The RPGnet Gaming Index

[Sleeper]

The whole two editions thing is a kludge, so I'd prefer not to extend it.

I had one other similar situation, here:
http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3624

I entered the widely known name as the product name, and the correct name as the edition name. The same might be appropriate here.
That's why I asked. I think I'll invert it, though, since "Runeslayer" is the apparent name of choice for the product, but the actual edition says "RuneQuest: Slayers".

-Pat

[ShannonA]

1. In the individual listings, can it be listed by game and then book like the main listing?

2. Can I restrict the individual listing to a specific game? For example, I'm really working on the Shadowrun part of my gaming and would like a listing to just show the SR games I have, have for trade, and want vs the entire listing.

I assume you're talking about the ownership page. It's just a hack right now, and needs to be totally revamped. Making it work more like the main search is indeed a good idea.


3. Another restriction might be just the Wants/Needs listing so it can be posted as a link.

A good idea too. I'm going to try and keep these in mind when I get back to the personal pages. Right now I'm working on ratings and some other stuff.

4. When I add an edition vs a full entry, can that be listed in the "Newest Entries" listing? Right now there doesn't seem to be a way to see it other than finding the one with multiple entries and check. I've been adding my gear and checking it off as "Owned" as it shows up in the "Newest Entries" listing.


This is now done.


I noticed you removed the percentage and estimage/guess comment. How am I supposed to know when I've reached 2% :D

The estimate I used was 15000 separate editions.

[Freejack]

I found my Shadowrun Gamemaster Screen back pages (contents, ISBN, description) and updated the SR1 and SR2 GM screen entries (just explaining all the recent changes for the two items :) )

Thanks for updating the code to display edition additions :D

Carl

[Sleeper]

Neat charts (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry-ratings.phtml?mainid=64). Where did 6.86 come from?

It would also be nice to have the ability to correctly associate reviews with entries (editions?), especially after entering a new one.

Edit:

As an aside, I recently linked directly to a system (http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=system&value=Interlok&sort=system,systemversion) from inside an entry. Is that url relatively static, or should we be avoiding it because the link might break in the future? I've periodically linked to entries and editions, as well.

And a preview button when adding or editing entries would be nice.

[ShannonA]

Neat charts (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry-ratings.phtml?mainid=64). Where did 6.86 come from?

A more accurate average. I'm going to post about that in a new thread in a sec.


It would also be nice to have the ability to correctly associate reviews with entries (editions?), especially after entering a new one.

Yup. The automated system catches many of them, especially if you enter an ISBN, but not all.


As an aside, I recently linked directly to a system (http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=system&value=Interlok&sort=system,systemversion) from inside an entry. Is that url relatively static, or should we be avoiding it because the link might break in the future? I've periodically linked to entries and editions, as well.

Those search pages should be pretty static as URLs, since I'd like people to link to them.

And a preview button when adding or editing entries would be nice.

Yup. ;)

[philreed]

Maybe include a section on each page for links?

[Valandil]

Maybe include a section on each page for links?

I'm' a noob about this but what about just a link to a Wiki entry and putting the links there? And a link back to the Index entry as well.

[Thanuir]

Could/Should the Bayesian average be included in the graphs?


Do you have data about the distribution of the ratings index-wide? Is there any strangeness, like some numbers being almsot toally skipped (2 might be one)?

[ShannonA]

Could/Should the Bayesian average be included in the graphs?

I opted not to because I wanted to sure the "pure" ratings.


Do you have data about the distribution of the ratings index-wide? Is there any strangeness, like some numbers being almsot toally skipped (2 might be one)?

There's slight glitches at 2 & 9:

1 -> 134
2 -> 106
3 -> 182
4 -> 297
5 -> 425
6 -> 1148
7 -> 1700
8 -> 2017
9 -> 940
10 -> 976

I suspect it has to do with the terms, so if you've got any better ones, let me know.

[ShannonA]

Maybe include a section on each page for links?

Probably. I just need to figure out a way to tightly control and constrain it. I've learned some lessons from BoardGameGeek which has a similar index (for boardgames) but is really freeform in a lot of its usage and thus there's not a good way to pick out the wheat from the chaff in a lot of stuff.

[Sleeper]

There's slight glitches at 2 & 9:

1 -> 134
2 -> 106
3 -> 182
4 -> 297
5 -> 425
6 -> 1148
7 -> 1700
8 -> 2017
9 -> 940
10 -> 976

I suspect it has to do with the terms, so if you've got any better ones, let me know.
I like 2's description. It's concrete and useful. 9 ("one of the best this year") on the other hand is the oddball of the bunch. It's a comparison, not assessment of a book on it's merits. "Close to perfect" or "outstanding" might work. And "mediocre" might be better than "almost average" for 5.

Being able to view a ranking list of your own ratings would be nice.

And the implied weights of various ratings are interesting to compare. Gryfalcon's comment on Castle Caldwell and Beyond (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4044) counts for 20 times as much as vicount eric's rating. But both Gryfalcon and my ratings of Spellfire (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4067) combined count for less than Shannon's comment.

Edit: Oh, the ratings page needs a link back to the main entry.

-Pat

[ShannonA]

I like 2's description. It's concrete and useful. 9 ("one of the best this year") on the other hand is the oddball of the bunch. It's a comparison, not assessment of a book on it's merits. "Close to perfect" or "outstanding" might work. And "mediocre" might be better than "almost average" for 5.

I've changed the "9" to Outstanding.

Being able to view a ranking list of your own ratings would be nice.

I've got an idea for a whole user-rating page, and it's on my list, but I think I've done enough on ratings this week and need to do some other things.

And the implied weights of various ratings are interesting to compare. Gryfalcon's comment on Castle Caldwell and Beyond (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4044) counts for 20 times as much as vicount eric's rating. But both Gryfalcon and my ratings of Spellfire (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4067) combined count for less than Shannon's comment.

Yup. That's all to do with the trust weightings of ratings. Drive-by raters don't get as much credence, nor do ratings without comments.

[ShannonA]

Though it made me seriously grind my teeth, I changed the average rating to "5" and changed a couple of the other descriptions. It's going to make "older" ratings a little wonkier, but it's good for the long-term usefulness of the index because, exactly as was pointed out, it gives more room for the positive ratings which are more used.

[Thanuir]

The glitch at 2 comes from people who hate products giving automatic 1 to them, I'd presume.

[Thanuir]

Reviews of Changeling (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=89) are partially ignored. Namely, the second edition's reviews seem to have no effect.

[Sleeper]

Reviews of Changeling (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=89) are partially ignored. Namely, the second edition's reviews seem to have no effect.
That's probably because the ISBN's don't match (the edition entry says 1-56504-706-8 and the two reviews say 1-56504-716-8). I suspect it's a typo, since there are no google hits for -706-.

Edit: And is the genre really horror?

[Skiorht]

Is there a way of seeing all the games I've rated and commented on as a single page, comparable to the BGG function? It would be really handy to check that I have kept up my standards and to spot any funky ratings given for some reason.

[ShannonA]

Is there a way of seeing all the games I've rated and commented on as a single page, comparable to the BGG function? It would be really handy to check that I have kept up my standards and to spot any funky ratings given for some reason.

That's the next thing on my list to do. Probably Monday, but maybe earlier.

[Pierce Inverarity]

It just occurred to me that it would definitely be fun to include RPG-related boardgames. There aren't many, but they're all interesting: the GDW games that are related to Traveller, the D&D boardgame by Parker, Chainmail, Noble Armada for Fading Suns, Sky Galleons for Space 1889, Arkham Horror, that Rolemaster minis game... and a totally spaced out minis game that bankrupted Steamlogic, who gave us Mechanical Dream.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch, but the total is no doubt manageable?

Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single White Wolf boardgame. The very idea feels weird.

[ShannonA]

That's the next thing on my list to do. Probably Monday, but maybe earlier.

In case you missed in the earlier thread, this is now done. Right now the easiest way to get there is by clicking on your name on a 'comments' page.

[ShannonA]

It just occurred to me that it would definitely be fun to include RPG-related boardgames. There aren't many, but they're all interesting: the GDW games that are related to Traveller, the D&D boardgame by Parker, Chainmail, Noble Armada for Fading Suns, Sky Galleons for Space 1889, Arkham Horror, that Rolemaster minis game... and a totally spaced out minis game that bankrupted Steamlogic, who gave us Mechanical Dream.

It will be so. I want to build a little structure for "related" items before I do so, but you'll be able to add these eventually.

Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single White Wolf boardgame. The very idea feels weird.

They put out a Vampire board game last year. It had some nice color and some decent design, but it was way too long.

Here's my mini-review of it:
http://shannon-a.livejournal.com/251322.html

[ShannonA]

For those of you who have been enjoying the RPG index, we're planning to roll this out as a new Science-fiction, fantasy, and horror index too:
http://sf.rpg.net/index/index.phtml

Take a look!

[C.W.Richeson]

For those of you who have been enjoying the RPG index, we're planning to roll this out as a new Science-fiction, fantasy, and horror index too:
http://sf.rpg.net/index/index.phtml


There goes my free time :)

[ShannonA]

By the by, don't worry about RPG related books for the SF/F/H index. I'm going to auto-sync those over at some point.

