Does the Number of Hits determine the "Best" Website???

One of the things that bugs me about Boardgame websites is that it is often assumed that just because BGG has such a large number of hits it is the best boardgaming website.

Does it follow that the movie that sells more tickets is the better movie?

For example,

Spiderman 3 grossed $336,530,303 in U.S. Box office receipts




While "Big Trouble in Little China" grossed a mere $11,100,000 in U.S. Box office receipts



Watching both movies it was clear to me that "Big Trouble in Little China" blows away "Spiderman 3"



To me it is the perfect example of where Characters, dialogue and content completely trump high tech special effects.

Likewise, the characters, dialogue and content on F:AT in my mind completely trump the bells and whistles and fancy database of BGG.

Although I realize some geeks are stubborn and will cling to the geek no matter what!



But anyway, when it comes to gaming, "It's all in the reflexes!"

TOS is a good website if you are looking for information on a game and you want some idea if it is a game you might like or not. However in order to get the second part you have to do some digging given it's bias.

This website is a good website if you want to talk about games, gaming or related topics.

What is this thread about exactly? j/k


Yes, Big Trouble in Little China is way better than Spiderman 3.

And no, of course it doesn't follow that a movie that sells more tickets is a better movie.

But your analogy is flawed. What makes a boardgame site better than another exactly? It's totally subjective. For me, it's the number of people that vote on if a game is good or not. BGG delivers this in spades so I know I can rely on their database.

Here, 4 people say that Ticket to Ride is the best Euro game of all time. That's 4 people. There could a gigantic bias going on there and I have no way to know. But on BGG, 13,000 people say that Puerto Rico is amazing. There's almost no bias there at all since it's been totally filtered out (Research Methods 101). I go out and buy Puerto Rico and find I agree with them.

If I didn't, I could identify which mechanic in Puerto-Rico I hate or that I find i missing and I avoid recommended games that feature those mechanics.

Anyway, all to say that BGG isn't better because it gets more hits. Not at all. It is better cuz it has a very large voting population that lets users get a real idea if games are good or not.

But your analogy is flawed.

Your avatar is flawed!!!

the*mad*gamer wrote:

But your analogy is flawed.

Your avatar is flawed!!!

lol, you're right.


ok, I'll change it

Black Barney wrote:
"But on BGG, 13,000 people say that Puerto Rico is amazing. There's almost no bias there at all since it's been totally filtered out (Research Methods 101). I go out and buy Puerto Rico and find I agree with them. ... Anyway, all to say that BGG isn't better because it gets more hits. Not at all. It is better cuz it has a very large voting population that lets users get a real idea if games are good or not."
Hilarious! Taken to it's logical conclusion your reasoning would mean that Monopoly is the best game of all time. So how many sets do you have?

BGG is free of bias?!?!?!?!

Personally I think F:AT is a far better site, but I can't guarantee I'll still stick around if the number of users increases and the first idiots pop up.

I used to say that I mostly use BGG for its database, but thinking about it, it appears to me that even this is wrong. A database in and on itself is useless, it's the way the various entries are interlinked that matters. The most significant tool to link entries were geeklists, but nowadays those are abused and cluttered about by all kinds of bullshit and personal drama. Here is an example of an useful geeklist. Ask yourself how many lists of this type you've seen on the front page lately.

The other feature I thought was great are ratings, but again I convinced myself that most of the times the ratings can be ignored altogether. It completely suffices to me when a game has one very good rating (8-10). There are two games which I think are great and very good respectively (TRENCHFOOT and DUNGEONVILLE) and on those the ratings basically suggest you should take two steps away from the game pronto.

Last but not least I find most reviews grueling to read, with the notable exception being the ones written by the user catosulla .

So what I use BGG are four things:

- To find games I never heard of before.
- To look at pictures of games.

and to some lesser extent:

- BGG chat.
- To write rabble-rousing posts.

BGG is a site for game purchasing with an attached community,
F:AT is a site about nerd hobbies with a great community.

Although I realize some geeks are stubborn and will cling to the geek no matter what!

I only still post on TOS because I can. I bet you would do the same.

Schweig! wrote:

Personally I think F:AT is a far better site, but I can't guarantee I'll still stick around if the number of users increases and the first idiots pop up.

I agree with this sentiment.

I don't post at TOS because I don't feel an affinity with a large amount of users there. The database is extremely useful for scoping new games, so I am a regular visitor.

I really like the dialog I found here at F:AT. Sometimes threads just get too bogged down in their own bullshit and here you can usually count on Mr Skeletor or BTJ jumping in and telling everyone to shut the fuck up and go fuck yourselves. Always good for breaking the tension I find.

F:AT is not for the precious or overly sensitive. If you count yourself in these categories, better to fuck off and find another site.

Death and Taxis wrote:

F:AT is not for the precious or overly sensitive. If you count yourself in these categories, better to fuck off and find another site.

I'd say this site is honest. No passive-aggressiveness or between-the-lines discrimination.

Oh sorry Mad Gamer, my last post was completely off-topic.

No, number of hits does not determine best website IMHO.

Websites are like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

There is a ridiculous amount a bias in the BGG rating -- it goes with that whole self reported data. However, it is nice to see pics and be able to search an absurdly large database.

The ratio of quality well-thought out writing is done here as well. The analysis here on issues done by Ken, Michael, Matt, Uba, etc. is like the graduate school of board game analysis with the language of a frat house; almost everything is a gem.
On BGG, the majority of the writings use the words of a graduate education with the analysis of people in a drunken stupor at a frat house.

And F:AT has Mr. Skeletor, who recently hooked me up with some MOTU information -- since then, I have made some much needed headway on my collection.

Of course, I exclude the RSP forum from this because I think there is some pretty good stuff that goes on there without all of the filterig elsewhere.

Schweig! wrote:

The most significant tool to link entries were geeklists, but nowadays those are abused and cluttered about by all kinds of bullshit and personal drama.

Geeklists are, by far, what I miss most from the time went BGG wasn't a complete wasteland. They were excellent tools for finding new games, learning more about games, etc., etc.

Now? They're just exercises in meta bullshit:

"My one-armed brother has AIDS!"

"Omaha boardgamers Tuesday night jamboree!"

"A tribute to the bass player who got kicked out of Journey!"

"Check out my one-item 'list' that's just some politically motivated drivel!"

I swear, if I ever meet Scott Alden, my one and only question will be: "Why?" As in, "Why did you just allow the idiots to take over?"

As a board game resource, I highly doubt BGG will ever be beat. The discussions are great over here, though.

Black Barney wrote:

But your analogy is flawed. What makes a boardgame site better than another exactly? It's totally subjective. For me, it's the number of people that vote on if a game is good or not. BGG delivers this in spades so I know I can rely on their database.

Technically, the ratings are of how much you want to play, not necessarily how objectively "good" you think the game is. If Euros like Puerto Rico or Knizias aren't your thing, the ratings over there are pretty useless. I really like the geekbuddies feature, though.

Ratings at game sites are pretty much the definition of selection bias. People who decide to stay at BGG and rate games do not resemble anything like a normal distribution of gamer tastes dispersed around the mean of the population's tastes.