, well, bitch sessions. Comments on Slashdot.org work much the same. Lower scoring reviews just aren't displayed off the bat.
This kind of system keeps the bitch sessions down, because it would take quite an orchestrated work to get a visible whining up there (I.e. make a post, and then have you and all your registered friends vote highly on it. Of course, you could easily put in systems to prevent this, so that only so many people can rate it a day or something).
I'd also look into only having registered users able to vote and/or write reviews. As a famous webcomic once pointed out in a humorous tone:
Normal Person + Anonymity = Total Fuckwad
Heck, this blog is a good example of that. =c)
I agree with everything here except your last sentence. ;) We will definitely moderate Gamewatch much more thoroughly than the blog -- here on the blog there is an issue of free speech, and I have been very reluctant to remove any comments, but on Gamewatch the primary objective, and indeed the entire purpose of the site, will be credibility, which does mean we will have to choke down on spam and trolling. However, I agree with you that the community itself will self-moderate; we will provide the beginning structure of placing verified testimonials higher on the display list than anonymous ones, and a rating-moderation system like Slashdot's could be considered additionally.
Which last sentence? The equation, or the blog being an example?
I was saying the blog was a good example of anonymity bringing out immaturity in people. I wasn't saying you were moderating it =c)
To deal with the bias problem, perhaps it'd be best to just take the default rating for a company to be the highest possible for all registered employees until it's specifically set. That way, the people who are motivated to complain aren't taken to be representative of the people who see no reason to.
I think it'd be a good idea to have the company's attitude towards work/life balance rated. This would roughly cover mandatory overtime, crunch, comp time, flexible working arrangements and overall family friendliness. Also, I think it'd be really good if employee turnover/average stay was tracked, and if not, if there could be a rating for perceived job security.