I'll agree that it is just weird. I'm not saying it's bad or good, just ... weird..
It would be one thing to have GEICO ads, that's cool by me, whatever. Having some sort of installed PR person is strange though. I can't wait until Giant Bomb partners with Pennzoil and PennzoilDrew becomes a member of the community!
@justinmcelroy said:
@hussatron: That's fine if people have an axe to grind with Polygon because of a trailer. It could have been executed better, and we've been working hard to make the full series less self-serious. Also since that trailer we've produced:
This: http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/18/3655956/triforce-johnson-the-worlds-most-patient-gamer-wii-u
And this: http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/1/3560318/homefront-kaos-studios-thq
And a few dozen more like them, so I'm hopeful the detractors will be able to look past their hangups soon so they don't miss the excellent work people on my team are doing.
I don't want to start the same old battle about the documentary. That's a battle that's been fought and that I personally think Polygon won. I think it's good that you guys know that announcing Polygon advertisements/sponsorships might require some walking on thin ice for some time. That being said, I do think this newest one is a bit strange.
Also, I read that story on Triforce yesterday when you tweeted about it. Really good story. I had heard of him before this, but he's really an interesting guy.
@Apathylad said:
Would Patrick post a thread about welcoming the community manager of Pepsi on our forums? >.>
No, because it would come across as laughably insincere. This site is built around the personalities of its staff. A lot of us who support this site do so because we value the sincerity that is always on display.
@justinmcelroy: I really hope all Polygon staff are contractually obligated to write GEICO instead of Geico. I know the name of the company is "GEICO" but it kinda looks weird in a block of text.
In the end it is probably just a question of cash. If a car insurance company is willing to pay money for having a so called gamer taking part in the forum discussions then the temptation to say yes is probably pretty great. The justification for that is just pure window dressing.
@Soap: We made a video product that was sponsored by Microsoft. In much the same way, Game Informer's front page was sponsored by Sony a couple of days ago. And that's not to single them out, endemic advertising is the norm in the industry.
I think it's worth noting that our series was part of a Internet Explorer campaign which is not a product we cover, which makes it less problematic from an editorial perspective.
@justinmcelroy said:
@Soap: We made a video product that was sponsored by Microsoft. In much the same way, Game Informer's front page was sponsored by Sony a couple of days ago. And that's not to single them out, endemic advertising is the norm in the industry.
I think it's worth noting that our series was part of a Internet Explorer campaign which is not a product we cover, which makes it less problematic from an editorial perspective.
That's fair enough, but can I ask if it was discussed among the team about any possible blow back it might have had with the public, especially so early on into the sites existence, I can't imagine some of the public didn't think it a bit odd.
Experimental advertising, that's kind of interesting, I wonder what that guy posts about, is every post like "oh you crashed 5 times in need for speed, if that happened IRL geico has you covered". Oh nvm I read some of his posts and it just seems like normal video game talk but you see he is from GEICO every time he posts so I guess he is doing advertising like that + the ads. I find it interesting and don't think it could ruin anything, he's just one dude.
@Kerned said:
@justinmcelroy said:
I think it's worth noting that our series was part of a Internet Explorer campaign which is not a product we cover, which makes it less problematic from an editorial perspective.
That's a positively absurd justification. It's the same company.
My point was that if an advertisement is for a product we don't cover, there's no chance of it running against negative content, which can be embarrassing for an advertiser. Not a huge difference, but it helps.
I don't know how I feel about that Geico thing. On one hand what a way to make some easy money. On the other hand not sure if I would want to be in a sites forums if one of the posters is trying to sell me car insurance. Could I, for example, try to sell Liberty Mutual Auto insurance in that forum? Oh well if that venture pays off look for that to be a feature on more sites.
@Nightriff said:
@Branthog: Did they delete comments? All of them are about Zelda and no one seemed to call them out on this AT LEAST being weird, it is the internet by the way
I'm not aware of specific comments being deleted in the GEICO thing, but I'd be surprised if some posters didn't call it out and, as a result, get deleted. I only say this because it seems unlikely that every single comment is as jovial and welcoming as those which are there *and* there were many comments removed from the Halo/Pizza Hut press release post in the past.
@justinmcelroy said:
Hey buddies, just wanted to duck my head in here and make one quick point.