[Sleeper]

Doesn't seem to like names with commas in them. I've never seen "Walter M. Miller, Jr." referred to in any other way.

[Pierce Inverarity]

It will be so. I want to build a little structure for "related" items before I do so, but you'll be able to add these eventually.



They put out a Vampire board game last year. It had some nice color and some decent design, but it was way too long.

Here's my mini-review of it:
http://shannon-a.livejournal.com/251322.html

Wow, learn something new every day...

Great to hear we'll have a boardgame section, too.

[Sleeper]

Logging in at sf.rpg.net reverts you to the comparable page at index.rpg.net (the home page, the add entry page, a specific entry number, etc).

And "Walter M. Miller Jr." is incorrect :p

[ShannonA]

After getting enough rating data into the index to really understand what user rating patterns look like I've adjusted the way that my trust ratings work.

In short, I've doubled all trust levels (until they reach the cap), so that now if a user makes 25 ratings he is at a regular trust level and if he makes 50 he's at a high trust level. Previously those numbers were 50 and 100. I've seen lots of ratings from people who have clearly put real thought into it in the 15-25 range, hence the change.

This will cause some real shifts in the index ratings (I expect) since it'll upgrade the value of more casual ratings (and often less casual ratings too, as 200 was a pretty high mark to shoot for) and it'll effective devalue people who have rated a lot and reviews.

[ghost-angel]

I just feel the need to voice this:

The Gaming Index is a truly awesome thing, all I can say is thanks for putting in the work here Shannon.

[Thanuir]

There needs to be some way to make people rate the less popular and visible stuff.

For example, I am the sole rater of the online D&D adventures, pretty much. And I wasn't even the one to add them there.

So, to that effect, could you create some way of viewing random/least rated products (close enough to the same thing)?

[Sleeper]

There needs to be some way to make people rate the less popular and visible stuff.

For example, I am the sole rater of the online D&D adventures, pretty much. And I wasn't even the one to add them there.

So, to that effect, could you create some way of viewing random/least rated products (close enough to the same thing)?
Yes, that's a definite weakness. The equivalent of a "random article" or an "I'm feeling lucky" link might not be a bad idea.

I think it's great that you rated so many of those adventures. I've been meaning to go back and rate a bunch of them :). At the time, I wasn't rating products at all.

[ghost-angel]

Two different buttons would be cool -

Read A Random Review
View A Random Entry


I've still got to go through and rate/comment on everything I own or have interacted with.

[C.W.Richeson]

Read A Random Review
View A Random Entry


I think that's an awesome idea!

[owe for the flesh]

Two different buttons would be cool -

Read A Random Review
View A Random Entry


I've still got to go through and rate/comment on everything I own or have interacted with.

Mega-Dittoes here, Shannon!

[ShannonA]

Random entries sounds like a good idea when I revise the browse page.

[Madeline]

I noticed that HoL (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1453) and Daemornia (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3531) are in the setting "Dark Furture." Aa, it makes me twitch! ;) Would you prefer that if I find stuff like this that I submit an "Edit Main" thing for each, setting = "other" = "Dark Future"? I'm posting this because I guessed it would be less work for you to just change the spelling than for you to OK two tiny edits like that and then delete the misspelled option.

...Huh, also, no one has entered Buttery HoLsomeness, apparently... I would, but I don't own it. So, golden opportunity there. ;) And speaking of Dark Furtures, the original Albedo doesn't appear to be in there either... God, I'm on a roll of terrible puns.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Just edited the Fantasy Hero info from "Other Rulebook" to "Background: General." It makes (some kind of) sense, but above all I did it because Pulp Hero and Star Hero are there, too.

[ghost-angel]

Just edited the Fantasy Hero info from "Other Rulebook" to "Background: General." It makes (some kind of) sense, but above all I did it because Pulp Hero and Star Hero are there, too.

Good call.

[Pierce Inverarity]

On that note, I've shifted the Turakian Age (also for Hero) from Background: General to Background: Setting, coz a) if FH is General, then TA is Setting; and b) that's what the Valdorian Age is filed under, too.

[ghost-angel]

I think I'll go through all the Hero Books this weekend and try and make it as uniform as possible. Dark Champions should be a setting/genre as well IMO.

[owe for the flesh]

Out of curiousity, what are people's ideas as to what falls under "Background:General" anyway? I tend to use it as catch-all for any book which is clearly "background" but doesn't fall under either of the other two choices.

[Pierce Inverarity]

I was thinking of Dark Champions also... it's a tough one, because it might almost be a "Background: Group." There's a similar case in Traveller: are the "race" books (on the Zhodani etc.) group books, or general, or setting, or what? You can make a case for each of them, so all you can aim for is consistency.

OFTF: that's exactly what I'm doing as well, and it's probably what it was designed for.

[ghost-angel]

Well, under 5th Edition Dark Champions is a Genre Book unto itself, and definitely goes into several different flavors of Street Level/Realistic Hero games.

Seems a Generic Genre at this point.

[ghost-angel]

Out of curiousity, what are people's ideas as to what falls under "Background:General" anyway? I tend to use it as catch-all for any book which is clearly "background" but doesn't fall under either of the other two choices.

I'd call it a book that goes into details on how to run a genre, a non-setting specific form of genre, or (as is the case with many of Hero's Genre Books) has information on several variations on a Genre, non of which have a specific setting but go into how to make a setting with the rules.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Not that it matters much in the scheme of things, but shouldn't books like "Song and Silence" and "Masters of the Wild" (both for 3E) be filed under Background: Group, as opposed to Other Rulebook?

Oh, and that would mean shifting the whole "Complete Fighter/Thief/etc." series for AD&D2 as well, I guess? But if you look at what else is in the Group category, it'd make sense.

[Sleeper]

Not that it matters much in the scheme of things, but shouldn't books like "Song and Silence" and "Masters of the Wild" (both for 3E) be filed under Background: Group, as opposed to Other Rulebook?

Oh, and that would mean shifting the whole "Complete Fighter/Thief/etc." series for AD&D2 as well, I guess? But if you look at what else is in the Group category, it'd make sense.
I've been sticking books like that under Other Rulebook because any background material in there is clearly just supporting the rules. Putting them in a category called "background" anything just seems wrong.

I think the problems is that the categories are ill-defined. Lumping all the player splatbooks together is one group wouldn't be a bad idea, but the category would need another name.

I'm also curious how everyone is handling "Background: Group". I've been putting regional sourcebooks in there (like Oathbound's Arena, or the Principalities of Glantri Gazetteer), as well as the crunch-light organizational sourcebooks (like Aberrant: The Directive, or Tribe 8's Word of ... books) and keeping the general setting books in "Background: Setting" (mostly the core setting books).

I think we just have the wrong tools. It's hard to come up with a clear set of guidelines for distinguishing all these these different categories, and it's even worse with the genres. I think it would be more useful to be able to select several categories, or several genres, for each book. If it's a splat book with rules, it can be a rulebook, and it can be a background book. Both are correct, and we don't have to worry as much about which is more correct. The same with genre. Genres are fluid and heavily overlap, and picking just one for a particular book is almost impossible.

[C.W.Richeson]

I'd call it a book that goes into details on how to run a genre, a non-setting specific form of genre, or (as is the case with many of Hero's Genre Books) has information on several variations on a Genre, non of which have a specific setting but go into how to make a setting with the rules.

I think that's a good call and it's about what I do.

[owe for the flesh]

I'm also curious how everyone is handling "Background: Group". I've been putting regional sourcebooks in there (like Oathbound's Arena, or the Principalities of Glantri Gazetteer), as well as the crunch-light organizational sourcebooks (like Aberrant: The Directive, or Tribe 8's Word of ... books) and keeping the general setting books in "Background: Setting" (mostly the core setting books).

I've been using Group to classify books that deal with people, such as organizations or character splats (though I would agree that the D&D/AD&D splatbooks don't really fall under Background). Setting is for those that cover places, including national gazetteers and location guides.

[C.W.Richeson]

I'm generally trying to make folk more aware of the Gaming Index, and have been discussing it on my livejournal if anyone is interested in checking it out. Many of the concerns we've been discussing in RP Open have already come up.

http://cwricheson.livejournal.com/

I encourage anyone who can do so to share the Gaming Index with other sites. Post it on your blog, mention it in your podcast, get the word out - it's a powerful resource that will increase in value as more people use it.

[Sleeper]

I've been using Group to classify books that deal with people, such as organizations or character splats (though I would agree that the D&D/AD&D splatbooks don't really fall under Background). Setting is for those that cover places, including national gazetteers and location guides.
I think Setting should be like Core Rulebook: The category should be focused on the core books, not the supplements. There's an Other Rulebook for additional rulebooks, and Group for books that focus on just a piece of the setting.

At least that's my reasoning.

[ghost-angel]

I think Setting should be like Core Rulebook: The category should be focused on the core books, not the supplements. There's an Other Rulebook for additional rulebooks, and Group for books that focus on just a piece of the setting.

At least that's my reasoning.

Core Rules should be just that: Hero System Rules, PHB/DMG, etc.
Then there's Genre Books; Setting Books; Organization Books; Stat Books.

