A plea for UOGuide

[Cloak&Dagger]

Someone care to explain how UOGuide is exactly easier to navigate? I mean really, both have a set of menu's (although you have to go through one set of menu's on UOGuide to get to another set, but not sure how that's "easier"). Both have a search field. Sorry I just do not find UOGuide to be more intuitive? Not that I find it difficult, just feels the same for me. (even mostly they have the same categories.)

By the way, today was a good example of how I was able to easily find what I needed on the main Stratics site but not on UOGuide (while using both at the same time) Had to do with housing rules.

 

[Babble]

It is easier if you consider the conditioning over the years. Many people have not checked out the stratics main page for years and used the forums for questions.


stratics = forums to me

uoguide is by definition a wiki, so I search first in the 'lexicon' and if I find no answers ask the boards.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

It is easier if you consider the conditioning over the years. Many people have not checked out the stratics main page for years and used the forums for questions.


stratics = forums to me

uoguide is by definition a wiki, so I search first in the 'lexicon' and if I find no answers ask the boards.

Yea, doesn't really seem easier even by your definition lol. The boards are a good place to collect information, or at least opinions.

 

[Wenchkin]

I have to say, I ain't the best at searching but I've never had trouble searching for info in Stratics. I'm curious when some of you last actually tried finding info here.

Saying "I can't find stuff" isn't going to make anything better. What couldn't you find? Did you use the google search? What terms did you use? Or did you just use the menu up the side looking for content? Did you tell anyone on Stratics what was broken so it could be fixed?

If you saw content which needed to be corrected, did you post somewhere on a forum or tell a mod or admin? The staff here have worked their butts off updating and revamping Stratics so it had a) good info and b) it was more user friendly. If something needs changing it gets changed ASAP.
In other words, you don't need Stratics in Wiki form before you can help make it a better site. In fact there is one huge advantage in not having an "anyone can edit" site. The guides here are written by folk who know their subject and they're checked before they go up. They're also subject to scrutiny on the forums, so if there are inaccuracies they tend to vanish once staff are aware of them.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against multiple UO sites, if folks want to work on UOGuide that's up to them. It just makes more sense to me that folk work on improving Stratics instead of rewriting content elsewhere. Well, unless you do a copy paste of other folks work, but a responsible editing team wouldn't allow copied content.

Wenchy

 

[Lord Chaos]

and how they "gather" information without crediting the original source.

"They"? What is this "they" you're talking about?

 

[Old Man of UO]

Google Search just doesn't do a very good job of providing relevant information. Sure, you can usually (but not always) find the information on Stratics that you are looking for, but it takes a while.

Any chance to update to Apache Solr search engine? It's open source, and will use Drupal's taxonomy (which the free version of Google can't).

Apache Solr vs. Google Search

 

[Lord Chaos]

If you saw content which needed to be corrected, did you post somewhere on a forum or tell a mod or admin? The staff here have worked their butts off updating and revamping Stratics so it had a) good info and b) it was more user friendly. If something needs changing it gets changed ASAP.

Well, this is the problem, you have to go tell someone about everything, which is especially tedious if its just small changes.

In fact there is one huge advantage in not having an "anyone can edit" site. The guides here are written by folk who know their subject and they're checked before they go up. They're also subject to scrutiny on the forums, so if there are inaccuracies they tend to vanish once staff are aware of them.

Thats no different though. You assume that articles are not checked on UOG, they are and so are changes. That kind of scrutiny could just as well be done on UOG as UOS.

It just makes more sense to me that folk work on improving Stratics instead of rewriting content elsewhere.

Or maybe it makes more sense that folk work on improving UOGuide instead of rewriting content elsewhere.

Well, unless you do a copy paste of other folks work, but a responsible editing team wouldn't allow copied content.

See thats easier to prove on UOG, as everything is timestamped, not so on UOS.

 

[Cetric]

Jeez, seems like the Stratics people get all worked up and offended too easy. rolleyes:

Please note, just about the only people randomly tooting Stratics horn is Stratics mods and admins....

No one even said stratics sucks... they just said its harder to find the info they need, sheesh..


I'd also like to agree with hawkeye pike... he imo is correct, a wiki is the way to go, and if stratics was a wiki, it would be better off.

 

[Lord Chaos]

If you have something to say, speak your mind man . As a writer, it bothers me when anyone copies artifice without giving credit.

You are aware that you can add credit yourself?

While there is one policy I disagree with JC on and that is sorta what you're talking about, is that they frown on credited guides, which is not hard to do on a wiki, we do it on ours and have several credits on many articles and guides.

The good thing is that in a wiki you can see how an article evolves and changes.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Well, this is the problem, you have to go tell someone about everything, which is especially tedious if its just small changes.

Thats no different though. You assume that articles are not checked on UOG, they are and so are changes. That kind of scrutiny could just as well be done on UOG as UOS.

Or maybe it makes more sense that folk work on improving UOGuide instead of rewriting content elsewhere.

See thats easier to prove on UOG, as everything is timestamped, not so on UOS.