You're obviously entitled to whatever opinion you like, but there's something really important about deals like the GEICO sponsorship I wanted to highlight. GEICO may seem like an odd sponsor for a video game website, and maybe that's true. But the very good thing about that is that GEICO is what's called a non-endemic advertiser. That means we don't cover any GEICO products.
When a publication is supported by an advertiser they don't cover, that's really healthy because it eliminates the possibility for conflicts of interest. (The same, by the way, could be said of Mountain Dew and Doritos which I knew everyone was up in arms about.)
Right. That's why their sponsorship is a great fit. My post wasn't about actual impropriety by having GEICO as a sponsor. It was about how crass and gross having a GEICO employee embedded in forum conversations with people as a representative of GEICO is. Having anyone from any company doing this anywhere for any forum in any context is just gross and I don't know how anyone can overlook that. Didn't someone in the process of going forward with this advertising plan say "wait, people might find this to be going just a liiiitle bit too far"?
Hussatron unintentionally highlighted what makes this so great: An anti-GEICO thread isn't ever something that would be a concern, just not something that would pop up on a gaming site, so it alleviates the possibilities for those sorts of concerns.
Why wouldn't an anti-GEICO comment pop-up on a gaming website where a guy is going around representing GEICO with GEICO in his name and promoting the GEICO brand by interacting with the community on behalf of GEICO? And should someone post such a comment, why wouldn't you delete it to placate GEICO in consideration of the money they are giving you? (And in light of the previous deletion of posts more or less supposedly due to site policy)?
We'd never change what we'd write because of an advertiser (even though I know so many think that's how the press works) but there's always a possibility that an advertiser will pull advertising or refuse to spend with a publication because of what they write. That's what makes non-endemic sponsorships so key to maintaining editorial independence.
Except, that is how the media works. Anyone who thinks that the news coverage of pharmaceutical topics isn't impacted by the almost endless stream of pharmaceutical advertisements between the news segments is naive. Advertisers both directly and indirectly influence the content and the slant said content takes. Additionally, editorial bias and direction is often set well above the writer's head in an organization (FOX is notorious for this -- flat out giving talking points to their talent, but others are known to as well).
That doesn't mean it always happens to everyone at every outlet -- but it does happen and it'd be naive to not be aware of and suspect it. Especially in the gaming world, where it has been rife with it over the years and there are plenty examples to cite.
As to whether Polygon would do this, we don't know. It's hard to earn that kind of trust and respect. I trust that Jeff Gerstman would call shenanigans if that happened, here, for example. I've followed you long enough (and wanted you to join the GB crew, damn it!) that I think you would probably call bullshit in such a situation, too. I don't have a lot of other names I could put on a list that I would expect that from.
Anyway, this is long, but I hope you will read on.
@justinmcelroy said:
@Kerned said:
That's a positively absurd justification. It's the same company.
My point was that if an advertisement is for a product we don't cover, there's no chance of it running against negative content, which can be embarrassing for an advertiser. Not a huge difference, but it helps.
Except the problem of receiving money (advertising or otherwise) from a company that does produce products that you extensively review still remains as potential influence and leverage and whether or not that occurs, it carries a certain taint with it and definitely lends itself to a perception of possible impropriety. Don't you come in here with your fancy time belt and try to pull one over on me, sir!
Anyway, the problem with all of this stuff (not just at Polygon, but everywhere) is that advertisers do leverage money against editorial content, so participation in that system means an unavoidable constant suspicion and ongoing re-evaluation of who is delivering what you're consuming. It's something that you will always contend with, until and unless you are able to fulfill a direct customer model with paying readers that negates the need for advertisers (a model I would participate in, though I know it's perhaps ultimately unrealistic).
I don't want my initial comment to be misconstrued and dismissed as another clueless mouth-breathing reader who "just doesn't know anything about media/journalism/advertising", so let me clarify that I don't think there is necessarily a direct correlation between "Microsoft funding a serious of videos for $750k, so they're going to rate Microsoft games super high!" nor that I think GEICO is going to have any influence in your editorial content (in fact, the GEICO ads, themselves, are sensible because there is nothing to influence). I do know that advertisers have a certain amount of leverage and the money has an insidious way of causing those with it to wield it as a tool of influence and those wanting it have a way to be influenced by it. It is a plague upon all journalism; not just gaming. And I do know that advertising and branding can go too far and become gross and crass, which I find this GEICO thing to be. Which is why I brought this up as a post, here. Primarily to say, "What the fuck is up with Polygon and all this nuts advertising stuff they keep doing?". Because, as a reader, it's kind of off-putting and as someone who has been involved in media and journalism, it's kind of fascinating.