It gets confusing when a book encompases several of those. For instance Amber Diceless: It's a Core Rule + Setting book both.

At this point it's hard to tell if the options we've got are too broad or too undefined to help us out.

[C.W.Richeson]

Fred, one of the SotC authors, mentions on my livejournal that it would be useful to him to be able to see dates attached to the comments. I don't know if this is a possibility, but it would be nice to see how comments change over time.

[Pierce Inverarity]

I've been using Group to classify books that deal with people, such as organizations or character splats (though I would agree that the D&D/AD&D splatbooks don't really fall under Background). Setting is for those that cover places, including national gazetteers and location guides.

That's what I've done, too. Again, the Traveller Aliens books are an example for how that can get messy too (the Zhodani are a people, but their empire is a place). But nothing's perfect...

[ghost-angel]

The more I meander around the Index the more I think indivual editions should be rated and commented on seperately. Especially if Editions are written years apart by different authors. Just my thoughts on that.

[C.W.Richeson]

The more I meander around the Index the more I think indivual editions should be rated and commented on seperately. Especially if Editions are written years apart by different authors. Just my thoughts on that.

I agree. I think most folk would, it's just a matter of priority I suspect.

[ShannonA]

I noticed that HoL (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1453) and Daemornia (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3531) are in the setting "Dark Furture." Aa, it makes me twitch! ;) Would you prefer that if I find stuff like this that I submit an "Edit Main" thing for each, setting = "other" = "Dark Future"? I'm posting this because I guessed it would be less work for you to just change the spelling than for you to OK two tiny edits like that and then delete the misspelled option.

...Huh, also, no one has entered Buttery HoLsomeness, apparently... I would, but I don't own it. So, golden opportunity there. ;) And speaking of Dark Furtures, the original Albedo doesn't appear to be in there either... God, I'm on a roll of terrible puns.

Go ahead and enter it as an edit. The misspelled option automagically goes away when there's nothing left in the database with that Setting.

[ShannonA]

Out of curiousity, what are people's ideas as to what falls under "Background:General" anyway? I tend to use it as catch-all for any book which is clearly "background" but doesn't fall under either of the other two choices.

That was the intent.

And the above discussions of making things uniform are excellent, and are ultimately the best criteria for what's "right".

[ShannonA]

I've been using Group to classify books that deal with people, such as organizations or character splats (though I would agree that the D&D/AD&D splatbooks don't really fall under Background). Setting is for those that cover places, including national gazetteers and location guides.

That was my general intent on all of those, and I agree with the D&D splatbooks generally being rules, not backgrounds. I was just approaching that same issue in my gaming histories; they're really a different beast.

[ShannonA]

I agree. I think most folk would, it's just a matter of priority I suspect.

Yes.

And it's resulted in truly separate books getting separated (e.g., three Gamma World entries) with the intention that they'll get squished back together when ratings and comments can be per-edition. There's just some nasty UI stuff to figure out because I want it to be an option to comment on things per-edition, not the default.

[ghost-angel]

I gotta say, I'm having fun going back through all my books to rate them and adding comments to the Index. Neat little nostalgia trip.

[Thanuir]

I humbly suggest getting this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=301861) rolling.

Also, will the relevant parts of the two indexes (indexi?) be merged?

[ShannonA]

I humbly suggest getting this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=301861) rolling.

Also, will the relevant parts of the two indexes (indexi?) be merged?

Gotta be pretty soon.

[Freejack]

Is there a list of the possible options for the various scripts you have for display. I'm picking them up as we go along but if there were an, oh API for instance :)

I'd intended on getting rid of a bunch of old gear but going through the list brings back lots of fond memories which makes it harder to let go.

I can't belive I have more than 400 RPG items and that doesn't include board games. It doesn't look like that many on the shelves :)

Carl

[Sleeper]

Core rules are clearly separate, and that's very useful. Being able to list the 10 best RPGs is more important than listing the 10 best RPGs products of any kind. Conversely, a list of the 10 best settings is more useful than a list of the 10 best setting-related products.

The core rules are separated from the other rules. The core setting book should also be separate from the regional books. Either adding a new category or expanding "Background: Group" to include geographically bounded groups works.

And I think the ability to assign multiple genres and multiple book types to a single entry would be tremendously useful. The list of composite genres is a bit messy.

[ShannonA]

Is there a list of the possible options for the various scripts you have for display. I'm picking them up as we go along but if there were an, oh API for instance :)


Generally, if it's not accessible as a link, it's not intended to be public and could change. Conversely if there's something you use a lot that you think should be more public, let me know.

[ShannonA]

Core rules are clearly separate, and that's very useful. Being able to list the 10 best RPGs is more important than listing the 10 best RPGs products of any kind. Conversely, a list of the 10 best settings is more useful than a list of the 10 best setting-related products.

The core rules are separated from the other rules. The core setting book should also be separate from the regional books. Either adding a new category or expanding "Background: Group" to include geographically bounded groups works.

I don't think that's the right way to do it because games often don't define a "core setting" book. I couldn't point out a core background book for <i>Call of Cthulhu</i>. I might say <i>The Boy King</I> was the core setting book for Pendragon, but I'm not confident. I don't see anything that really qualifies for <i>Ars Magica</i> or <i>Traveller</i>. On all my gaming shelves I see about four books that I'd consider "Core Setting": Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Glorantha, and Glorantha: The Second Age.

There will eventually be some other ways to look at ratings. Looking at the average of the "Background: Setting" books for "Forgotten Realms" might give you the number you're look for.

And I think the ability to assign multiple genres and multiple book types to a single entry would be tremendously useful. The list of composite genres is a bit messy.

That's a good point on genres.

[florin]

Generally, if it's not accessible as a link, it's not intended to be public and could change. Conversely if there's something you use a lot that you think should be more public, let me know.

I know it would be interesting to see what I rated, what I rated it, and any comments I made. (I know you linked us to the display user comments, and that's exactly what I meant.) I also would like to see my "stats." What books I added, what covers I added, what my weight is, etc.

Edit: I realize I can see some of that in my experience chart, but having it all in one place would be nice.
Double Edit: Oh, and being able to search by year would be nice.

[Sleeper]

I don't think that's the right way to do it because games often don't define a "core setting" book. I couldn't point out a core background book for <i>Call of Cthulhu</i>. I might say <i>The Boy King</I> was the core setting book for Pendragon, but I'm not confident. I don't see anything that really qualifies for <i>Ars Magica</i> or <i>Traveller</i>. On all my gaming shelves I see about four books that I'd consider "Core Setting": Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Glorantha, and Glorantha: The Second Age.

There will eventually be some other ways to look at ratings. Looking at the average of the "Background: Setting" books for "Forgotten Realms" might give you the number you're look for.
That's a good point. Setting books are pretty common, but more so when the setting is a supplement to a ruleset like GURPS or d20 that doesn't have its own built in setting. I don't think the "other ways" is particularly useful (for settings; that general capability would be wonderful), but I can't think of any reasonable solutions either. Oh, well. Not the most important thing.

[ghost-angel]

I know it would be interesting to see what I rated, what I rated it, and any comments I made. (I know you linked us to the display user comments, and that's exactly what I meant.) I also would like to see my "stats." What books I added, what covers I added, what my weight is, etc.

Edit: I realize I can see some of that in my experience chart, but having it all in one place would be nice.
Double Edit: Oh, and being able to search by year would be nice.


A personal stats page would be kinda cool, pure fluff mind, but still kinda cool.

Is there way to determine what ones "weight" is?

[ShannonA]

Is there way to determine what ones "weight" is?

It's games rated / 50, to a maximum of 2.

Twice that if you include a comment.

[Sleeper]

Is there way to determine what ones "weight" is?
You're at max.

Compare here: http://index.rpg.net/display-entry-comments.phtml?mainid=1684&all=1

and here: http://index.rpg.net/display-entry-ratings.phtml?mainid=1684

Since Shannon lowered the threshold, I believe it's 50+ ratings = maximum weight, and from the example above it looks like it scales linearly. Remember comments count double.

[Thanuir]

Has the weight of reviews been lowered?

[ShannonA]

Has the weight of reviews been lowered?

Yep. I pulled it down to 4, to be the same weight as a top-weight rating.

[C.W.Richeson]

I kinda like review being higher, since with reviews we know the person has read and absorbed the product while ratings can be the result of just chat online.

[Sleeper]

I kinda like review being higher, since with reviews we know the person has read and absorbed the product while ratings can be the result of just chat online.
I agree, but many reviews also come out shortly after a product is released, so they're often first impressions written by those who were waiting for the product with the most anticipation (and are thus favorably inclined toward the product). So ratings are in a way more reliable, because most of them are based on hindsight and a few years experience.

However, as more ratings are added the reviews will diminish even further in relative importance because there will always be more ratings than reviews. Increasing the weight of reviews gradually as the number of ratings increase is probably a good idea. After all, putting together a review is a lot more work than just writing a sentence-long comment.

[C.W.Richeson]

I agree, but many reviews also come out shortly after a product is released, so they're often first impressions written by those who were waiting for the product with the most anticipation (and are thus favorably inclined toward the product). So ratings are in a way more reliable, because most of them are based on hindsight and a few years experience.

