A message to all the people leaving "feedback."

[samhain81]

Wasn't sure about either sending this to the staff for the letters page, or just posting it on the forums, but anyways, here goes.

I've been a long time reader of RG since the issue with Star Fox on the cover. Flipping through the mag, I discovered tons of interviews and information behind the scenes of the game. This is what drew me into buying the magazine.

For the past 3-4 years or so, I've been continously buying every issue of RG, never complaining about any of the content for various reasons. I've also been a forum poster and Retrobate writer for quite some time. There's a few things I wanted to comment on about some of the "feedback" that sometimes shows up on this forum. Complaining about a certain console or 8-bit computer, or handheld or game is getting too much/not enough coverage is similar to a person buying a car before test-driving it, then complaining about it's performance/look/feel/etc. If you don't like what you see when you're flipping through the issue on the newstand, don't buy it. If you don't like the fact that you have a subscription and they don't cover things that you want them to cover, cancel your subscription. Pure and simple.

Now, to those of you who say, "Well, it's my right to tell them how I feel about what they cover," you're correct. However, this doesn't give you the right to be nasty or rude about it. These gentlemen work hard each and every month to provide you a consistent magazine with consistent articles, reviews, interviews and more. Many people actually do their part by offering constructive criticism, and this is valuable to the future of the magazine.

I think what the RG staff is doing is great, and they've introduced me to so many new games and systems I never knew were out there! While I don't always agree with every single issue's content, it's fun to read about games and systems I never saw growing up, and read about the trials and tribulations of creating games back then. Don't rain on this parade by bringing negativity to an otherwise positive place. If you're going to be a troll, go back to your bridge.

::steps off soapbox::

[stvd]

Feedback isn't good by default. Constructive feedback is good.

I think there's much more to learn from (constructive) criticism/feedback than endless posts of "Awesome job guys - another brilliant job".
I've been known to have a moan in the past but if I voice my opinion on a certain article or whatever it also means that
I'm happy with the rest of the mag.
However, I don't think criticism here is taken on board as it should be.
Despite a valid reason/argument (to the poster at least) for a specific opinion it's sometimes
met with an "I know better than you" attitude or a "just stop buying it then" type remark.

If you're asking for feedback then it's going to go in either of 2 ways and you have to be prepared to take the negative
along with the positive.

[merman]

Feedback isn't good by default. Constructive feedback is good.

I think there's much more to learn from (constructive) criticism/feedback than endless posts of "Awesome job guys - another brilliant job".
I've been known to have a moan in the past but if I voice my opinion on a certain article or whatever it also means that
I'm happy with the rest of the mag.
However, I don't think criticism here is taken on board as it should be.
Despite a valid reason/argument (to the poster at least) for a specific opinion it's sometimes
met with an "I know better than you" attitude or a "just stop buying it then" type remark.

If you're asking for feedback then it's going to go in either of 2 ways and you have to be prepared to take the negative
along with the positive.

But as Craig pointed out, we can learn nothing from someone saying "Article X was rubbish" or "System Y is featured too often". Tell us if something was difficult to follow, glossed over something important or contained factual errors. Again, don't pick holes in something that is an opinion just because you disagree, or point out that a columnist made a point that was contradictory to what you think is right.

[CraigGrannell]

What Merman said. Also, criticism isn't always taken on board for good reason—editors must go with what they feel is right, rather than attempting to pander to everyone. However, I cannot think of a single other publication I've worked on that's attempted to indulge reader wishes as much as RG has and does. I suspect a lot of criticism beyond personal taste is down to people who don't work in magazines not often realising how slow certain things can be.

Examples of this… The current issue is 103, 104's being edited and 105's presumably been commissioned. I imagine rough plans already exist for the major features in the following six or so issues too. So if someone gets a response of "we'll do an article on that" to issue 'x', the soonest it's likely to happen is issue 'x+3'. Additionally, some things people would like to happen don't or don't easily for all manner of reasons. I've been trying to complete a Speedball 2 making-of for about two years now, but it's stuck in some kind of Groundhog Day hell, because two of the people I want to interview for the piece are too busy. This happens a hell of a lot when it comes to any features that require input from developers. (An even more extreme example: Mayhem in Monsterland was commissioned as a making-of for issue 35, and Dropzone some time in 2007, but neither actually happened, due to various reasons. Had people around the time moaned about a lack of C64/Atari coverage, that might have been because replacements were for different systems, upsetting the balance. But this kind of thing happens all the time and there's no good way of avoiding it.)

