GAME GEEK give-a-way!

[Deleted]

Nice...thanks for the instructions Beefy!


~ :-Xsk

[Deleted]

Thanks to those who were able to submit a rating and comment about COTG on Board Game Geek.

We accomplished what we wanted (getting 30 overall reviews) and that means COTG is officially "Ranked" amongst a TON of other games.

Anyhow, all those who helped have been noted and as soon as Larry is able to get to putting the stats for Santa Wolf into COTGonline (which I believe is during next weeks April update), you should see him in your account.

Thanks again!


~ :-Xsk

[heavymetalhamster]

Hiya

I have been a member of BGG for years now (same username as here) and, no surprise, COTG is one of my top rated games.

It's great to see more people rating the game over there. However, in the past, when other games have had groups of new users all rating the game universally positively it has actually produced a negative reaction from the active members of BGG.

They denounce the ratings as "shill" ratings and, sometime then go on to rate the game a 1 as, what they call, a "shill-buster rating".

Quite frankly the whole "shill busting" process makes little sense to me.

I know that you guys all genuinely love COTG, as do I.
Perhaps if, after registering, you could stick around for a bit & rate some other games, write a review or session report for COTG or some such it would appease the natives?

Anyway, just thought I would de-lurk for a topic I actually know something about. Oh, and congrats to everyone involved in this amazing community. Back to lurking again now. ;D

[Deleted]

Thanks for the words of wisdom, hamster!

I feared some sort of backlash from having a bunch of new users on BGG give such high ratings...thanks for explaining what we can all do to keep things level.

Now back to the shadows you go!


~ :-Xsk

[roninnoir]

A similar thing happened on RPG.net a while back (during the N-Force push)...apparently RPG.net refused to publish several reviews because they were little more than shills.

[Mr. Beefy]

May 14, 2008 20:27:54 GMT -5 @roninnoir said:

A similar thing happened on RPG.net a while back (during the N-Force push)...apparently RPG.net refused to publish several reviews because they were little more than shills.

The thing that sucks about BGG is that you'll do a session report that is serious and fair to the game but it gets declined because you do it on a 'less popular/less known' game and the 'reviewers' don't know what the hell they are rating. I've have a few session reports on CotG declined b4 that I gave up trying.

[TTX]

I can imagine that. I don't know if they ever posted mine.