I tend to disagree, and even if that is the case it's still more reliable than two mouse clicks. Quick, low quality reviews may take 30 minutes. Lengthier reviews can take 5 - 15 hours. Even if a person is writing the review with nothing but love for the product in their heart, it seems like they've put a lot more time into analyzing the product.

An individual is going to put a lot more weight into a 5 page review than a single number, say "7" even if it's accompanied by a two sentence blurb about the product's high points. Why doesn't the Index exercise weighting closer to what a potential consumer would?


However, as more ratings are added the reviews will diminish even further in relative importance because there will always be more ratings than reviews. Increasing the weight of reviews gradually as the number of ratings increase is probably a good idea. After all, putting together a review is a lot more work than just writing a sentence-long comment.

I agree, though I think a review is so much more work already that there's no reason to equalize them now.

[Sleeper]

I tend to disagree, and even if that is the case it's still more reliable than two mouse clicks. Quick, low quality reviews may take 30 minutes. Lengthier reviews can take 5 - 15 hours. Even if a person is writing the review with nothing but love for the product in their heart, it seems like they've put a lot more time into analyzing the product.

An individual is going to put a lot more weight into a 5 page review than a single number, say "7" even if it's accompanied by a two sentence blurb about the product's high points. Why doesn't the Index exercise weighting closer to what a potential consumer would?
I think it's an artifact of not having enough ratings or reviews in the database. It's like polling. Similar to polling, the margin of error is inversely correlated with the square root of the number of ratings. Statistically, one rating or review is next to worthless. Five or ten, while still very unreliable, is a vast improvement. A hundred or a thousand is starting to get acceptable. If a review is worth 5 times a the highest rating (which isn't an unreasonable goal), then right now, except for the most heavily rated products, one or two reviews will make up the majority of a particular product's rating. That's statistically far less reliable than spreading it more evenly among 5, 10, or 20 reviews and ratings. Once there are enough ratings and reviews in the database it would make sense to increase the rating.

This is all AFAIK. I'm not an expert, certainly don't know the details, and I certainly could be wrong.

Plus, people can still read the reviews. A rating is just a number; a review provides much more.

[C.W.Richeson]

That makes a lot of sense, Sleeper, thanks! I still consider the review to be a more reliable indication of a product's overall quality. While a higher volume of data will reduce the margin of error in a poll (with severely diminishing returns), I'm not sure that's really applicable here. In my view, a review is inherently much more trustworthy than a simple entry or even an entry and comment - and it will always remain so. It would only make sense if we were comparing two polls that used generally the same criteria - here we're saying that we value 2 one line ratings more than a 5 page analysis.

It's like polling a political group. In one poll there is a question "Are you a registered voter?" where in the other there is no such question. If the researcher is attempting to measure the current attitudes of likely voters, the first poll is much more likely to provide an accurate sample. Similarly, with reviews we know the person has read (or, hey, at least skimmed) the product. We also know that at least a small degree of analysis has been provided - they had to think about the product while preparing the review. To me, this makes the review data a more accurate measurement of an RPG than the Index entries.

As to reviews slanting a product in a direction different from the index ratings, where there are few ratings, I don't see that as problem. In fact, that's how I would prefer the system to work. Having reviews given more weight also helps to resolve the problem of a publisher getting 10 or 20 fans to rate a product.

So there's my take :) I admit it's been some time since I took stats or had to do any sort of poll-oriented analysis, so apologies if my use of terminology is off.

[Thanuir]

Rating < comment < review, IMHO, generally.

A trust value for reviewers would solve a lot, I think (for example the single positive FATAL review).

Possible count review and rating trusts in exactly the same way (so that someone who had rated 19 products and reviewed 4 would have trust as if he had reviewed 23 or rated 23).


Unclaimed reviews would have pretty low trust, that way, which is kind of pity.

[C.W.Richeson]

That's an interesting thought, Thanuir. I think it makes a lot of sense, too, and the threshold wouldn't need to be very high.

[Sleeper]

Just a few thoughts about the reliability of ratings.

Products have a surge of popularity when they're first come out. The majority of reviews and ratings of recent or future products (like Spirit of the Century), are written shortly after they are released. These ratings are biased in several ways.

1. They're first impressions. Even if they're playtested, the longer-term playability issues that can pull down a product's rating just don't have time to come up.

2. There is often a certain amount of excitement about new releases. This translates into a tendency to gloss over problems with the new and shiny toy, also artificially inflating its rating.

3. People who are interested in these products in the first place are predisposed toward liking the product. If they didn't have some level of interest in the game, they wouldn't be one of the first adopters.

The last point generally applies to any niche product. A smaller percentage of the gamers who play a niche product, and thus are qualified to rate or review it, are there by accident. A larger percentage actively sought out the game, either by word of mouth, reading reviews, or just selecting it based on a genre they were interested in. As a result, a larger percentage are more likely to be favorably disposed toward the game than the average rpger.

This contrasts with games like D&D, which almost everyone has played at some point. By comparison, the ranking of a popular game is artificially suppressed because a much higher percentage of the people who play the game wouldn't have chosen it themselves, and thus a higher percentage are likely to give it a lower rating.

And given that the margin of error in the ratings takes a long, long time to even out, the burst of favorable publicity surrounding a new release may have a significant impact on the product's rating for a long time.

Games released before RPGnet started publishing reviews, and before the rating system was established will never have this boost of popularity, and thus will be rated lower than they would otherwise. The size of the reviewing/rating audience over time will also have an impact.

I have no idea how to address any of these issues, or even if they're worth addressing. No rating scheme will ever be perfect, and I think the current system is pretty good.

[Sleeper]

Rating < comment < review, IMHO, generally.

A trust value for reviewers would solve a lot, I think (for example the single positive FATAL review).

Possible count review and rating trusts in exactly the same way (so that someone who had rated 19 products and reviewed 4 would have trust as if he had reviewed 23 or rated 23).


Unclaimed reviews would have pretty low trust, that way, which is kind of pity.
Excellent idea, except I'd use a multipler.

[C.W.Richeson]

These ratings are biased in several ways.

1. They're first impressions. Even if they're playtested, the longer-term playability issues that can pull down a product's rating just don't have time to come up.


We need to distinguish between Capsule and Playtest Reviews here.

Capsule Reviews are usually based on a read through and, perhaps, a session of play or a character generation. All of SotC's reviews are Capsule Reviews, and there's no reason to believe SotC would receive different marks 6 months after it's released - in both instances the reviewer is putting the same amount of time into the game and going through the same process.

Good Playtest Reviews, in my opinion, are going to be based on a minimum of five sessions of play. Even then it's unlikely one group is going to use all of the rules (electricity damage, shooting in a storm, etc.) unless they've played the game for some time. In the case of Playtest Reviews I agree with you, you can't have a thorough Playtest Review of a brand new game.


2. There is often a certain amount of excitement about new releases. This translates into a tendency to gloss over problems with the new and shiny toy, also artificially inflating its rating.


I think this is just idle speculation. Everything is new to somebody and even older reviews may suffer (if suffer is the right word) from a person getting excited about a recent acquisition and wanting to share that with the community.


3. People who are interested in these products in the first place are predisposed toward liking the product. If they didn't have some level of interest in the game, they wouldn't be one of the first adopters.


This I agree with. Reviewers usually request games they're interested in, thus there are a lot more middling to high reviews than low reviews. Most folk don't write a publisher who just put out <i>Sourcebook 17: Paladin Underarm Hair</i> excited about getting a review copy. For folk who aren't writing comped reviews (the majority), it's unlikely they're going to sit down and write a review unless it either impressed them or irritated them (perhaps by being bad). This, as Dan Davenport pointed out to me when I started doing comped reviews, often results in extremes for non-comped reviews.

There is also a desire to review new games because they result in more feedback. Most folk aren't that interested in an indie game from two years ago, but a brand new indie game makes folk jump with joy. We all know this, generally, so people who do write reviews tend to want to review newer games. I don't know that that desire makes the reviewer want to like the game more or less than they otherwise would, however.


The last point generally applies to any niche product. A smaller percentage of the gamers who play a niche product, and thus are qualified to rate or review it, are there by accident. A larger percentage actively sought out the game, either by word of mouth, reading reviews, or just selecting it based on a genre they were interested in. As a result, a larger percentage are more likely to be favorably disposed toward the game than the average rpger.


If you're saying that RPG Reviewers are not representative of the opinions of RPG.net, I agree. I don't think folk who take the time to add entries to the Index are either, though. The average RPG.net member is here to chat, either about games or humorous real life things, and isn't going to give up free time to do either one.

If the Index is meant to represent a more considered opinion of what constitutes a good game, and since we have trust ratings and the like I think that's the case, then in my view an RPG Review provides a much more informed take on a game than even several Index entries do.


This contrasts with games like D&D, which almost everyone has played at some point. By comparison, the ranking of a popular game is artificially suppressed because a much higher percentage of the people who play the game wouldn't have chosen it themselves, and thus a higher percentage are likely to give it a lower rating.


I don't follow. Dumb it down for me :)


Games released before RPGnet started publishing reviews, and before the rating system was established will never have this boost of popularity, and thus will be rated lower than they would otherwise. The size of the reviewing/rating audience over time will also have an impact.


