Player Directory Revisited:

I looked into this, and saw that there were a few older topics that went over it, but that few actual suggestions were forthcoming. I am posting this new thread because I actually have some suggestions that I think would work. Because: A) There are now over 500,000 registered players, so the chances of almost any game not being desired by at least 1,000 players(the criteria I saw used in an earlier, closed thread) is extremely slim, and B) The number of games out there is staggering, and continues to grow every day, I suggest that you should -- Allow everyone to set their own tags. New tags would either go through pre-moderation to ensure that they conform with the rules before being added to the master list, or they could be added to the master list automatically and then subject to post-moderation, which would be done via a flagging system much like used for forum posts. I can see benefits to both approaches, though I'd probably go with the latter myself. Either way, a flagging system should still be in place since moderators are human, too, and an errant tag is likely to get through occasionally even if using pre-moderation. However, there should be rules. I don't know all of the rules that should be in place, but to keep the list both useful and from getting out of hand -- it will already get large enough without there being 50 different tags referring to the exact same edition of a game -- I would suggest at least the following. 1) No abbreviations. If the game has a full name, use it, even if that is not what it's called in common parlance. (Ex: GURPS - Generic Universal Role Playing System) 2) Letters and Numbers Only. Most punctuation marks and other special symbols should be omitted entirely. Ampersands should be spelled out. 3) Include the subtitle if the game has one. 4) Specify any edition other than the first. (Ex: Vampire the Requiem Second Edition, Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition) 5) No any/all tags. Each tag refers to a specific game, or to a specific edition of a game when there are multiple editions. If you want multiple editions of a game on your list, add each one separately. 6) No crude or vulgar tags. In addition to the rules, a tag suggestion feature -- such as the one used on tumblr -- would be useful. At first, while people are adding many new games that aren't already on the tag list, it wouldn't be nearly as useful. But over time, as the list grew, it could save a little time for the people filling out their profiles and a lot of time for the moderators who have to clean up behind rule-breaking tags. As long as the rules(whatever they ultimately end up being) are enforced, this should allow players to tag themselves for any game that they want even if a tag for the game they like doesn't already exist while keeping each tag, no matter how large the list ultimately gets, distinct and truly useful.

Hmm #1 is going to be problematic, your example is perfect for showing why. GURPS doesn't label its own books in the fashion you describe, nor do a number of other games, HOL (human occupied landfill) for example. Perhaps sticking with the title as it appears on the core rule book would be a better standard.

Gabriel: As far as #1, I'm not sure what would be best. But for consistency and ease of modding, I'd figure either all games spelled out or none of them, and many games don't even have an official acronym. I also suggested this because, due to the sheer number of games out there, whoever would be in charge of modding the tags couldn't possibly be familiar enough with every game out there to determine every instance in which the acronym would be better known than the full title. I had both consistency of rulings and ease of moderation in mind when suggesting this one. Kristin: I'm afraid I don't see the logic there. Isn't desiring a particular game and not being able to list it or search for it at all going to be much more likely to "scare someone away" than searching for a game that's not currently LFG, but at least being able to keep tabs on it? And what about on the flip side -- GMs looking for players via the directory? If players can't even put the games they want on their list, then how is a GM supposed to know they're interested when they're using it to look for players? Currently, you'd have to do it via the Other Games or Story Games listings, and then go through each individual profile to see if they listed the specific game you're looking for in their bio section. So you can either do a quick search for a game, only to find out that it currently has no groups LFP(or not players LFG). Or you can keep the current system, in which you have to do even more work just to find the people interested in that specific game, and might still end up not finding any groups LFP. Isn't the "more work" option going to be the one much more likely to turn someone off/scare them away? This is the main reason I just cannot follow the Devs' logic here. And a lot of the disappointment of having a search come up empty could be mitigated by integrating some kind of tracking system. Between email notifications and RSS feeds(and possibly other notification tools I'm not aware of), there has to be something that can be done. If I did a search, and it came up empty, but I got a message saying "There are currently no groups looking for players for the game you have selected. Please add it to your tracking list if you would like to be notified when something becomes available," that would actually really, really impress me. Not scare me off. [On a side note, if people can't list what they want on their profiles, how are the Devs supposed to accurately keep tabs on what is truly wanted? Beyond the obvious things that are always in demand such as D&D and Pathfinder, of course.]

Actually, another idea just came to me: The current model already works w/ some level of exclusion. For example, as a player, if you search for D&D 3rd Edition, the results you're given will only be for that system. It will exclude results that don't fit, such as Fate or GURPS games. Basic search stuff -- it gives what you ask for, and not what you don't. What if you took that to the next level? What I mean by this is: On the player side, LFG -- The player looking for a group would be presented with a list that only contains items that currently have games listed. If there are no GURPS games currently listed, then GURPS would simply not be one of the options on their list. If empty searches really worry the Devs that much, this would eliminate the risk of such a search ever taking place entirely. On the GM side, LFP -- However, when listing a game, or looking for players, the overall list would contain all of the games that players across the site have listed in their profiles. There would essentially be 2 different lists derived from the same section of our player profiles -- one for the player side, and another for the GM side. That way players could put all of their favorite games on their profile no matter how popular or unpopular they are, GMs could find players for any game that is in someone's profile, and for players looking for games you would never have to worry about an empty "looking for game" search.

I think that 2 of those suggestions from Derek are quite elegant: +1 +1 on these. An option to "Track new LFG listings added for this game" giving you Notifications. And an LFG game-list where games that currently have an open Listing are shown, games that don't have a Listing at the moment are reduced or hidden.