#6585752, By Mugwum Are EG aware of the negative response to the news 'articles'?

  • Mugwum Staff 28 Sep 2010 11:19:39 625 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hi everyone,

    I'm sorry some of you aren't enjoying Eurogamer as much as you used to. I understand where some of the concerns come from so let me try to address them.

    A lot of stuff on this thread seems to be down to a long-held belief that every link, page break or separate story on a webpage is a cynical, cold-hearted attempt to gouge another page impression from your innocent mice and touch-screens.

    It's true that we need traffic to keep the wheels turning, but it's not true that we need you all to click on 50 different things (it's far more important that you're here in the first place) and many of the changes you think you've noticed have almost nothing to do with page impressions.

    On a lot of points the truth is rather boring - these days Eurogamer publishes way more content than it used to do when we came up with this design, so we're forced to do different things to make sure people are finding content they're looking for or seeing the things that we want them to see.

    Some of them can appear a bit redundant to attentive readers - you would of course know what somebody said in an interview if you had read the interview, so you wouldn't need to read a shorter news story explaining it as well. A lot of people wouldn't bother reading the interview in the first place though, so the news story draws their attention to it.

    Similarly, if Bobby Kotick decides to answer a bunch of questions on EA, Tim Schafer, Infinity Ward, etc, each of his statements is likely to be individually interesting because of his personal status and recent history. If we dumped them all in one long wall of text most people would miss key elements, or context would need to be sacrificed, and it would be harder to make the meaning apparent on the frontpage.

    As for the language we use, that's just how we speak, really. We do try to write about things responsibly and professionally, but we're not very formal. That's been true for years. The only recent change is that Wesley's joined us and he has his own style. But so does Ellie, so does Bertie, so does Oli - we can support all sorts.

    I think people who have been here for a while know traffic isn't my primary motivation as editor. Last Christmas is a good example - for years we had done a Top 50 Games of the Year feature series over the Christmas break, and no matter how we wrote it, no matter how good our intentions and positive our prose, it always wound people up. I got so sick of that that I scrapped it in favour of a different, list-free format, and to my unending relief people were simply able to enjoy that.

    Anyway, it's important to me that you realise we *do* pay attention to what you think and what you're saying. Some of your criticisms are definitely justified, some of them I don't believe are, and some of them are down to things that are understandably hard to perceive just by staring at the homepage, as with the issues I've talked about above. They're all valid comments though and we do take them all into consideration when we're thinking about how to develop the site and our editorial, and I don't take you for granted.

    Anyway, I hope that explains things a little bit, and thanks for all your feedback.
Log in or register to reply