I agree, but I don't see a solution. Most folk aren't going to go out of their way to rate an old 3rd edition HERO product or uncommon AD&D product. The Index is always going to have an element of popularity to it. "Lets wait and see" is a lame response, but I can't think of any other solution.


No rating scheme will ever be perfect, and I think the current system is pretty good.

I agree. I just disagree about the weight Reviews should be given over regular Index entries.

[Sleeper]

If you're saying that RPG Reviewers are not representative of the opinions of RPG.net, I agree. I don't think folk who take the time to add entries to the Index are either, though. The average RPG.net member is here to chat, either about games or humorous real life things, and isn't going to give up free time to do either one.
No, I'm not addressing the nature of reviewers, raters, or the general RPGnet population. I'm just noting that a higher percentage of the people who play a niche game had to seek it out, and thus it's inherently more likely to be the kind of game they really want to play. That percentage is more likely to look upon the game favorably. In contrast, the percentage of people who actively seek out a popular game is smaller, and the number of people who play because it's what they were exposed to, or it's what everybody plays, is higher. That second group likely to give the game lower ratings than the first group. They're not playing the game because it's their favorite genre, because they heard good things from a friend, because they were favorably impressed based on a review, because they think the dice mechanic sounds nifty, or because they were really impressed by the art.
I agree. I just disagree about the weight Reviews should be given over regular Index entries.
We're not so far apart. I definitely agree that reviews should be worth more. I always thought it was kind of silly that reviews were given so little weight. I just think there may be some practical issues until the number of ratings increases.

[C.W.Richeson]

I really like reading your thoughts on the Index, Sleeper. You tend to be very clear, and in my view have done a fantastic job explaining the Index to other folk in various threads in Open.

Just throwing it out there :)

[Pierce Inverarity]

While one can (and forever will) debate the order of entries, the Top 100 Core Rulebooks list looks pretty decent now.

Funnily enough, it's the Rules Cyclopedia, not 3E or AD&D 1 or 2, that made the Top 100. Maybe over Xmas I should crack open my ole Pink Box, and play a 3rd level Elf...

[Evan Waters]

This is odd.

When browsing titles, the "T" page gets me redirected to here (http://www.nmaq.com/goto.php) (link SFW for now, I think), which just leads you to some start-up search engine in Europe somewhere.

This hasn't happened with any other page, so :shrug:.

[Sleeper]

I really like reading your thoughts on the Index, Sleeper. You tend to be very clear, and in my view have done a fantastic job explaining the Index to other folk in various threads in Open.

Just throwing it out there :)
Thank you, but Shannon's the one doing all the real work.
This is odd.

When browsing titles, the "T" page gets me redirected to here (http://www.nmaq.com/goto.php) (link SFW for now, I think), which just leads you to some start-up search engine in Europe somewhere.

This hasn't happened with any other page, so :shrug:.
That happens to me when I try to add a series.

[C.W.Richeson]

Need a merger for two entries for Gamma World: Beyond the Horizon

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2031
http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3688

[ShannonA]

This is odd.

When browsing titles, the "T" page gets me redirected to here (http://www.nmaq.com/goto.php) (link SFW for now, I think), which just leads you to some start-up search engine in Europe somewhere.

This hasn't happened with any other page, so :shrug:.

One of my scripts apparently doesn't filter out unapproved series, so you were getting to see one of the tens of pieces of spam that gets submitted to the index every day. (There used to be more, but I disallowed one of their common methods of invalid entry.)

Always good to have pathetic-excuses-for-human-beings doing their best to ruin the Internet for everyone else.

[ShannonA]

Need a merger for two entries for Gamma World: Beyond the Horizon

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2031
http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3688

Done; thanks.

[ShannonA]

After commentary I bumped the review weight back up to 5, placing it higher than any ratings, and probably about double most of them.

The weighted reviews ideas are clever, and I might do them at some point, but they're not doable for the moment.

[ShannonA]

One of my scripts apparently doesn't filter out unapproved series

And that bug is now fixed so you won't see unapproved series on the search page any more.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Under 100 Most Rated Entries this one is currently, and clearly undeservedly, #1:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4880

The other entries look fine at first glance.

[ShannonA]

Under 100 Most Rated Entries this one is currently, and clearly undeservedly, #1:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4880

The other entries look fine at first glance.

It's because of the content (the player's handbook).

[Pierce Inverarity]

When doing a System Search, this entry shows up under "Dungeons & Dragons"

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5005

And this one under "Dungeons & Dragons 1"

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5010

One is the Hollow World core book, the other a HW adventure. I guess they should be consolidated under one system?

(On a side note... what is that system? Some new version of Basic D&D they revived in 1991? But why are the two HW books the only entries for it?)

[Pierce Inverarity]

It's because of the content (the player's handbook).

Oh.

[Sleeper]

When doing a System Search, this entry shows up under "Dungeons & Dragons"

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5005

And this one under "Dungeons & Dragons 1"

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5010

One is the Hollow World core book, the other a HW adventure. I guess they should be consolidated under one system?

(On a side note... what is that system? Some new version of Basic D&D they revived in 1991? But why are the two HW books the only entries for it?)
The Hollow World is a series of supplements for the Known World (Mystara). There was a core boxed set, a couple of supplementary boxed sets, and a few modules. Similar to the Gazeteer series, they use the Basic to Immortal sets rules (unintuitively known as D&D / Cyclopedia in the index). I submitted the correct system, but left the version blank (0) because I have no idea what the difference is between 2 and 3.

And the Player's Kit shouldn't be the most heavily weighted product.

[Freejack]

(On a side note... what is that system? Some new version of Basic D&D they revived in 1991? But why are the two HW books the only entries for it?)

They're the only ones I own? :) I have a campaign world and I'd do the "ooo shiny" when hunting for material. For some of the odder stuff, I had a friend go to jail for a bit and I inherited his gear. Since he never reclaimed it I just kept it.

Carl

[Pierce Inverarity]

Ah, Mystara... don't know the first thing about that one.

Speaking of which: somebody (=not me) should do a thorough entry for all those Arduin and Tekumel products taht aren't in the index yet. Me, I'm not touching those--the chronology is really intricate. But maybe Shannon could write one of his fine survey articles on them (wink, wink).

[ghost-angel]

The Book Review of the White Wolf Predators (Review Link (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12216.phtml); Book Link (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=61)) seems to be linked with the Hero Games Predators book (Book Link (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5145)).

While I'm thrilled the Review Rating of 9 is adding to the Overall Rating of the Hero Book, it's not very accurate. Is there a way to disassociate the incorrect review from the Index listing?

[ghost-angel]

Here's an oddity. So I've come across an old RPG Periodical - Adventurers Club, for Champions 4th Edition.

Thing is, I'm not sure how it should be entered into the Index. Since it's a periodical it has an ISSN, but those were assigned to the title of the rag, so every issue has the same ISSN.

Anyone got any ideas on how to handle these? I mean they definitely are RPG Resources on par with other gaming books in some cases.

[ShannonA]

I don't have the support for magazines in there yet. I'm thinking of doing it soon, though not immediately.

[ghost-angel]

I don't have the support for magazines in there yet. I'm thinking of doing it soon, though not immediately.

Very cool.

[MonsterMash]

Just realised I made a small mistake on the entry for Flash Gordon and the Warriors of Mongo. Publisher should be down as Fantasy Games Unlimited rather than FGU for consistency with the other entries. Can this be corrected?

[Sleeper]

Just realised I made a small mistake on the entry for Flash Gordon and the Warriors of Mongo. Publisher should be down as Fantasy Games Unlimited rather than FGU for consistency with the other entries. Can this be corrected?
I do that all the time. Click "Edit Edition Info", fix it, then click "Submit Edition Info".

[ShannonA]

And I've now put in an alias so that FGU automatically converts to Fantasy Games Unlimited.

[ShannonA]

You can now edit series. There's three things you can currently do:

1. Change the name of a series.
2. Change the ordering of a series by hand.
3. Change the ordering of a series by telling it to alphabetize.

Adding a "remove" function is also on my list. I've also built this all atop a (hopefully) a multipurpose infrastructure so that it can be adapted to other edits of the sorts that have shown up here (e.g., move a picture, delete a picture, etc.)

Shannon

[Freejack]

Just casting my vote here. I'd like to see a Want/Trade listing, as in I list my wants and the database searches and displays everyone who has the item set as trade.

(I've been going through the trade sticky and the classifieds down below and it sure is lengthy :D ).

Great index though, thanks for all the effort.

Carl

[ShannonA]

Just casting my vote here. I'd like to see a Want/Trade listing, as in I list my wants and the database searches and displays everyone who has the item set as trade.

(I've been going through the trade sticky and the classifieds down below and it sure is lengthy :D ).

Great index though, thanks for all the effort.


It's on my list and will get done, though not necessarily immediately. For the moment I'm trying to do a few things to get the SF index the rest of the way off the ground, but I've also been wanting to revisit the user pages since I added the new user/rating page.

And thanks for all your support on the index too.

[ghost-angel]

And thanks for all your support on the index too.

No, thank you for putting the work into the backside. This thing is awesome.