I don't want to re-hash the same old exhausted "games journalism and advertising durp!" thing, here, even though my endless blathering has heretofore suggested otherwise. The discussion has been had a thousand times and we all know that there are various levels of corruption and influence, writers are not always involved (though sometimes still influenced from the top down), and some people and places are just flat out clean-as-a-whistle. Advertising isn't leaving and if outlets want to have revenue, they have to find some way to pimp products and brands to their readers while (ideally) not allowing any influence whatsoever (and, preferably, even the misperception of it). It sucks, but that's life.
I do think these wild attempts you guys are making to explore all sorts of weird advertisement opportunities can backfire in making you guys look like the same walking billboard that IGN, Gamespot and others have been for most of the last decade. Creative experimentation with advertising could end up crossing a line that's difficult to return from (at least in the way the site is viewed by readers).
As an aside, I want to say that I like a lot of the people behind Polygon, even if I don't care too much for the site (so far) and find the advertising to be off-putting, if curious. I know it's probably hard to separate the criticism of aspects of the site from the individual, but I think any rational person understands that you and everyone else there (and here at GB and at any other outlet) ultimately want to be known as people who produce great content and earn the respect of those who watch or read what they do. Nobody goes into it thinking "well, I'm going to sell out like a motherfucker" or "man, I can't wait to plaster some Halo ads all over the god damn place!". It's an inevitable part of the business that facilitates the things you are good at and that you want to be respected for. Since I don't think people say this shit enough, I just wanted to make sure that as someone criticizing some things (as one does on the intarwebbernets), I made that clear. I mean, if I had my way, you'd all be doing the same thing and getting paid well for it by the users and never run another ad again. And I'm sure every content creator would have it that way, too.
I just don't know how the community and creators have these conversations in a way that breaks new ground and results in something new. Doesn't just tread the same ground and wind up at the same place months from now. Or do we? It seems that we ultimately just shout "fuck you" across the table, shake our heads, go home, and get back to the same-old, same-old so we can have the conversations all over again in the same ways next year?
@justinmcelroy : I think the non-endemic advertising part is not really the problem or rather the focus of all the weird feelings surrounding this announcement. It probably has more to do with a guy working from that same company who is going to be mixing in with the community and in some ways it does feel kinda dirty. He was being transparent with the fact that he was representing the company there but it doesn't make it any less weird considering that he is a Geico guy who is lurking around the site and mixing in with other users. It doesn't stop me from reading the articles though, I'll probably just try to avoid the comment section.
THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR FORUMS AND THEIR PAGE LAYOUT LOOKS LIKE POOP!!!
So I'm probably alone in this but I don't see the issue. This is how business works. If Geico is advertising on Polygon it seems pretty obvious they'd care about content and be actively involved to a small extent.
I asked Phillip Kollar about this. He simply referred me to a news story announcing it (back in Oct) and then replied with " If it were a game-related sponsor, I think it would be problematic. As someone non endemic to our site, I don't think it's as big of an issue."
I also replied back asking if making that guy from Geico an active member of the community with this Geico affiliation was a way to be transparent about it or if it was part of their deal with Geico. I've gotten no reply yet.
@justinmcelroy said:
@Milkman: I dunno, for me, it's no different from GEICO making a twitter account to interact with people. Not seeing a difference, but that's just me. We on the editorial team don't set up these sponsorships, so I can't speak to the rationale behind them. I just wanted to make a broader point about endemic vs. non-endemic sponsorships
The context is clear and straight forward if @GEICO is posting on Twitter. The same goes for Facebook or any other tool for self-promotion. It is inherently different when taking a company out of that context and placing them into a community to shoot-the-shit with them like they're your old pal. It feels very disingenuous and pandering. It feels like a fat old white guy at the Silly Putty factory saying "kis are totally into that rock and roll -- let's go find some rock and roll places the kids hang out in and talk to them about that groovy rock and roll and they'll identify our brand with being totally cool and with the times and want to buy our product!".