Don't feel like cutting up your post. How is it more tedious to pm or email someone than it is to post on a wiki? It's not. Well myth one busted.

Articles on UOG "may" be under scrutiny but may not as well. UOS it is in fact checked by someone before its posted. Myth 2 busted.

It does not really make more sense for people to rewrite information in a less understandable way, with less information in a good number of cases than it does to fix 1 spelling or word error on UOS. Myth 3 busted.

Request Time stamps or updated on notes for each page? Myth 4, well...Proved I guess but possible solution for UOS is presented.

Nothing against wiki, or UOGuide. I do not care which of them is the most up to date, would be nice if one of them was though, but you are trying to force an argument for one medium only and that medium is not necessarily the best one. Of course the other option might be just as flawed, more flawed or only slightly less flawed it does not change the fact that the first may not be the best way.

 

[Ashlynn_L]

While Stratics has more content overall, I also find it more difficult to navigate, clunkier and slower when it comes to finding information other than news on the front page. I think wiki-based approaches are better for many of the reasons outlined above. Wiki sites tend to be cleaner and you can usually find the information you want more quickly and it's also easier to find related information from that point (surely everyone has looked up something on wikipedia only to find themselves clicking on related terms in the article, reading that, and so on... =P)

An example would be when I needed to find out what the hell Casting Focus was. On a wiki based site, you type it in the search box and if it has its own article, you get taken directly there.
Using a google search tool, you type it in, get taken to a third party site and you're lucky if a link to the article you want is in the first five or ten hits. Your other option is to navigate the huge list of unwieldy menus.

(On a side note, for those criticising people for wanting things NOW NOW NOW, information like what item properties do is stuff that you should find in any manual, not in a strategy guide. It's not unreasonable to want to know those kind of things.)

Also the system of updating content on Stratics might have better quality control, but having to post an email to someone who will then verify and post the content means you have a one person bottleneck in the system. What happens if suddenly, people decided to submit hundreds of updates to the Stratics content? It'd be great news no doubt, but also a lot of work for one or two people to handle I think.

I am not saying either site is better, both have their advantages and disadvantages. I am just more familiar with and prefer wiki-based content systems these days I suppose. But I don't see the issue with having two sites around with stuff on.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I am not saying either site is better, both have their advantages and disadvantages. I am just more familiar with and prefer wiki-based content systems these days I suppose. But I don't see the issue with having two sites around with stuff on.

Both certainly do have their ups and downs. The bottle neck is not to bad, Petra changed almost all of the information on this site in less than a year? That's a Ton of information and work for one person, so a year is not to bad. Most of the information now is more or less correct, so I don't think floods of new info should poor in enough to overwhelm anyone (could happen though)

Nothing fundamentally wrong with having two sites, except UOGuide for sure is not as full of information, although Stratics might be lacking as well it would be easier to update Stratics than bring UOGuide to full term. And there should at least be a location to find out anything you want. Also I am the one pointing out the I want it here and now crowd, but none of it had to do with information on items. I regularly check the stats of artifact pieces to see if its the item I might need or if I was wrong about it and decide another route.

Also I have run into the same Issue you claim to have with the google based sites on UOGuide itself, trying to search and the thing I am searching for is either not found (although it is on the site) or it is so far down the list it would have been better for me to simply change mediums, so the wiki search is subject to the same issue. I have however found myself clicking things in wiki's...rarely ever UOGuide though but that has more to do with rarely seeing "new" stuff or things I want to read about.

I use both, maybe even on a daily basis and find neither easier than the other, navigating UOGuide to me is no different than Stratics due to the fact that I either have to A search for it or B navigate menus.

Of course it does not particularly matter as both sites are good and neither is complete, so we are forever doomed to using both as it seems neither the people who use UOGuide would change to using Stratics and the people of Stratics don't seem like they are going to be updating the wiki UOGuide.

 

[LordDrago]

Personally, I use both Straticsand UOGuide. Both are listed in my favorites, and I check both on a routine basis when I have a question about something.

I do find UOGuide easier to navigate, however I appreciate a lot of what I find on Stratics, and for some things, I don't even bother using UOGuide for, because I already know how to get to it easily on Stratics.

 

[AirmidCecht]

Thank you Ashlynn. You provided some examples of what you encounter so we can focus on the right areas.

The amount of data built over the last 13 years with Stratics content is pretty vast so tapping into it to get the right information is what we need to focus on. That much we can do and make this productive instead of a counter productive who's site is better discussion.

I don't think that was the intent of the OP when asking for input but sometimes it becomes a matter of debate when there is none. We have a dedicated team designed to focus on updating and confirming content on Stratics while UOGuide relies on the overall community to update their wiki with a less heavy layout . My point earlier is we all use whatever works and we all have the opportunity to contribute.

So if you have the ability to contribute you should do it and wherever you prefer. We'll take the opportunity to focus on making things easier for the community here to find information. If you have more examples or suggestions please email me at [email protected].