I'm trying to get my hands on my friends collection to input a whole bunch of old ICE releases I don't think are in there yet. He's too lazy to do it himself; leaving me to take the credit :cool:

[Sleeper]

Why not make alphabetical the default until someone unchecks it? It's probably the best overall option, the module naming scheme means they'll sort by number, and the exceptions can be done by hand.

Edit: When creating a new mega-series, only This Series and the Additional Mainids (which initially confused me; mainentryids might be a better name) are added. The Additional Seriesids are ignored. This happened at least three times.

Edit2: Oops, think I wrecked the Quintessential series. I was trying to combine QI & QII into a megaseries and the QI series and books look mangled.

[C.W.Richeson]

It's on my list and will get done, though not necessarily immediately. For the moment I'm trying to do a few things to get the SF index the rest of the way off the ground, but I've also been wanting to revisit the user pages since I added the new user/rating page.


I think that if the Index was easier to use for folk wanting to Buy/Sell/Trade their RPGs then many, many more people would use it.

I'm also interested in your thoughts on: Why a SF Index? Being the go-to site for RPGs is excellent, but it seems like the SF Index will provide less benefit to the site while involving quite a bit of work. I'm just curious, and I'm 100% behind anything that benefits RPG.net.

[ShannonA]

I'm also interested in your thoughts on: Why a SF Index? Being the go-to site for RPGs is excellent, but it seems like the SF Index will provide less benefit to the site while involving quite a bit of work. I'm just curious, and I'm 100% behind anything that benefits RPG.net.

Basically, over the last few years I've created some tools at RPGnet that I'm quite happy, among them the Gaming Index and the current iteration of the Reviews software.

If we can create a few more community sites that use the same software, and make them successful as well, then we can cobrand the sites, draw people from one genre to another, better sell ads, and do things that should increase the success of Skotos overall, and thus give me reason to spend ever more time on upgrading our various softwares, and make this all more viable.

It's a bigger picture thing, not necessarily, "the sf index will directly grow RPGnet".

[ShannonA]

Why not make alphabetical the default until someone unchecks it? It's probably the best overall option, the module naming scheme means they'll sort by number, and the exceptions can be done by hand.

My general suspicion is that we'll have more trilogies of books when all is said and done than anything else, hence defaulting to sequential numbering.


Edit: When creating a new mega-series, only This Series and the Additional Mainids (which initially confused me; mainentryids might be a better name) are added. The Additional Seriesids are ignored. This happened at least three times.

I'll look at that. I'm pretty sure I tested it when I wrote the megaseries, but something could have broken.

Edit2: Oops, think I wrecked the Quintessential series. I was trying to combine QI & QII into a megaseries and the QI series and books look mangled.

You'd accidently linked series #473 into itself, I suspect because of the identical naming. I cleared that out last night, so things should be right, though the megaseries doesn't include everything yet.

[C.W.Richeson]

It's a bigger picture thing, not necessarily, "the sf index will directly grow RPGnet".

Makes sense to me. It's actually really reassuring to know that there's this much thought into long term plans.

[Freejack]

I'm not sure what your criteria is for these things. Should 4928/5530, 4950/5555, 5208/5914, 5208/5843, and 3823/4191 be merged into a single entry? They're all Shadowrun Gamemaster's Screen but each edition has some extra stuff (like Critters, Silver Angel, etc) which can be put into the edition notes. Each screen is still just a screen with (hopefully) commonly used tables.

An oddity just to bring up. When I bring up my list of games, the order isn't the same as if I bring up all the Shadowrun books (for example). Specifically the Shadowrun listing puts A Killing Glare after 'I' and before 'L', sorting on the 'K' vs the 'A'. But my listing (http://index.rpg.net/display-collection.phtml?user=bofh) shows A Killing Glare at the top. It's just the sorting. One ignores common first words like A and The and the other one doesn't.

Just one of those inconsistancy things. I know you're going to work on the user stuff later. Thought I'd bring it up for the 'todo' list :)

Also, since I'm bringing it up :) On the Setting Listing for Shadowrun (again, for example), it shows there are 106 results when there are really 128 editions (106 titles with 22 additional versions; publishers change, new pubs with the same stock number or title for example). Maybe a count that's closer to the index title page description:

INDEX SYSTEM SEARCH: SHADOWRUN (106 Books, 128 Editions)

or something similar.

Carl

[ShannonA]

I'm not sure what your criteria is for these things. Should 4928/5530, 4950/5555, 5208/5914, 5208/5843, and 3823/4191 be merged into a single entry? They're all Shadowrun Gamemaster's Screen but each edition has some extra stuff (like Critters, Silver Angel, etc) which can be put into the edition notes. Each screen is still just a screen with (hopefully) commonly used tables.

Yeah, they should probably be combined. I need to fix an error in my combine script so that I don't lose their add'l info.

An oddity just to bring up. When I bring up my list of games, the order isn't the same as if I bring up all the Shadowrun books (for example). Specifically the Shadowrun listing puts A Killing Glare after 'I' and before 'L', sorting on the 'K' vs the 'A'. But my listing (http://index.rpg.net/display-collection.phtml?user=bofh) shows A Killing Glare at the top. It's just the sorting. One ignores common first words like A and The and the other one doesn't.

I just rewrote the listCollection function to use the standard search routines. I'm also revising it a bit, and building it into a suite of user pages.


Just one of those inconsistancy things. I know you're going to work on the user stuff later. Thought I'd bring it up for the 'todo' list :)

...

INDEX SYSTEM SEARCH: SHADOWRUN (106 Books, 128 Editions)


That's a good idea.

[Pierce Inverarity]

So I ventured into Arduin territory after all and added the Khaas setting... now, I'd like to link it to a review but I don't know how to do that:

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11928.phtml

Also, there's a second review, which is very good but managed to misspell Khaas as "Khass" in its title, so if the linking is automatic it won't show up--could you correct that spelling?

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10918.phtml

[Sleeper]

When a megalist contains both series and individual books, the Rating and Rank columns are slightly off in Firefox, and way off in Internet Explorer (one of the better examples is over at the sf/fantasy index: http://sf.rpg.net/index/display-series.phtml?seriesid=28&nomaster=1). When the megalist only contains books, or only contains series, everything is fine.

[ShannonA]

When a megalist contains both series and individual books, the Rating and Rank columns are slightly off in Firefox, and way off in Internet Explorer (one of the better examples is over at the sf/fantasy index: http://sf.rpg.net/index/display-series.phtml?seriesid=28&nomaster=1). When the megalist only contains books, or only contains series, everything is fine.

I don't have any problems with Firefox, but unfortunately IE (typically) appears to ignore the width statements in that table. Not sure if it's fixable or not, when they're ignoring display info like that ...

[ShannonA]

Well, I think I got the slight variation in Firefox fixed. I hadn't been able to see that with my naked eye.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Shannon, could you help me out here? Or anybody?

So I ventured into Arduin territory after all and added the Khaas setting... now, I'd like to link it to a review but I don't know how to do that:

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11928.phtml

Also, there's a second review, which is very good but managed to misspell Khaas as "Khass" in its title, so if the linking is automatic it won't show up--could you correct that spelling?

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10918.phtml

The Khaas book is here:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5391

[Freejack]

A couple of tiny messups.

1. I don't know where someone got the 8000 Stock number for the Paranoia 1st Edition Boxed Set. I have it and the number on the box is 12001. And that's the first error. I put in 12000 and then realized I was in error and resubmitted for 12001.

2. I had two windows open to the index (making sure of the correct settings for the main entry) and I inadvertently uploaded the image for Paranoia Stuff to the Alice Through the Mirrorshades entry. I reentered it to the correct location and entered the full sized Alice one earlier so they're both there.

I know you review before committing but I thought I'd bring it to your attention just in case :)

Thanks.

Carl

[Freejack]

Looks like a merge might be necessary.

http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=contributor&value=Edward+Bolme&sort=system

and

http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=contributor&value=Ed+Bolme&sort=system

appear to be the same guy.

Carl

[ShannonA]

Done.

Looks like a merge might be necessary.

http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=contributor&value=Edward+Bolme&sort=system

and

http://index.rpg.net/display-search.phtml?key=contributor&value=Ed+Bolme&sort=system

appear to be the same guy.

Carl

[Sleeper]

Hmm... I didn't think Ultra-Tech (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2036&editionid=6306) 4E was out yet.

And I know it's been mentioned a ton of times, but I keep running across the duplicate Eisen and Avalon entries (http://index.rpg.net/display-series.phtml?seriesid=581&nomaster=1).

[roguebfl]

Hmm... I didn't think Ultra-Tech (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2036&editionid=6306) 4E was out yet.

it's on it's way from the printers. [hence past all the obstacles that's been delaying it]


About the PDF edition Policy, While i can understand "unless sinficantly different" in theory, how about the PDFs that make the difference between "out-of-print" and being readily available?

[Sleeper]

it's on it's way from the printers. [hence past all the obstacles that's been delaying it]
So you don't have a copy in front of you? Or Martial Arts, which is still in production? Has that policy been relaxed?

[ShannonA]

it's on it's way from the printers. [hence past all the obstacles that's been delaying it]

And that's the exact criteria I have for adding something to the index;).


About the PDF edition Policy, While i can understand "unless sinficantly different" in theory, how about the PDFs that make the difference between "out-of-print" and being readily available?