I'm sure the guy doing the posting is a nice fellow and maybe loves video games. And he should totally do that on his own time representing himself. Just don't turn our conversations into vehicles for the payload of their brand-building.
@justinmcelroy said:
@hussatron: That's fine if people have an axe to grind with Polygon because of a trailer. It could have been executed better, and we've been working hard to make the full series less self-serious. Also since that trailer we've produced:
This: http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/18/3655956/triforce-johnson-the-worlds-most-patient-gamer-wii-u
And this: http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/1/3560318/homefront-kaos-studios-thq
And a few dozen more like them, so I'm hopeful the detractors will be able to look past their hangups soon so they don't miss the excellent work people on my team are doing.
I hated it, initially, because I find VOX Media pretty gross. Another shitty "buy all the things" content farm that stripmines the web. Then I gave it another look when you went solo apart from The Verge. The page-layout was both beautiful and annoying at times. The content went from great and in-depth and unique, to "why the fuck are they posting so much random copy and paste shit that I can get on every other website and has already shown up in my RSS feed five times in the past hour?". It's the bit with the "We have a posted ethics policy and therefore our ethics are unquestionable, bro!" that started to turn me off. Even after the whole Halo/Pizza Hut thing and the documentary (which, gross, but whatevs). But man, you guys are starting to put up more hurdles to liking Polygon than reasons. Frankly, the only good-will Polygon has really had coming to it from some of us has been based on the talent behind it, which is a thing that can only burn for so long before more solid reasons are needed (like the completed product).
I don't necessarily have anything against Polygon, itself. I'd love for it to win me over. It just isn't, so far. And considering there is an endless stream of content from an endless number of sources, I think you have a real challenge to produce content that totally sets you apart from everyone else. Gives people reason to add you to their feeds. The same press-releases and one-paragraph parroted blurbs every other site does in the same hour don't add much signal to the noise. Reviews are only as valuable as the personalities attached to them. So it's sort of reliant upon this additional "not a review and not frivolous tabloid-gaming-news trash" meat to set it apart from everything else and make it a "must follow" site. This forum thing is just one more thing in the "nope" pile. Who knows, maybe it'll be the last and in another month or two, Polygon will be the place I go to right after I've caught up on GB and RPS?
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance from doing the Time-Belt
@Sammo21 said:
...
I also replied back asking if making that guy from Geico an active member of the community with this Geico affiliation was a way to be transparent about it or if it was part of their deal with Geico. I've gotten no reply yet.
I think the answer to that question is probably both since the guy himself did say in the first comment of the article that he was there to rep the company while he himself also wants to take part of the conversations surrounding games. He was being very upfront about it.
Same old same old. The more a company has to advertise to stay going just highlights the fact that either their product is almost indistinguishable from their competition or their product just straight up sucks. Submarining Geico ads into gaming forums pretty much tells the entire story of Geico.
I find it funny how anti advertising everyone has become in the last 5 years, I mean these game websites need to make money.
@Soap said:
@justinmcelroy said:
We'd never change what we'd write because of an advertiser (even though I know so many think that's how the press works) but there's always a possibility that an advertiser will pull advertising or refuse to spend with a publication because of what they write. That's what makes non-endemic sponsorships so key to maintaining editorial independence.
sooooo the Microsoft funded documentary doesn't come off a little strangely after that?
Well one of their first reviews was Forza Horizon, they gave it a 6.
@Bourbon_Warrior said:
I find it funny how anti advertising everyone has become in the last 5 years, I mean these game websites need to make money.
Only the last five? And "we need to keep the lights on" isn't a blanket-excuse that negates discussion of a vital piece of the coverage puzzle.
@Bourbon_Warrior said:
@Soap said:
@justinmcelroy said:
We'd never change what we'd write because of an advertiser (even though I know so many think that's how the press works) but there's always a possibility that an advertiser will pull advertising or refuse to spend with a publication because of what they write. That's what makes non-endemic sponsorships so key to maintaining editorial independence.
sooooo the Microsoft funded documentary doesn't come off a little strangely after that?
Well one of their first reviews was Forza Horizon, they gave it a 6.
