Graphics Websites Consortium
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
digitalwanderer said:
Pick which games? The "usual suspects" that would be ineligible for picking as your GWC contribution (not stuck on the name; just need something to call it for now), or the one that will be your contribution?
For the latter, it would be entirely up to the site when their number comes up in the draw order. The core of this idea is to make it as minimally intrusive to the particpating sites as possible. They have to buy-in to the idea, so giving them choice in which title to use is crucial. The only criteria is it can't be a (defined, agreed list) "usual suspect" and it can't be one picked by a site ahead of them in the draw order. The rest of their review for every card would be entirely whatever games they want to use, even if it is a "usual suspect" or one someone else on the list is doing.
The other crucial part is that they have that link next to the results for their GWC contribution to the page for the GWC listing the sites and game each agreed to include in their review/preview. This gives Joe Surfer as he's making the rounds of the reviews an easy way to navigate to a site that is reviewing an "overlooked title(s)" that might interest him.
So, digi, can you deliver EB? 
Getting Hanners onboard would be a goodness --we might delegate him to go out and lobby more sites. Or you --you know everybody, and can schmooze with the best when the spirit moves you.
Calling Wavey --would B3D participate?
Two sites would be a movement that can start to deliver more on board. . .
Getting Hanners onboard would be a goodness --we might delegate him to go out and lobby more sites. Or you --you know everybody, and can schmooze with the best when the spirit moves you. Calling Wavey --would B3D participate?
Two sites would be a movement that can start to deliver more on board. . .
Sure, no problem.
I don't like the name though, "Website" just doesn't float for me.
Mebbe "Graphic Card Consortium", "Graphic Hardware Review Consortium" or some such?
C'mon, someone has got to have a better idea for a name....it NEEDS a good name or it won't fly. (I know the name makes no difference, you know the name makes no difference; but to the sheeple the name makes a BIIIIIIIG difference!)
Something officially sounding is most definately in order.
Mebbe "Graphic Card Consortium", "Graphic Hardware Review Consortium" or some such?
C'mon, someone has got to have a better idea for a name....it NEEDS a good name or it won't fly. (I know the name makes no difference, you know the name makes no difference; but to the sheeple the name makes a BIIIIIIIG difference!)
Something officially sounding is most definately in order.
digitalwanderer said:I don't like the name though, "Website" just doesn't float for me.
Mebbe "Graphic Card Consortium", "Graphic Hardware Review Consortium" or some such?
C'mon, someone has got to have a better idea for a name....it NEEDS a good name or it won't fly. (I know the name makes no difference, you know the name makes no difference; but to the sheeple the name makes a BIIIIIIIG difference!)
Something officially sounding is most definately in order.
Graphics Review Consortium might be okay. I'm open on the name. Got a catchy acronym we can reverse engineer a name for?
Reviewing International Graphic Hardware Technologies Standards. (RIGHTS)
International Internet Graphic Hardware Review Institute (It doesn't spell anything, but it sounds all nice and pompous. )
International Internet Graphic Hardware Review Institute (It doesn't spell anything, but it sounds all nice and pompous.
)Ratchet said:
The warm fuzzies of contributing to the greater good of the community at minimal cost/effort?
Being listed on the Consortium's website as a participating site, so that you are *seen* to be contributing to the greater good of the community.
Traffic from same as Joe Surfer surfs in from the other participating sites via the link on the results from their contribution, sees your site name and the game/benchmark you are contributing, and links thru to you to check it out.
A reason and excuse to pick a lesser known game/benchmark that you might like to do this with, including a ready made explanation (on the website of the Consortium) as to what this group is doing and why. While also knowing that the other sites are doing the same, so you aren't putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage because they are reviewing a lesser-known title too.
How is this the greater good though? I can review any game I want now (not like there are tons of benchmarkable games to choose from, maybe a dozen if you look hard) and I don't have any problems getting other sites to link to my reviews. Why would I want to restrict myself to only using games that are approved by this group. And who decides who's allowed to be in this group and who isn't?
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
Ratchet said:
No, the Consortium never limits what games/benchmarks you put in your review. Put anything you like in there, as many as you want. All you are guaranteeing is that one specific title of your choice, picked by you pursuant to the consortium rules, will be included in your graphics reviews and from that section/page of your review that includes the title you chose that you will link to the Consortiums webpage.