I'd still say no, because we're practically at the point where everything lives in PDF except for a relatively small percentage of entries where there are rights issues. Hopefully links like our store links will increasingly tell if something is available for purchase.

[ShannonA]

I'd still say no, because we're practically at the point where everything lives in PDF except for a relatively small percentage of entries where there are rights issues. Hopefully links like our store links will increasingly tell if something is available for purchase.

And you can always put in the main entry: "Available as a PDF as of X/X/Y".

[Sleeper]

And that's the exact criteria I have for adding something to the index;).
So you want us to enter books we don't have yet?

[ShannonA]

So you want us to enter books we don't have yet?

Definitely, if you can input enough info to make it worthwhile. I find that you can usually get the ISBN off of Amazon, and that the stock number is the one you sometimes can't input.

[Sleeper]

Definitely, if you can input enough info to make it worthwhile. I find that you can usually get the ISBN off of Amazon, and that the stock number is the one you sometimes can't input.
That opens up a lot, then. The Amazon books with Look Inside will be even better, since you can actually view both the back cover (back cover blurb, stock number, ISBN) and the credits page (authors, artists, printing and edition number, year).

It does open up the possibility of perpetuating bad information. Amazon isn't always 100% reliable. A verification process would be useful. Perhaps something as simple as a Verified tag, similar to the Own/Trade/Want flags, when someone has physically verified that the basic information in the entry is correct. Or maybe something more elaborate. I seem to be good at coming up with work for other people, lately :)

[ShannonA]

I'm pretty happy with the ad hoc verification. Someone sees something wrong and they fix it ...

[Sleeper]

I think that works pretty well for text, system, title, and so forth. But unless somebody pulls out the book and deliberately checks, it's unlikely they'll notice something wrong with the stock number, a long list of authors, or an ISBN.

[roguebfl]

I think that works pretty well for text, system, title, and so forth. But unless somebody pulls out the book and deliberately checks, it's unlikely they'll notice something wrong with the stock number, a long list of authors, or an ISBN.

Thats why I prefure to use the Company's website, not amazon.

[Sleeper]

Thats why I prefure to use the Company's website, not amazon.
For SJG, that works. A lot of other publishers' websites are missing key information, and even more predate the web or have since vanished.

[roguebfl]

For SJG, that works.

it also works for WotC.

[Sleeper]

it also works for WotC.
Find the "Monster Gift Set" on Wizard's website :)

[roguebfl]

Find the "Monster Gift Set" on Wizard's website :)

Assuming its a wizards threase not a TSR relase, give me more detials as I have never head of it.

[Sleeper]

Assuming its a wizards threase not a TSR relase, give me more detials as I have never head of it.
Here (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5331)'s the index entry (I have a copy). It's not on Wizard's website, and apparently even their Customer Service doesn't know about it (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=698698). I've also ran across a couple errors on Wizard's website when I was looking up recent editions of older novels (missing or incorrect stock numbers, that kind of thing), and SJG's site doesn't have dates (except items currently in stock, since the separate W23 website does list the date), and doesn't have sufficient info on earlier editions. Multiple sources or a physical copy are often necessary.

[TrippyHippy]

I'm interested that the users of the Gaming Index are now given profiles - which is nice.

I was however surprised that my favourite systems were rated as being GURPS and d20 (presumably based on my choices), when in fact I generally use percentile systems these days and used to use the Storyteller system exclusively for years. I'm not so worried with using GURPS (which is fine), although honestly, I haven't actually used the d20 system for years.

I'm not sure the way it's being determmined is correct - I note that the Storyteller/ing system is even ranked - yet most of my reviews are Storyteller games I think!

Anyone wish to enlighten me?

[Sleeper]

Speculating wildly here, but I suspect reviews aren't counted, and you have to rate 5 or more products before it's up for consideration as a favorite. While you've rated 4 products in a number of systems, your "favored" systems (GURPS and d20) are the only ones where you've rated 5 or more products.

http://index.rpg.net/display-user-comments.phtml?user=TrippyHippy&order=system

[TrippyHippy]

Actually, it seems what was missing was that I wasn't rating suppliments much - only corebooks. I altered that now.

[Benedict]

I had a bit of difficulty choosing a setting for Cyborg Commando. The list of settings was simply huge and full of proprietary settings. Would it be possible to have the non-proprietary settings listed first (e.g. modern, near future, medieval Europe), followed by the proprietary settings (e.g. Glorantha)? And how does one suggest a new setting that is not on the list without having to select something from the list?

[Sleeper]

And how does one suggest a new setting that is not on the list without having to select something from the list?
Choose "Other" in the drop down list (it's at the very end of the list, so the End key takes you right there), and then enter the name of the setting into the "Other:" text box to the right.

Unless you select "Other" in the drop down list, the text in the text box gets ignored.

[ShannonA]

Speculating wildly here, but I suspect reviews aren't counted, and you have to rate 5 or more products before it's up for consideration as a favorite. While you've rated 4 products in a number of systems, your "favored" systems (GURPS and d20) are the only ones where you've rated 5 or more products.


Yes. The number is entirely arbitrary, but when it gets set too low, everyone lists Call of Cthulhu as their favorite.

[ShannonA]

I had a bit of difficulty choosing a setting for Cyborg Commando. The list of settings was simply huge and full of proprietary settings. Would it be possible to have the non-proprietary settings listed first (e.g. modern, near future, medieval Europe), followed by the proprietary settings (e.g. Glorantha)?

Not easily.

Note that on most browsers once you've focused on a pull-down menu, you can start entering letters and it'll bring you to the appropriate place.

[DrFaust]

Would it be possible to add rating to the list of options by which to sort a person's collection? It'd be helpful in seeing which books one has yet to rate/comment on.

[Sleeper]

The picture for It Came from the Late, Late, Late Show should actually be associated with the 3rd edition (which I just entered) not the 2nd edition. The 2nd edition has different cover art, and and it's not full color.

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?submit=entry&mainid=2990

[ShannonA]

The picture for It Came from the Late, Late, Late Show should actually be associated with the 3rd edition (which I just entered) not the 2nd edition. The 2nd edition has different cover art, and and it's not full color.

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?submit=entry&mainid=2990

Fixed.

[ShannonA]

Would it be possible to add rating to the list of options by which to sort a person's collection? It'd be helpful in seeing which books one has yet to rate/comment on.

I need to figure out some way to make the collection & rating pages more consistent. I've added it to my list to think about.

[ShannonA]

I just made some major changes to the way 'year' and 'author' are stored in the database. I may have missed updating some code to reflect this, so if you see any errors to displays, searches, or sorts based on this info, let me know the URL where the problem is and the error you're seeing.

[Sleeper]

Oops. The Berlin Citybook (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5706) isn't one of the Creatures of the Realms (http://index.rpg.net/display-series.phtml?seriesid=737&nomaster=1) books.

[owe for the flesh]

Looks like someone created a new entry for <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5718>Zombietown USA</a> when they should have just posted a comment to the <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3417>original</a>.

[ShannonA]

Oops. The Berlin Citybook (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5706) isn't one of the Creatures of the Realms (http://index.rpg.net/display-series.phtml?seriesid=737&nomaster=1) books.

Fixed. This will be automated someday.

[ShannonA]

Looks like someone created a new entry for <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5718>Zombietown USA</a> when they should have just posted a comment to the <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3417>original</a>.

Fixed. It's these slightly different names (USA v. U.S.A.) that sometimes slip in.

[Sleeper]

Fixed. It's these slightly different names (USA v. U.S.A.) that sometimes slip in.
Like the two Eisens and Avalons? :) (http://index.rpg.net/display-series.phtml?seriesid=581&nomaster=1)

[TrippyHippy]

OK. The Index was a great idea and is really starting to take shape, but I have another criticism... :eek:

I wonder whether it is necessary to have 4 different entries for the GURPS Basic Set?

Whilst I can see some argument for the rating of different books in the set (Characters and Campaigns), most people who own them realise that they are really just two volumes of the same book (page references and all). At the same time, there is another seperate entry for GURPS Basic in the previous editions and one for the Deluxe edition, which is strange because apart from the usual revisions you expect in new editions, they are all quite literally the same game.

Surely these entries can be consolidated? I'd probably argue the same for a few titles (Blue Planet is another obvious one, and I'd possibly nominate Paranoia too). Whilst some people may argue that they prefer a particular edition, surely they could specify this in the comments section if they wish? Personally, I find it awkward to have to spread out my comments over multiple entries, when I am really talking about a game through multiple editions over time.

I just think there is an inconsistency in the format here, as other games with multiple editions are fully consolidated in one entry despite possibly having more radical developments.

Anyway, I still enjoy checking out the lists!

[ShannonA]

Some ideas that were entered into the database last night got lost due to a programming error.

If you look on the index page, you'll see what's missing. Apologies.

[Thalendar]

I have a problem changing the status of multi-volume entries like this one:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3400

When setting the status to "Own", the following script error occurs:

Line:214
Char:1
Code:0
Error:'document.forms.ownthisbook.statused3737.value' ist Null oder kein Objekt
URL:http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3400

(The german part of the error means "... is null or not an object ...")