Advertiser influence in media coverage is rarely so directly exerted. Sometimes, yes, but not usually. And that isn't to say that it would influence them at Polygon, at all. Ever. That doesn't make certain advertising partnerships any less gross or eye-brow raising.
On one side, there's too much constant criticism and suspicion and misunderstanding and on the other side, there's too much dismissal and rationalizing. It seems pretty hard to reconcile.
@Branthog: I feel like this has only happened after the launch on Youtube and everyone having DVR's in their household or downloading torrents of TV shows online. They needed advertising so whats the problem I never click on adverts, is having that advert on that site going to make you get insurance of them, I hope you have more willpower than that.
1. Polygon being a gross site full of gross things. That's spot on, after they started copy pasting halo press releases as "news" even the besties left my podcast list. I don't know what those guys are thinking over there but they're destroying their careers and their apparently very expensive website in no time flat. Just so much gross piled ontop of gross.
2. This geico thing has the totally opposite effect on me it makes me never ever ever ever ever want to buy insurance from the expensive lizard. It actually makes me want to go over there and post a "Allstate insurance success thread" and talk about how good it is to be an Allstate customer (I'm not).
@Bourbon_Warrior said:
@Branthog: I feel like this has only happened after the launch on Youtube and everyone having DVR's in their household or downloading torrents of TV shows online. They needed advertising so whats the problem I never click on adverts, is having that advert on that site going to make you get insurance of them, I hope you have more willpower than that.
It's not about clicking or not. They spend the money, because it works. Coke spends $3-billion per year on advertising, because advertising does influence choice. And when that invades things like your social networking and your community discussions, it is no longer something you can "just avoid", unless you avoid the conversation/forum, entirely.
@Branthog: I'd probably feel more okay with this whole issue if Polygon was staffed by people who acknowledge that, yeah, this could seem real shady. The problem lies in their staff consisting of a bunch of self-righteous navel-gazers. They want you to just trust that they adhere to their code of ethics, but how dare you question a sketchy looking deal like this.
Polygon staff has not learned that trust is the hardest thing to win in the world, and also the easiest thing to lose. It's a shame considering some of the talent they have, but at this point in time they are the same as every other corporate entity covering games out there. Worse, actually, because they try so hard to sound like Giant Bomb in the process.
Yeah, that whole site is fucked, and hilariously so.
@Branthog: I'd like to here more about this questioning an adherence to ethical policies thing.
@hussatron said:
I'd just like to say that there are a number of people out there who seem to have an agenda against Polygon's success.
Sadly that seems to be the long and short of most of the threads that I read about Polygon here. I'd love to know why.
Is there any 100% gross-free way to survive on the internet? If anyone knows of one they should really start sharin'. I mean it seemed like GiantBomb tried everything and they still went down.
It could be worse... It could always be worse.
Really? Whenever I read threads like these and the response to them, I usually come to the opposite conclusion; the amount of gross marketing bullshit people seem to tolerate always astounds me. The kneejerk response either seems to be "you're such a whiner, deadbeat!" or "you're just jealous of their success!"I find it funny how anti advertising everyone has become in the last 5 years, I mean these game websites need to make money.
Yeah not gonna lie, this looks very creepy and weird
That seems really weird.
More power to them. I use ad block for a reason and pay for Giantbomb's content for a reason.
Ha, 90% of the replies in this thread are hilarious. I guess you guys need something to do before going back to your Occupy Wall Street protest.
Sites need to make money. I know you assholes running ad blockers and torrenting every movie and TV show think you're entitled to everything for free just because it exists, but you're not and people can't feed their family on your positive karma.
I don't think this is anymore different that regular advertising on websites. Hell, GameSpot still takes full-site advertising where the whole site is redesigned to advertise one game (infamously, Kane & Lynch as an example). The only difference between that style of advertising and this is that the GEICO guy isn't selling games and seems to genuinely want to engage with gamers rather than shovel his bullshit product down your throat.
And let's cut the bullshit - the reason people are getting autistic over this is because you and your horseshit ad blocker can't block the GEICO guy.
@KevinK said:
Ha, 90% of the replies in this thread are hilarious. I guess you guys need something to do before going back to your Occupy Wall Street protest.
Sites need to make money. I know you assholes running ad blockers and torrenting every movie and TV show think you're entitled to everything for free just because it exists, but you're not and people can't feed their family on your positive karma.
