 |
| Rejection Email from BGG |
Such harsh words!
I am a frequent visitor to BoardGameGeek to satisfy all types of boardgaming queries. With few entries for the DTP game, Montcalm & Wolfe for which I am journaling a campaign game, I figured an account of a gaming session would be of interest to the community. Wrong!
As seen from the terse reply, the reasons for rejection were due to three factors. Those factors were:
- 40% Poor Structure
- 20% Irrelevant
- 40% Spam
I wonder what data analytics' algorithm settled on those criteria and percentages for rejection? How could a game replay of the game, itself, be Irrelevant? Does any entry containing a link qualify as Spam? As for Poor Structure, well, I guess debating a topic as subjective as structure is pointless. Sigh...
BGG can be inconsistent. Try it under General. Or add a few photos, with an ‘if you want to know more...’ link.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestions. For a knowledge based site, adding freely to that KB should have low barriers to entry.
DeleteOh, that's frustrating.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Discouraging too.
DeleteThat's annoying! When I was an active member at BGG they had a moderation system, where reviews, reports etc were looked at by moderators (who could be any member who felt like doing some moderating - there were no special qualifications) before being accepted or rejected. There were criteria for rejection (irrelevant, blurry photo, spam, etc.), so I imagine you've run into a couple of zealous non-wargame moderators who don't understand what you are doing, have flagged it, and others, seeing it flagged, have gone with the flow.
ReplyDeleteIt happened to me a few times, usually for wargames, and usually for games when I was using figures rather than the original bits (Commands & Colors with miniatures, for example). Non-wargamers seem to be a bit suspicious of wargamers, and board wargamers seem to be particularly suspicious of miniatures gamers, for some reason. I'd make a cosmetic change or too (and possibly an introduction in italics explaining why you are posting a hybrid game) and then send it back in. You'll find some understanding mods at some point!
Cheers, and good luck,
Aaron
Aaron, I appreciate your suggestions, support, and background on your own, similar experiences with BBG.
DeleteMy experience with BGG suggests what they really mean here:
ReplyDelete> Poor Structure = You didn't write it they way they would write it.
> Irrelevant = They were not interested in the subject.
> Spam = What they prefer for lunch.
Screw 'em--your followers appreciate what you do!
Best regards,
Chris
Thanks, Chris! You made me laugh!
DeleteNothing but net, Chris!
DeleteYou are lucky, at least all of your failings actually add up to 100%, my own failings have somehow managed to hit the 120% mark! which is somehow more remarkable than even my school report.
ReplyDeleteI am guessing the single reason for the 'kiss it' reply is that you were likely giving a link to the outside world .... they don't seem to like that sir!
Norm! I am in good company!
DeleteIn a way it is encuraging though Jonathan because it proves that the brain is still superior to the machine!
ReplyDeleteLet us hope it was a machine!
DeleteIt is irritating, but the whole idea of being given fail marks in this way is ridiculous, especially from a forum with the literary traditions and general silliness of the BGG. Even funnier if the scrutiny is carried out by a program.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could try submitting your receipt from the supermarket, or an advertising flyer from a cellphone company, or your electricity bill? I'm sure they wouldn't be accepted, but if we can get more info on how the scoring works we could concoct a totally meaningless article which meets all the pass criteria.
Now I think about it, BGG is already full of them, so that would be pointless.
Well said, Tony! As I read the rejection from BGG, the thought of your Donkey Awards entered my mind.
DeletePretty silly of them. I wonder how many great ideas pass them by like yours when they leave it up to a machine to decide.
ReplyDeleteChristopher
I agree. If a site thrives on relevant content, one ought not block submissions containing relevant content. I guess mine did not pass muster.
DeleteI had a similar experience. After fuming for a few days I just posted to the relevant thread with a link to my article (it was about War Between The States). That worked.
ReplyDeleteThe submissions process (I'm guessing) is for something more formal and arcane.
Boardgamegeek site is a very valuable resource, it is a pity they have this rejection process.
No fuming here. Surprised and puzzled, yes.
DeleteIt is a pity especially when an obscure game has little information or support on BGG.
I would of thought it a great resource. ☹️
ReplyDeleteIf not a great resource, at least useful.
DeleteThanks for the comment, Stew!
This page gives a bit more info on how they do the modding: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekmod
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Aaron! Seems the process of group moderation ought to be a useful screening tool until it isn't!
DeleteI cannot imagine why a site wouldn't want what was clearly relevant content. (20% Irrelevant?)
ReplyDelete40% Poor structure? Bah!
40% Spam... because, I suppose you provide links to the two blogs involved rather than an endless post to the site.
100% I wouldn't waste another moment's effort on them.
I am with you! No good deed goes unpunished.
Delete