This happens in the IE6. It works well on Firefox.

[owe for the flesh]

Some ideas that were entered into the database last night got lost due to a programming error.

If you look on the index page, you'll see what's missing. Apologies.

Don't know if this is related, but it looks like every entry in the index now has the same summary text: "A compilation, expansion, and revision of Galaxy Guides 1, 3, and 5."

The only exception that I've found so far is the entry for Heroes magazine.

[owe for the flesh]

Never mind, looks like they are back to normal now.

[ShannonA]

I have a problem changing the status of multi-volume entries like this one:

http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3400

When setting the status to "Own", the following script error occurs:

Line:214
Char:1
Code:0
Error:'document.forms.ownthisbook.statused3737.value' ist Null oder kein Objekt
URL:http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3400

(The german part of the error means "... is null or not an object ...")

This happens in the IE6. It works well on Firefox.

Ah, which do I hate more, Microsoft or AJAX?

Thanks for the specifics. I can replicate it and I'll take a look after I've got my current projects out of the way.

[ShannonA]

Some ideas that were entered into the database last night got lost due to a programming error.

If you look on the index page, you'll see what's missing. Apologies.

I was able to restore everything but the Summaries of the 6 affected entries:

HDL Cards
Tobin's Spirit Guide
Death Star Technical Companion
Twin Stars of Kira
The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook
Your Own Private Idaho

(I've since written summaries of the last two.)

[snafubar]

Another odd thing is <b>The Price of Freedom</b> entry has the name "Joe Blow" added to the creators.

[ShannonA]

Another odd thing is <b>The Price of Freedom</b> entry has the name "Joe Blow" added to the creators.

Ah. I'd forgotten that test before things blew up on me Monday;).

[C.W.Richeson]

Regarding Star Wars Adventure Journals:

Are you sure these should be considered magazines? We have Eden Studios Presents in the Gaming Index as a book, and I certainly consider it a book. The Adventure Journals are like that, only they're thicker and generally more robust. I can see how they might be considered a magazine, but it seems like something as thick as the Adventure Journal and with such a short publication cycle wouldn't qualify.

I honestly don't know, I'm sure there's some sort of real definition out there that I'm just unaware of. They do have magazine elements.

[ShannonA]

Regarding Star Wars Adventure Journals:

Are you sure these should be considered magazines? We have Eden Studios Presents in the Gaming Index as a book, and I certainly consider it a book. The Adventure Journals are like that, only they're thicker and generally more robust. I can see how they might be considered a magazine, but it seems like something as thick as the Adventure Journal and with such a short publication cycle wouldn't qualify.


Yes.

They have individual and distinct articles by many different authors without an overarching theme and they come out on a regular publication schedule, with volume and issue number listed.

I actually think that they wouldn't be as thick as you thought if they weren't digest-sized, but it's been a while since I got rid of my collection of them, so I don't remember for sure.

[ShannonA]

I just put in place a new program for adding and editing entries. It was mainly backend cleanup, but the whole thing has been rewritten, almost but not quite from scratch.

If you have any problems when you try and add or edit, let me know. I'm going to go do a final set of tests to make sure it looks generally OK now that it's in place.

[snafubar]

Quick question: would it be easier to just copy the back cover, or try to describe it in our own words? I've seen it done by others, and just wanted clarification. (I've avoided it, but I admit it would be a lot easier to type up, lazy cuss that I am. :D )

[ShannonA]

Quick question: would it be easier to just copy the back cover, or try to describe it in our own words? I've seen it done by others, and just wanted clarification. (I've avoided it, but I admit it would be a lot easier to type up, lazy cuss that I am. :D )

Either is fine.

If I copy backcover text, I don't always do it word for word. I'll sometimes remove certain marketing phrases and redundancies.

[owe for the flesh]

Having seen your magazine test entry, how's that part of the coding coming along, Shannon?

[ShannonA]

Well, the big rewrite of the submit-entry form I did was part and parcel of this. I'm hoping to release it today, tomorrow at the latest, though it's possible some more pressing concerns might distract me ...

[owe for the flesh]

Oops! When posting some covers last night (yay new scanner!) I accidentally posted <a href=http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=6616>this image</a> to <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1736>the wrong entry</a>. Could somebody delete it please?

[Thanuir]

When browsing the Xenagia index by rankings (http://index.xenagia.net/display-rankings.phtml?count=100) and moving to next/previous hundred, one gets to the RPG index.

[owe for the flesh]

The binding information is not showing up in the individual entries (see <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2785>here</a>, <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=20>here</a>, and <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=72>here</a>). It is still showing up on the search pages (for entries with only one edition, of course).

[Sleeper]

Also on the binding front, wouldn't it be more elegant to lump the binding and country together into one square-bracketed suffix, and abbreviate the binding? For instance (I'm using an example from the book index because it's easier to find):

Peter Pan in Scarlet [UK] Hardcover

becomes

Peter Pan in Scarlet [UK, HC]

The only binding with a less-than-obvious short version is Looseleaf, and I'd even be inclined abbreviate that (to LL). Also, not all countries are currently abbreviated. For instance:

Star Riders [Canada]

Instead of making up abbreviations, the ISO has a standardized list of English-language two-letter country abbreviations (here (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1.html)). Of course, the standard for England is GB not UK, so there'd be a few changes:

Star Riders [CA]
Peter Pan in Scarlet [GB, HC]

Separately, for products jointly released multiple markets, what should we use as the standard? I'm mostly thinking of Ianus and Dream Pod 9, both of which are Canadian companies but market their products in both Canada and the US. Should we switch them all to Canada or leave them as US? I slightly favor using the company's home market since it seems more respectful.

[owe for the flesh]

I did it again. <a href=http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=6687>This cover</a> belongs on <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2903>this entry</a>, not <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2902>this one</a>.

[ShannonA]

Oops! When posting some covers last night (yay new scanner!) I accidentally posted <a href=http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=6616>this image</a> to <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1736>the wrong entry</a>. Could somebody delete it please?

When you post a correct picture, like you did, I'll usually look at how they differed, then click my "replace" button.

[ShannonA]

When browsing the Xenagia index by rankings (http://index.xenagia.net/display-rankings.phtml?count=100) and moving to next/previous hundred, one gets to the RPG index.

Fixed.

[ShannonA]

...binding stuff...

Totally revamping how the binding stuff is displayed is on my list. I'm not sure what I'm going to do on the search page, though your ideas are appreciated, and the list of 2-digit country codes is very useful, but for the display pages it's going to go out of the title, into it's own column.

As for people publishing into multiple markets: if one of them is the US, just leave it as such. The point is really to distinguish products only available in other markets, not to necessarily list the origin of each book.

[ShannonA]

I did it again. <a href=http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=6687>This cover</a> belongs on <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2903>this entry</a>, not <a href=http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2902>this one</a>.

Updated.

[Sleeper]

The Role Aids megalist needs a little cleanup. Three entries need to be deleted from the megalist (they're part of lists that are contained within the megalist):

Fantastic Treasures (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5032)
Fantastic Treasures II (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5446)
Monsters of Myth & Legend (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3850)

And one entry is just in there twice:

Throne of Evil (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5629)

Incidentally, the two Thrones of Evil in the list have a slight difference... "mainid=5629" and "mainid= 5629" (no space/space).

[ShannonA]

The Role Aids megalist needs a little cleanup. Three entries need to be deleted from the megalist (they're part of lists that are contained within the megalist):

Fantastic Treasures (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5032)
Fantastic Treasures II (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5446)
Monsters of Myth & Legend (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3850)

And one entry is just in there twice:

Throne of Evil (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5629)

Incidentally, the two Thrones of Evil in the list have a slight difference... "mainid=5629" and "mainid= 5629" (no space/space).

I need to add a 'delete' to the 'edit' function ...

[Sleeper]

I need to add a 'delete' to the 'edit' function ...
:)

[ShannonA]

If you'd like to try and add a magazine, feel free to use this functionality:
http://index.rpg.net/add-entry.phtml?magazine=1

Expect it to take a while, as it'll ask you to fill in all the relevant articles.

If you have any questions, or anything isn't clear, let me know. I'll probably release it more generally tomorrow.

Oh, and you *definitely* want to use Firefox. I tracked down an old issue that was also cropping up on the add-content page, and it turned out to be a bug in IE that Microsoft hasn't bothered fixing in the last 4+ years. You can enter articles in IE now that I know about the problem, but it's not as convenient.

[ShannonA]

Well, the first entry looks successful. Thanks, Benedict for MP #1.

[Benedict]

Well, the first entry looks successful. Thanks, Benedict for MP #1.

No problem. Later issues to come.

I am having problems editing my entry however. When I try I am told I have to supply a Product Description.

[ShannonA]

No problem. Later issues to come.

I am having problems editing my entry however. When I try I am told I have to supply a Product Description.

Yup. I realized that. I'll get it all fixed up for you tomorrow. (I'm beat tonight.)

[Pseudo Nymh]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not...

I've never really had anything to do with the Gaming Index, but for some reason my profile lists me as having gained a whole bunch of experience for adding books to it. I guess I've mistakenly been given credit for someone else's work.

Thought someone should know, so it could get fixed.

[Sleeper]

Oh, and you *definit