I don't think this is anymore different that regular advertising on websites. Hell, GameSpot still takes full-site advertising where the whole site is redesigned to advertise one game (infamously, Kane & Lynch as an example). The only difference between that style of advertising and this is that the GEICO guy isn't selling games and seems to genuinely want to engage with gamers rather than shovel his bullshit product down your throat.
And let's cut the bullshit - the reason people are getting autistic over this is because you and your horseshit ad blocker can't block the GEICO guy.
How's that kool-aid taste? The straw-man doesn't hold-up. One thing doesn't have to do with the other. Wanting responsible journalism that hasn't sold out doesn't mean people want writers to starve and disliking intrusive and crass advertising doesn't mean people are freeloaders (for the record, I'm pre-subscribed for the next three years to GB and I spend about $10k/yr just on video game related entertainment, I also pay for my music with MOG and movies with Netflix) -- I would also gladly PAY for Polygon if they end up making fantastic content that is worth it if it means getting rid of the crass advertising). I don't like every single service and outlet on the planet being monetized (sometimes it's good to just create because you enjoy it), but I'm a big fan of supporting people who bring you something worthwhile. I'm an even bigger fan of doing that instead of having the advertiser's funding be the driving force, such as was the goal with GB subscriptions, like Jeff and crew explained. (And I agree that, unfortunately, there aren't enough people willing to pay for good content to make that a viable model in most cases - ugh).
Also, the GEICO guy can interact with anyone he wants. He doesn't need the GEICO tag to do so. Advertising is one thing. For the fifteenth time, it's the lame infiltration of communities with a representative that is so crass. Maybe slightly less crass, because in this instance it's just some dude that found a way to spend his time posting while getting paid by his employer, but the next instance will be some soccer mom who gets her info from wikipedia and formulates shitty commentary like one of those awful Indian spammers that plague so many blogs and article comments on the net). I find it baffling that people have had so much advertising seared into their brain since birth that just about anything is a-okay with them and they don't question anything. It makes me question what other things such people blindly accept in their life without thinking about who and where it is coming from and in what context.
Follow the money
@DoctorWelch said:
Yeah, that whole site is fucked, and hilariously so.
@Branthog: I'd like to here more about this questioning an adherence to ethical policies thing.
I thought I explained it as much as I could, but:
Polygon posted an 'article' on their site titled "The Art Department offers accredited art degreees from video game art talent". It described the founders and school, briefly, and states that they (Aspen University) are an accredited university. It looked very much like a sponsored advertisement, frankly. A lot like those ads during day-time television that tell dropouts that they can get a degree in refrigerator repair, HVAC maintenance, motor-cycle repair, etc. It is a press release that they largely copy-pasted from BusinessWire's press-release section.
I replied with one pithy sentence that it looked like a press-release/advertisement (not stating that Polygon was paid to post it), that the school was nationally accredited, but not regionally, so could be an issue for some, and that there are accusations online of it being a semi-diploma-mill (which, frankly, a lot of cruddy vocational schools are, even when accredited). I then posted a link to a diploma-mill tracking site that stated it wasn't a diploma mill, but that there was some overall question of status. Further simple googling would bring up conversations praising and questioning the school as well as what accreditations they did and didn't have.
I felt it was a relevant, if pithy, contribution to the discussion since the article was basically like an ad out of the back of a newspaper or magazine and I doubted the "author" of the article had done anything more than copy and paste it out of their inbox or FAX-tray.
The next time I visited the site, everything was blacked out and I couldn't proceed until I read a pop-up moderation window that told me I was being blocked and my message was deleted, because it discussed editorial policy and accused them of being paid to post advertising (that isn't what I stated). The moderation note (which I wish I'd screen-captured) stated that they don't allow such discussions questioning their ethical policy, because they have an ethical policy already (and then gave me a URL to it). As if merely having a policy means that they abide by it and, therefore, should never need discussing by the community (again, I wasn't discussing their ethics; I was just saying that the article was meaningless cruft spitting out a press-release with nothing of real value to it and the school seemed iffy -- which as they've stated elsewhere in this thread, doesn't matter, because they wouldn't delete messages that take issue with an advertiser, anyway). I then had to read their posting policy and click "I AGREE TO THIS" before I could use the site again.