Happy Thanksgiving everyone

 

[Wenchkin]

Well, this is the problem, you have to go tell someone about everything, which is especially tedious if its just small changes.

I can't see how typing it in a PM is more tedious than editing a wiki, and if we're talking tedious, duplicating info so it can be on another site isn't exactly the most fun activity

Thats no different though. You assume that articles are not checked on UOG, they are and so are changes. That kind of scrutiny could just as well be done on UOG as UOS.

I'll agree to differ on that.

See thats easier to prove on UOG, as everything is timestamped, not so on UOS.

We may have some pages that don't have dates on yet, but there are edit dates on pages that have been edited or added in since we started our big updating purge. Not forgetting the update posts on forums announcing new guides and updates and the "new" beside entries in the main side menu. Seems pretty well in hand to me

Wenchy

 

[Lord Chaos]

except UOGuide for sure is not as full of information

Apart from databases, how do you figure that?

 

[G.v.P]

You are aware that you can add credit yourself?

While there is one policy I disagree with JC on and that is sorta what you're talking about, is that they frown on credited guides, which is not hard to do on a wiki, we do it on ours and have several credits on many articles and guides.

The good thing is that in a wiki you can see how an article evolves and changes.

Bottom line, sites like UO Guide and UO Stratics get the information out there, which is a good thing. Especially since UO's official website doesn't have a lot of stuff right, like how corpse skin works for example. I'll try not to beat a dead horse regarding the downsides of a wiki without a credit system, but I guess all I can say is a user should test the material on their own to verify any second-hand information they find ... anywhere. Stratics, UO Guide, UO Forums, etc..

A prime example I'll always remember is when firebreath was nerfed, and tamers on UHall cried about greater dragon melee damage being nerfed. I went out, tested it, proved melee wasn't changed in PvP or PvM. But like 30 people posted on the assumption that the original poster -- who tested on a Swoop and "felt it took longer" -- was right when the OP stated melee was nerfed.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Don't feel like cutting up your post. How is it more tedious to pm or email someone than it is to post on a wiki? It's not. Well myth one busted.

Wrong.

UOS:

Have to go to another place (email/forum) and away from the information.
Write a PM/Email with the data and explanation, possibly leading to a dialogue for clarification/verification.

UOG:

You simply edit it.

Articles on UOG "may" be under scrutiny but may not as well. UOS it is in fact checked by someone before its posted. Myth 2 busted.

Every change appears readily available, so anyone can check it at any time.

UOS might be checked, but who's to say that the staff are oracles to start with and know if information is correct or if a guide is valid? If they were, why didn't they write the info in the first place?

It does not really make more sense for people to rewrite information in a less understandable way, with less information in a good number of cases than it does to fix 1 spelling or word error on UOS. Myth 3 busted.

You're right, it doesn't make sense for people to rewrite information on UOS in a less understandable way with less information.

Request Time stamps or updated on notes for each page? Myth 4, well...Proved I guess but possible solution for UOS is presented.

There's no history or timestamps on things here for changes apart from forum posts or some articles.

but you are trying to force an argument for one medium only and that medium is not necessarily the best one.

The only argument that could be made for UOS being better is that it has a ton of staff, if as such such a staff worked on a wiki or UOG, then that would be far superior to what they have.

It is long proven to be the best way, hence why most serious gaming networks switched to it and why many information sites use such.

I am fine with both persisting, but as such, then there should be more duplicated information across both and less hoarding, as that is what leads to animosity both ways.

 

[Babble]

*coughs*
Isn't the consent that ALL internet information is not reliable?
And half of what is printed too?

 

[Wenchkin]

Jeez, seems like the Stratics people get all worked up and offended too easy. rolleyes:

Who said we were worked up? If we were offended, this thread would surely have landed in the trash box. Yes, we're loyal to our fellow staff members, which is pretty normal considering we know what goes on behind the scenes and the work that folk like Petra do with precious little thanks.

Please note, just about the only people randomly tooting Stratics horn is Stratics mods and admins....

No one even said stratics sucks... they just said its harder to find the info they need, sheesh..

I don't have a problem with people telling us what is wrong so we can make it better. However, just saying "I can't find stuff" doesn't help us make the site better in any way. Explaining in detail what you were looking for and how you searched would help us. Constructive criticism is always welcome, it enables us to make a better site. But the site won't get better if everyone says "oh, search is borked" and goes elsewhere, expecting that site will duplicate the content. It actually makes your experience worse if that site hasn't got the content yet.

Wenchy

 

[Lord Chaos]

I'll try not to beat a dead horse regarding the downsides of a wiki without a credit system

We agree on this, this is a downside to UOG, but not a downside to Wikis.

 

[Lord Chaos]

I can't see how typing it in a PM is more tedious than editing a wiki

Then you clearly have no experience with wikis.

I'll agree to differ on that.

Just because you disagree with gravity doesn't make it stop working.

 

[Magdalene]

After bringing up gravity next stop is probably invoking Hitler...
I think the discussion went far enough for now.