[joefish]

But as Craig pointed out, we can learn nothing from someone saying "Article X was rubbish" or "System Y is featured too often". Tell us if something was difficult to follow, glossed over something important or contained factual errors. Again, don't pick holes in something that is an opinion just because you disagree, or point out that a columnist made a point that was contradictory to what you think is right.

There's a difference between commissioning an opinion piece from someone whose opinion is respected, and an anonymous article presented as a researched factual investigation that tumbles into lop-sided bias. It's to the editor's credit that the magazine appears, at least to the reader, as a coherent collection of articles. But if a piece is to rely on opinion then I think it should be presented as such and the author identified (even if pseudonymously), so as to clearly separate argument over opinions from criticism of presentation.

The readers do pay actual money for the magazine and have expectations of what they consider professionalism. If you want professional criticism in return then pay a professional critic!

If anyone wants to ignore the feedback, that's entirely their prerogative and no-one really suffers in the short term. But if readers decide don't want to read the magazine anymore, that is going to have an impact. I've no doubt it's a hard job to pick out what's a genuine trend or preference from all the gobsh*teing that goes on, but at least the continued existence of the magazine is testament that someone somewhere has got the hang of it.

I think my point is, it's not my job as a reader or commenter to present the consensus view of the readership. It's the journalist's decision to determine that from all the people like me who present their own concepts of feedback.

[stvd]

But as Craig pointed out, we can learn nothing from someone saying "Article X was rubbish" or "System Y is featured too often".

Yep, I understand this and completely agree.

[kiwimike]

Yeah, you can't please all the people all the time, but IMO people still have a right to an opinion and to state it. Sometimes the opinion to most will be idiotic! But for the most part the majority of people have valid contributions to make to a discussion...and regardless, freedom of speech in incredibly important.

[CraigGrannell]

No-one's arguing people don't have a right to an opinion. We're merely stating the types of feedback that are genuinely useful, and noting why certain types of feedback are thusly ignored or dismissed.

But if readers decide don't want to read the magazine anymore, that is going to have an impact.

Totally true, but then those who post here are a minority of overall readership, and too many complain on the basis that the magazine isn't tailor made for them. It's a bit like getting all grumpy because the latest issue of Empire has an interview with Ridley Scott on Prometheus and saying "I don't like sci-fi and so this issue was MEH".

[joefish]

Yes, but they can always p*ss off and read another movie mag. Poor old us have nowhere else to go...

those who post here are a minority of overall readership, and too many complain on the basis that the magazine isn't tailor made for them.

No, but you can still consider them a sample. To arbitrarily decide that it's not a representative sample if you've nothing else to go on would be a mistake.

What you have in feedback is a case of people self-selecting when they have something to complain about. People who have nothing to complain about don't make quite as much noise, true. But that's not because of the forum - from the look of all the discussion that does go on, it's not as though people are solely signing up to have a whinge. Those that do are often shot down pretty quick by others for being unreasonable.

But then I don't actually see the writers dismissing and ignoring people who post stuff like 'meh, that was cr*p' anyway. Most of the time there's a response asking 'why', or the opportunity for someone else to follow up with something more specific. There's a bit of dialogue.

[kiwimike]

Feedback isn't good by default. Constructive feedback is good.

I think there's much more to learn from (constructive) criticism/feedback than endless posts of "Awesome job guys - another brilliant job".
I've been known to have a moan in the past but if I voice my opinion on a certain article or whatever it also means that
I'm happy with the rest of the mag.
However, I don't think criticism here is taken on board as it should be.
Despite a valid reason/argument (to the poster at least) for a specific opinion it's sometimes
met with an "I know better than you" attitude or a "just stop buying it then" type remark.

If you're asking for feedback then it's going to go in either of 2 ways and you have to be prepared to take the negative
along with the positive.

But as Craig pointed out, we can learn nothing from someone saying "Article X was rubbish" or "System Y is featured too often". Tell us if something was difficult to follow, glossed over something important or contained factual errors. Again, don't pick holes in something that is an opinion just because you disagree, or point out that a columnist made a point that was contradictory to what you think is right.

But you're saying don't pick holes in something that is opinion...but yet you're picking holes in someone's feedback-which is opinion also. Is that not just as bad a reaction?
A coment like article x is rubbish or system Y (system ZX? ) is featured too often is still feedback, and still an opinion. As an opinion it cannot be right or wrong. IF the post is over the top, possibly unfair or unreasonable, the majority of readers will see it for what it is. Nevertheless, this is a feedback section, where viewers of the magazine are invited to share their views and their feedback (which is when all is said and done, opinion). And so have the right to express that opinion.
In my opinion
If, like you get sometimes, you get someone criticising an issue that isn't even out yet, or quibbling over percentage points on a game review...although it's a little silly it's still their opinion. And then you have the right of reply. Which is your opinion! That to me is the way it should be.

[slacey1070]

Exactly... we all have opinions.... and debate is all about opinion, having it challenged and adjusting it after that challenge. Incorrect facts are one thing, opinions can't really be wrong.

I do raise a smile at some of the comments made in feedback, this system gets too much coverage, this gets not enough, I love this so we should have more of it...

In my opinion, I;ve enjoyed the balance, I read articles about systems and games I've never played... I never think "Not Amstrad again, I hate Amstrad, lets have C64 instead"....

Always useful on here if people state why they don't enjoy something... not just say "that was rubbish"....

[CraigGrannell]

But you're saying don't pick holes in something that is opinion...but yet you're picking holes in someone's feedback-which is opinion also.

Not really. In my case, I'm making the argument based on my experience within the magazine industry that constructive feedback is valuable and 'I hated [x]' standalone comments are not. That's not really opinion—that's a basic fact. And none of us is saying an opinion is right or wrong, nor that people don't have the right to typical knee-jerk reactions—the argument here is whether it's beneficial to the magazine, which is something different entirely.

[joefish]

I think the reader's point is that a comment saying 'X is rubbish' may not be helpful, but if you get a lot of that it's still an indication that something is going wrong. One person may be able to explain their reasons better than another, but all those others still lend weight to the general mood.

[merman]

But as Craig pointed out, we can learn nothing from someone saying "Article X was rubbish" or "System Y is featured too often". Tell us if something was difficult to follow, glossed over something important or contained factual errors. Again, don't pick holes in something that is an opinion just because you disagree, or point out that a columnist made a point that was contradictory to what you think is right.

But you're saying don't pick holes in something that is opinion...but yet you're picking holes in someone's feedback-which is opinion also. Is that not just as bad a reaction?
A coment like article x is rubbish or system Y (system ZX? ) is featured too often is still feedback, and still an opinion. As an opinion it cannot be right or wrong. IF the post is over the top, possibly unfair or unreasonable, the majority of readers will see it for what it is. Nevertheless, this is a feedback section, where viewers of the magazine are invited to share their views and their feedback (which is when all is said and done, opinion). And so have the right to express that opinion.
In my opinion
If, like you get sometimes, you get someone criticising an issue that isn't even out yet, or quibbling over percentage points on a game review...although it's a little silly it's still their opinion. And then you have the right of reply. Which is your opinion! That to me is the way it should be.

What I was trying to say is that there have been comments about
- columnists expressing different views to the editors
- articles putting a particular spin on key events/sections of history
- Game X or System Y being the best example of something, apparently ignoring Game P and System Q

Just arguing these points is not feedback. You can still have your own opinion, but it is unhelpful to leave feedback that says "Retro Gamer/the writer is WRONG to say that"

[kiwimike]

But surely- arguing those points IS feedback. It is input and response from the readers to the magazine. By definition it's feedback. It may or may not be helpful, but it's still feedback. And I would defend the right to do so personally.
If the same person is having the same bi*ch every issue, or is being ridiculous...it's still their opinion, they are still entitled to it, and it is still feedback surely?
For the most part, I agree with you. There are posts of the nature you mention that aren't constructive and can sometimes, at best, be over the top...and at worst, straight out dumb. But it's still an opinion from the readership- and if it is that weird an opinion you not only have the right of reply- you will find you will have a huge chunk of the readership rushing to your defence. And I've been in that too. And I will argue the point to the hilt- but never suggest the person in question has any right to raise it.