I didn't care about the deletion. I didn't even care about the article (and had practically forgotten it by my next visit). It was the "we don't allow discussion of our ethics, because we have a page that lists our ethics policy" as if its existence proved it was practice (even though it had nothing to do with my post, the article, or anything at all -- other then their being overly defensive and jumping to conclusions) is what turned me off. It felt like a very disconnected and strange statement and I'd feel the same way about it from any other writer in any other topic of news outside of gaming, too (or more).
I still hope they end up being something awesome. I'm all for more great gaming content. I'm not going to hold my breath though. I know there's a lot of good talent behind it, regardless. That just really rubbed me wrong and on top of all the other Poly-jank, I figured I'd cut my losses.
@Marokai said:
@Bourbon_Warrior said:Really? Whenever I read threads like these and the response to them, I usually come to the opposite conclusion; the amount of gross marketing bullshit people seem to tolerate always astounds me. The kneejerk response either seems to be "you're such a whiner, deadbeat!" or "you're just jealous of their success!"I find it funny how anti advertising everyone has become in the last 5 years, I mean these game websites need to make money.
Such attitudes always strike me as probably coming from the same people (or, at least, the same mindset) as "What do you care about privacy issues, if you have nothing to hide?!"
Yeah, Polygon really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I had hoped it'd be a site I'd bookmark and swing by for some extra news about video games when I needed it, but between having people like Brian Crescente and Arthur Gies as cornerstones of their company, their horrible design and that "documentary" of theirs, I was very vary by the time the site launched.
Now after it's been live for awhile I realize it certainly isn't the site for me and if they're the "future of video games journalism" as they claim they are, then things are looking bleak. Even Justin McElroy who I love to bits in everything else, seems to be negatively influenced by Polygon. His reaction to people calling bullshit on them putting a review score like a game to the Wii U launch and then "kinda-sorta" backtracking on it (After they got the hits of course) didn't sit well with me. He was very curteous in his replies to me and I appreciate that, but it just came off as so overtly defensive against everybody and smacked of trying to shut down criticism (Something he did address later). I still love you Justin!
Polygon as a site seem very eager to jump in bed with sponsors and though they are "kinda-sorta" transparent about it, they still do it.
Next Burnout game needs a GEICO minigame where you increase your premium with each crash
@Branthog: That's ridiculous. Last night, before you responded, I wanted to see what they would do to someone who openly questions their policies in the forums. So, I made a fake account and created a mostly well thought out post about whether or not people trust the site due to some of the things they've done. I got some usual internet responses from people that hadn't thought through what they were saying, but the most interesting response I got was from one of the McElroy brothers with nothing other than the words "ethics statement" linking me to that page. I then replied and said that having one is not the same as adhering to it. Then, my forum post was deleted and I got one of those warnings you did. I thought it was a message that I could go back to so I didn't think twice about closing it. Like you, I really wish I had screen captured it.
The weirdest thing about all this is I thought they had people there that knew what they were doing. You think the self proclaimed "game writing revolution" would be smart enough not to act so amateurish. When other game sites like IGN do something shitty, I usually find that it's not really their editorial department's fault, and it's just something the higher-ups have control over. When it comes to Polygon, though, it seems like most of their slip ups are directly dealing with the editorial side of things.
@TeflonBilly said:
Next Burnout game needs a GEICO minigame where you increase your premium with each crash
They could sponsor EVE-Online's ship insurance. :P
@DoctorWelch said:
@Branthog: That's ridiculous. Last night, before you responded, I wanted to see what they would do to someone who openly questions their policies in the forums. So, I made a fake account and created a mostly well thought out post about whether or not people trust the site due to some of the things they've done. I got some usual internet responses from people that hadn't thought through what they were saying, but the most interesting response I got was from one of the McElroy brothers with nothing other than the words "ethics statement" linking me to that page. I then replied and said that having one is not the same as adhering to it. Then, my forum post was deleted and I got one of those warnings you did. I thought it was a message that I could go back to so I didn't think twice about closing it. Like you, I really wish I had screen captured it.
