Is this a 'Ghost Website'?
closed account (z0My6Up4)
What I am wondering is that an anonymous person uploaded some tutorials and set up a forum board and that is all. The website then takes care of itself as it is essentially a bulletin board.
There is not some big central control centre where people are monitoring and fine tuning the information in this website.
So do you agree this is a ghost website?
There is not some big central control centre where people are monitoring and fine tuning the information in this website.
So do you agree this is a ghost website?
no this isnt a ghost website and i doubt it has some central control centre. it is perfectly possible to have a server room in your house and just collaborate code online with the other site developers. and a ghost site would imply that no one was on the site
closed account (EwCjE3v7)
There are mods and admins here.
I know what you mean about who is the owner and why he does not use it. But I`m sure its him or other admins and mods who review reported posts, adds and other stuff
I know what you mean about who is the owner and why he does not use it. But I`m sure its him or other admins and mods who review reported posts, adds and other stuff
Anytime this comes up, I like to propagate the theory that the site admin posts under a regular account so that he doesn't get treated any different.
As far as upkeep goes. I know someone, a regular contributor, is updating the tutorials but I can't remember who it is. I know for a fact that Duoas is creating a pretty in depth FAQ. The articles are user submitted and the reference section only changes when a new standard gets released. There isn't much more here besides that.
As far as upkeep goes. I know someone, a regular contributor, is updating the tutorials but I can't remember who it is. I know for a fact that Duoas is creating a pretty in depth FAQ. The articles are user submitted and the reference section only changes when a new standard gets released. There isn't much more here besides that.
@Computergeek01
I've considered that theory too. Makes sense too. As for the contributor, I can't remember either, but it is best that we don't know who the mods are. After all, how many times have we seen threads where someone brings up PM'ing the admin instead of filling out the contact form?
GD.Net mods, at least some, flat out say in their bios, not to PM them or they will just delete it. For the most part they ignore PMs because they want the users to use the automated systems they have in place. I PM admin from time to time, but maybe that is a policy that should be taken up here too to make people fill out the contact form.
I've considered that theory too. Makes sense too. As for the contributor, I can't remember either, but it is best that we don't know who the mods are. After all, how many times have we seen threads where someone brings up PM'ing the admin instead of filling out the contact form?
GD.Net mods, at least some, flat out say in their bios, not to PM them or they will just delete it. For the most part they ignore PMs because they want the users to use the automated systems they have in place. I PM admin from time to time, but maybe that is a policy that should be taken up here too to make people fill out the contact form.
Last edited on
Except that here it is a non-issue.
Account -> Private Messages -> Options un-check "Private messaging enabled". You can't state "I won't read your PM's" much more clearly then that :p
Last edited on
| Computergeek01 wrote: |
|---|
| Except that here it is a non-issue. Account -> Private Messages -> Options un-check "Private messaging enabled". You can't state "I won't read your PM's" much more clearly then that :p |
True, but then that removes your ability to talk to others in PM that mods may want to talk to.
This website is definitely not a ghost website, especially seeing as twicker is still updating the reference, has added and maintained the articles, and moderates the forums.
closed account (EwCjE3v7)
I believe this site is going well, like yea it would be great if we had notifications and stuff but for what its supposed to do, its doing it.
And its great that mods and admins don`t say they are mods or admins
And its great that mods and admins don`t say they are mods or admins
closed account (iAk3T05o)
I certainly prefer the modding on this site than that on gd.net and prefer gd.net to dreamincode.net but prefer cplusplus.com to both.
Nobody here behaves super important or overly experienced unlike in the other two, dreamincode being the absolutely worst forum i've joined yet (the mods there behave like gods. It's silly).
:)
Nobody here behaves super important or overly experienced unlike in the other two, dreamincode being the absolutely worst forum i've joined yet (the mods there behave like gods. It's silly).
:)
Last edited on
Well GD.Net mods are veterans in the game industry for the most part, like Tom Sloper for example, so they are overly experienced. I don't know about DIC though as I only posted there a few times. I've not seen the mods act like you claim, but given their jobs is to keep the forums clear of trolls and spam I'd say they are super important. Though, it depends on what you consider to be acting that way because I've never seen anything to give that impression to me.
Disclosure: I'm a staff member ("admin") at GD.Net.
This discussion was brought to my attention, and as there's some mention of GDNet and comparison of communities going on I just wanted to quickly address it.
I think all we're seeing in terms of different moderation are a) different styles of running a community and b) different technical capabilities in the site's respective software. These are very different sites running on different platforms, and differences are to be expected. If anyone who also uses GDNet has an issue with the moderation there (Nathan?) you're more than welcome to bring it to our attention by posting in our "Comments, Suggestions & Ideas" forum or by contacting myself via PM over there.
At the end of the day, both sites are simply trying to help out the development community, and I think both sites do a great job of that in their own way. Over at GDNet we certainly have nothing but respect for those who run other sites (such as this one), and personally I think it's a good thing that there are different options for people who may prefer one style over another.
We are however getting pretty far off the original topic, which seems to have been quickly answered in the first couple of posts -- this is not a ghost site, and although they maintain a lower level of visibility there are active staff and moderators. Thanks to those people for the great service you're providing here, and keep up the great work -- a lot of our members find your site very valuable, and for those who dislike our site for whatever reason it's great that you provide one of the many alternatives that may be more to their liking. :)
This discussion was brought to my attention, and as there's some mention of GDNet and comparison of communities going on I just wanted to quickly address it.
I think all we're seeing in terms of different moderation are a) different styles of running a community and b) different technical capabilities in the site's respective software. These are very different sites running on different platforms, and differences are to be expected. If anyone who also uses GDNet has an issue with the moderation there (Nathan?) you're more than welcome to bring it to our attention by posting in our "Comments, Suggestions & Ideas" forum or by contacting myself via PM over there.
At the end of the day, both sites are simply trying to help out the development community, and I think both sites do a great job of that in their own way. Over at GDNet we certainly have nothing but respect for those who run other sites (such as this one), and personally I think it's a good thing that there are different options for people who may prefer one style over another.
We are however getting pretty far off the original topic, which seems to have been quickly answered in the first couple of posts -- this is not a ghost site, and although they maintain a lower level of visibility there are active staff and moderators. Thanks to those people for the great service you're providing here, and keep up the great work -- a lot of our members find your site very valuable, and for those who dislike our site for whatever reason it's great that you provide one of the many alternatives that may be more to their liking. :)
You should be more worried about the members of a site more so than the mods and admins. On reputation sites, it is the members you give and take reputation points ,which is used to determine your credibility on those sites, and you are negative on both. On sites like this, and those for that matter, the members will go to mods and admins expressing their concern which, if enough members complain about your comments, you will eventually be banned.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.