Cry a bit more spurge. I have more than enough "friends" on this videogame website, without needing to add them all to try be popular.

The thread in question is spreading bullshit. Sony have only said anything about Japan. Japan, spurge. Japan. We know you struggle to understand simple things, but understand this - Sony only talked about Japan. If next Week they come out and say its done Worldwide... Sure. A thread should be made. Right now? Its wrong and spreading wrong information.

The article posted was wrong. Put it in the rules that making rubbish, wrong threads is against the rules.

Why are you so against a lack of shit threads?

Without actual numbers from Microsoft it was impossible to tell. They shipped more, yes. Sold more? Possibly.

Known figures from trackers showed the opposite of what Microsoft said. VGChartz uses these trackers along with the extrapolations/estimates that Brett gets.

VGChartz data showed 360 in a close 2nd. Microsoft simply said they "won". Im pretty sure too that last Year, Ballmer said the 360 had sold more at retail than Microsoft had actually shipped.

I'm still offering my services.

I've been an admin at my own network for a decade (30,000 members) and was a finalist (another person and I) for Community Manager for Tom's Hardware (they have 3 million user accounts).

I consider my greatest administrative accomplishment as the merging of a Nintendo forum, a Sony forum and a MS forum all into one forum 7 years ago....It's now been 3 years since I've actually had to ban a member because of bad behavior.

Just so you know - I was right and the thread was locked for the exact reasons I stated.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4993882

The main reason it being a duplicate thread.

Duplicate or not, the mod acknowledged that the thread was trash with misleading information. The conversation regarding that thread need go no further.

No guys but seriously

Seriously

Making whole threads out of articles from other sites is a bad practice.

Making individual threads out of individual reviews from other sites is a horrible practice

Making whole threads out of articles happens on every forum including your beloved GAF.

It provides you with a sort of comment section for the article with a community of people you "know".

Are you going to explain what is wrong with it or continue repeating yourself and asserting that it is bad practice?

This marks the fifth time that I have told you I'm not a member of the GAFs, nor do I browse there regularly. At some point it's going to stick. Thoguh no, for the record, it does not happen on every forum.

The problem is that it creates a diffusion of the limited conversational resources that this forum has, and those are dwindling by the year. It's especially problematic when many of these articles deal with the same subject - for instance, Sony's money situation - and contributes more and more to the culture of disposable discussion whereby no conversation is meant to last or even can last in a forum where shortened attention spans are encouraged to be the norm.

And do I really need to say why posting reviews from other sites as their own topics is a bad idea?

The whole thing, articles and reviews both, contributes to the forum being an iterative soup with far less original or meaningful content than it might have otherwise. What percentage of threads being comment threads on articles or reviews from other sites would be unacceptable, here? Would it need to be half? More? Is there any theoretical threshhold at which you would go "All right, that's a bit much, the forum's content is not related to the site's content enough any more"?

I am saying there needs to be a standard of topicality.

We have been discussing improving standards of thread creation, though we're at a loss as to what could work without being a hell of a lot of work for us.

Although I haven't seen people make too many threads based on reviews from other sites lately. The proliferation is the "Unbiased review" threads, which I do agree that we should have one topic per game for, so as to cut clutter.