What this does for the community is give Joe Surfer a navigator to get around to reviews that include lesser-known titles. This will be taken advantage of by two groups of people --those looking for a benchmark of a specific lesser-known game that interests them, and those (a pretty nice chunk of the community, I believe) who are interested in checking out a broad range of results from outside the group of "usual suspect" games/benchmarks that get benchmarked to extremis.
This, btw, is not an "anti-usual suspects" proposition. They are still going to get their due (and more). It just ensures that a broader range of games/benchmarks get benchmarked on new cards, and possibly more importantly makes it easier for Joe Surfer to find those benchmark results on new cards for lesser-known titles.
If (big if) this catches on, it even has the potential for impacting the behavior of the IHVs in broadening their concerns for making sure a wide range of games/benchmarks work properly and at a high performance level on their hardware.
For as long as I have followed graphics reviews and browsed the community's reaction to them (uhh. . .8 years or so?) there has been a consistent (and justifiable) complaint that the "usual suspects" of the day get too much benchmarking attention and the lesser-known titles are largely ignored. This is a disservice to the greater community that plays more than just "the ususal suspects" on their cards and all too often receive a nasty surprise after reading the reviews, buying a new card, and then trying it out on a game outside "the usual suspects".
This proposal addresses that problem in a practical, implementable way to at least a degree. Again, "the usual suspects" will still get theirs --but anyone interested in more will be able to find it.
Get some of the lesser known game makers in on the fun, get them to submit games for benchmarking and have 'em include benchmarking modes...
("To dream, the impossible dream...")
("To dream, the impossible dream...")
Ratchet said:
I would suggest objective criteria. Something like the site must have posted at least 3 (5? I dunno, pick a reasonable number) new card benchmark reviews in the last year. Given the competitive pressures and animosities (in some cases), keeping it objective would be the way to go.
Most likely the Consortium would require a secretary/coordinator to keep it going, maintain the website (this shouldn't be onerous), and verify new members eligibility. Preferably this would be someone of a non-controversial, collegial bent. There should be an appeal process if the s/c denied someone membership. "Dear webmaster --A picture of the card swiped from an eBay auction along with a "Thumps way up!" below it does not constitute a 'review' ". The appeal process could take the form of, say, any two webmasters from participating sites could request a vote to overturn the s/c's decision to decline membership.
But that's probably getting the cart ahead of the horse. If there's goodwill, it doesn't have to be that difficult. This isn't about judging participating sites, it's about providing a service to the community.
digitalwanderer said:
Ah, Sancho. . .shall we tilt at a few more windmills? Thing is, sometimes you can make things happen. I have elsewhere, so I know it can be done.
Not that I'm a candidate for secretary/coordinator! In the immortal words of William Tecumseh Sherman when they attempted to "draft" him for U. S. President --"If nominated I shall not run --If elected I will not serve." I want someone knowledgeable but low key. . . Wavey, Hanners, John Reynolds, Brent. . . somebody like that.
digitalwanderer said:Reviewing International Graphic Hardware Technologies Standards. (RIGHTS)
International Internet Graphic Hardware Review Institute (It doesn't spell anything, but it sounds all nice and pompous.
I will love him and hug him and squeeze him and call him 'Gus' --Graphics Unusual Suspects.
DudeMiester
Regular
It will be called:
Hardware Article Review Directorate
The core group of websites that contribute form the:
Council of Objective Reviewing Emphasis
The final report created by the group would be called:
Protocols of Objective Reviewing and Nomination
All together now!
HARD CORE PORN
or perhaps something more refined:
The Institute (in fine print: of Graphics Hardware Review)
The idea here being that people just refer to it as "The Institute" lol. The chairman of the board should get the offical title of "Dr. Horus van Nostrum PhD MB MBA BS ABC"
Hardware Article Review Directorate
The core group of websites that contribute form the:
Council of Objective Reviewing Emphasis
The final report created by the group would be called:
Protocols of Objective Reviewing and Nomination
All together now!
HARD CORE PORN
or perhaps something more refined:
The Institute (in fine print: of Graphics Hardware Review)
The idea here being that people just refer to it as "The Institute" lol. The chairman of the board should get the offical title of "Dr. Horus van Nostrum PhD MB MBA BS ABC"
DudeMiester
Regular
geo said:
sigh...