The weirdest thing about all this is I thought they had people there that knew what they were doing. You think the self proclaimed "game writing revolution" would be smart enough not to act so amateurish. When other game sites like IGN do something shitty, I usually find that it's not really their editorial department's fault, and it's just something the higher-ups have control over. When it comes to Polygon, though, it seems like most of their slip ups are directly dealing with the editorial side of things.
I can understand not wanting their site to be plagued by constant crap posts questioning editorial/marketing decisions on every single posted article. I really do. I think it's fair for the users to make statements in that regard in the context of articles that are very PR-ish, advertiser-ish, press-release-ish, or otherwise trafficking in the shitty stuff that supposedly they were going to be all about not doing. That is, I see a difference in raising questions/conversation versus spamming every article with such comments, just to obstruct the flow of the website and deteriorate the kind of community they're trying to cultivate (which I honestly haven't seen people doing - the comments have tended to pop up in response to articles that, indeed, were kind of iffy).
I also do dig their moderation system, itself. I like that it is more than just a message vanishing and/or a brief automated note in your inbox. And I appreciate that they're actively trying to shape an interesting community/discussion forum. I'm simply not sold on the idea that they are accomplishing it when obliterating entire lines of discussion and telling people "if you have feedback, send it to feedback@polygon.com". In other words "if you have any criticism, don't engage in discussing it with other users -- keep it to yourself and file it in /dev/null".
Then again, this is what "game journalists" have been doing, with few exceptions. Dismiss your audience, ridicule their concerns, and put your head in the sand. We saw a lot of that last month, especially. So I'm not really that shocked.
If you're going to put up crap, then I want to advocate against it, as a member of your audience. If you don't want to hear my input -- and you're going to keep putting up that crap -- then I'll just go away, because you don't have anything for me and it's clear you're not *going* to have anything for me. Which is the decision I personally made after that incident (and which is why I didn't catch on to this weird GEICO thing until days later, either).
oh! it's like subway from community haha
this is hilarious
@Branthog said:
I can understand not wanting their site to be plagued by constant crap posts questioning editorial/marketing decisions on every single posted article. I really do. I think it's fair for the users to make statements in that regard in the context of articles that are very PR-ish, advertiser-ish, press-release-ish, or otherwise trafficking in the shitty stuff that supposedly they were going to be all about not doing. That is, I see a difference in raising questions/conversation versus spamming every article with such comments, just to obstruct the flow of the website and deteriorate the kind of community they're trying to cultivate (which I honestly haven't seen people doing - the comments have tended to pop up in response to articles that, indeed, were kind of iffy).
I also do dig their moderation system, itself. I like that it is more than just a message vanishing and/or a brief automated note in your inbox. And I appreciate that they're actively trying to shape an interesting community/discussion forum. I'm simply not sold on the idea that they are accomplishing it when obliterating entire lines of discussion and telling people "if you have feedback, send it to feedback@polygon.com". In other words "if you have any criticism, don't engage in discussing it with other users -- keep it to yourself and file it in /dev/null".
Then again, this is what "game journalists" have been doing, with few exceptions. Dismiss your audience, ridicule their concerns, and put your head in the sand. We saw a lot of that last month, especially. So I'm not really that shocked.
If you're going to put up crap, then I want to advocate against it, as a member of your audience. If you don't want to hear my input -- and you're going to keep putting up that crap -- then I'll just go away, because you don't have anything for me and it's clear you're not *going* to have anything for me. Which is the decision I personally made after that incident (and which is why I didn't catch on to this weird GEICO thing until days later, either).
Yeah, I completely understand if they don't want crap or spam filling their forums and comments sections, but I wouldn't constitute what I posted as spam. I simply wanted to see what would happen if I brought up some obvious criticisms, and it was erased. Here, people make threads that criticize the staff and such on a regular basis, and these posts aren't deleted as soon as they pop up. They will get deleted if their only purpose is to be inflammatory or the conversation gets out of hand, but there isn't a policy of erasing any evidence of criticism about the site.
I think you're totally right about the whole dismissing of your audience thing though. I even see it done by this staff on occasion, and I think it's something that really needs to change. It just perpetuates this butting of heads between staff and community members. If, instead, writers and staff accepted criticism, and wanted to actively discuss it, they would seem much more profesional and much less stuck up. Right now, there is this sense of infallibility in most of the gaming press, and it's nothing but laughable considering the track record of game writing throughout the years.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment