Will BGA ever care about its customers?

[h_illes]

I get where you're coming from about BGA not accepting feedback and having this weird culture of making decisions for the better of the community and when people point out flaws in those decisions and/or suggest better ways, they ignore that. There's a big difference between that, than there is to responding to a request for a feature with "well, I'm not actually sure most users really want that, but I'll put it in as an option anyway for the few that do..."

Ah, upon re-reading, I see where the misunderstanding comes from. So I was talking about mostly the ELO changes, OP and Tof were talking about the return to main link. OK, for that, Tof's extension is a solution. For ELO changes, it is not. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, I hope this clears it up.

Many of you have expressed your frustration with the “Return to Main” link change, but I don't think that reflects the opinion of the majority of users. I think the new behavior suits the vast majority of players in fact...
That said, you can install this extension and configure in this extenstion settings the link behavior to revert to the previous behavior : https://fr.doc.boardgamearena.com/ChromeExtension

Sorry about the confusion. When responding, the ELO changes were in my mind. It is a similar unsolicited change, except it got a far bigger negative outcry in the forum than the return to main link change, and, unfortunately, your extension cannot revert it either.

Then I don't get why you'd summarise his approach as guessing what others think and not listening to feedback.

Because that's exactly what it is. Whether you agree with the decision to ignore feedback or not is a different question. I do believe it is wrong with respect to the ELO changes, where there was overwhelming negative feedback. But my main issue, which none of you responded to so far (including anyone from BGA), is that if BGA does not intend to act upon feedback, then why do they ask for it and promise to act upon it? They didn't have to do that. Also, they could have just said 'despite the feedback, this is how things are going to be from now on' at any time but THEY NEVER DID. There is no excuse for that.

Also, listening to feedback does not mean blindly doing as a few users say. It means comprehending all the arguments they make, weighing the consequences, and then making an informed decision. (Of course, ideally this should have been done in advance, but it doesn't always happen.)

[nik592]

Then I don't get why you'd summarise his approach as guessing what others think and not listening to feedback.

Because that's exactly what it is.

Sorry, you believe that's Tof's approach? In spite of the fact that he said, he added the feature as an option for his extension, even though he's not sure the majority of users actually want or use it? How it that NOT listening to feedback? Yeah, ok, he's taking a guess as to what the majority wants but he's made the decision to include the feature that he believes they don't want anyway because it's easy enough to do. Everyone can choose what they do there.

Yeah, Tof's extension doesn't help with your ELO issues, no one said it did. That wasn't a specific topic in this thread until you joined it, and while it was really clear to me that that's what you were annoyed about because I'm familiar with that ELO thread (and I mostly agree with your points there in fact), I still can't see how it has anything to do with what Tof said.

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. You've indicated you misunderstood, and yet still seem to want to say Tof has the wrong attitude. Fine, whatever, agree to disagree. Personally, the extension has alleviated lots of little annoyances that BGA have forced upon us for me, so I'm grateful for it. And that someone is actually listening to user feedback and doing what they can to help users have a better experience.

Whether you agree with the decision to ignore feedback or not is a different question. I do believe it is wrong with respect to the ELO changes, where there was overwhelming negative feedback. But my main issue, which none of you responded to so far (including anyone from BGA), is that if BGA does not intend to act upon feedback, then why do they ask for it and promise to act upon it? They didn't have to do that. Also, they could have just said 'despite the feedback, this is how things are going to be from now on' at any time but THEY NEVER DID. There is no excuse for that.

I know you're referring to the part in the ELO thread where they specifically asked for feedback and ignored it. However I'd argue that posting a thread in forums about any new feature (and not immediately locking it to make it simply an announcement) is to me an invitation to provide feedback. They've done this multiple times, and then just stopped responding (as they did in the ELO thread). In spite of users pointing out flaws in their reasoning and suggesting other solutions. ELO is your primary issue, but others exist too. That's why I said this:

I get where you're coming from about BGA not accepting feedback and having this weird culture of making decisions for the better of the community and when people point out flaws in those decisions and/or suggest better ways, they ignore that.

It's happened multiple times. It seems to be the culture of the admin team here - make decisions, don't explain them, don't engage. They're not the only people to do this (Facebook do much the same thing with their UI), but I don't agree with it either.

Also, listening to feedback does not mean blindly doing as a few users say. It means comprehending all the arguments they make, weighing the consequences, and then making an informed decision. (Of course, ideally this should have been done in advance, but it doesn't always happen.)

And explaining why you've made the decision (where possible, which in the case of BGA, it usually is). And as you point out, putting an end to the discussion at the point where they have apparently made their final decision, in spite of all the feedback that may have come after that point.

[h_illes]

Sorry, you believe that's Tof's approach? In spite of the fact that he said, he added the feature as an option for his extension, even though he's not sure the majority of users actually want or use it? How it that NOT listening to feedback? Yeah, ok, he's taking a guess as to what the majority wants but he's made the decision to include the feature that he believes they don't want anyway because it's easy enough to do. Everyone can choose what they do there.

I agree that presenting many options (as the extension does) is quite the opposite of the 'we know best' approach. That said, I was responding to the following, which was also said by Tof, and it goes completely against that in spirit:

Many of you have expressed your frustration with the “Return to Main” link change, but I don't think that reflects the opinion of the majority of users. I think the new behavior suits the vast majority of players in fact...

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this.

Very well, I think we cleared things up.

Personally, the extension has alleviated lots of little annoyances that BGA have forced upon us for me, so I'm grateful for it. And that someone is actually listening to user feedback and doing what they can to help users have a better experience.

I agree.

In fact, I think we mostly agree, so I will leave it at that too.

[h_illes]

I get where you're coming from about BGA not accepting feedback and having this weird culture of making decisions for the better of the community and when people point out flaws in those decisions and/or suggest better ways, they ignore that.

It's happened multiple times. It seems to be the culture of the admin team here - make decisions, don't explain them, don't engage.

This was so well said that I'm going to take the opportunity and present it directly to the new Lead Community Manager.

More than keeping players happy as you said, part of my job is to make sure your voice is heard.

So, BalGAmor, this is the mountain you're up against. If you are serious about what you said about making players heard and keeping them happy, please address the above.

[yodamus]

Maybe we are seeing a change. And some care with this new administration guy in forums. BalGAmor...hopefully this person will be on the forums often. As i think that is part of the issue, is not having anyone to communicate with from bga in forums. That comes on each day to see what issues are most being talked about. Does not have to be on 24/7. Just peek in, see if issues need addressing. Hopefully this is a start to much better communication. Good luck BalGAmor, I see you as our savior to help improve the site. Thanks for all you do.

[FrankJones]

I find this entire thread a bit puzzling. "Will BGA ever care about its customers".

If I am not mistaken, my BGA membership costs $36 or maybe $42 a YEAR. For a website that offers 1400-ish different games, discussion forums, game tutorials, Elo ratings leaderboards, Arena leagues, customized tournaments, full player histories with game replay viewability, and a bug report forum in which the developers actually respond to individual bug reports and generally fix the bugs and have games that function mostly free from bugs.

My MONTHLY Netflix or YouTube subscriptions cost approximately $20, and I spend more time on BGA than on either of those platforms combined.

Has anyone seen the garbage that one gets when paying for ONE specific game on different platforms? One of my favorite games, and a top-10 game by BGG rating, has been bug-plagues for its entire existence and still is a miserable failure in almost every way. And that ONE GAME costs as much as several months of a premium BGA membership.

I realize this is subjective, but It's difficult for me to believe premium members feel as though they are not getting adequate value for their $3 a month. I mean, we're talking TEN CENTS per day.

When comparing the benefits to the costs, is BGA really an example of a company that does not care about its customers?

I would write a long list of businesses that do not seem to care about their customers:
Cable/internet providers, who charge $50 to $250 a month and often have outages or interruptions and don't care or compensate us.
Insurance companies, who charge exorbitant amount s of money and then try to get out of paying claims.
Apartment complexes, many of which have invasive or intrusive policies and rude staff who wave the 50-page lease agreement and say, "Maybe you should read your lease" any time there is an issue. And/or incompetent maintenance staff who cannot fix basic problems. (They tried three times to fix the hinges on my linen closet, ans failed. I eventually gave up and removed the door and put up a curtain instead.
Banks, with absurd fees and generally terrible customer service
[Other gaming platform with its bug-infested games and non-existent customer support].
Doctors offices
Hospitals
Dentists
(Pretty much any business that schedules appointments and charges you if you miss the appointment or are 30 minutes late, but will cancel or reschedule your appointment without any consideration for the fact that you may have taken a day off because of the appointment).
Restaurants, many of which do not staff enough people to actually get the food to your table promptly and correctly.
Computer companies. I bought an expensive computer, and on day one, it nearly melted the hardware because of severe overheating resulting from incorrect settings on the fans. Their customer support was unable to fix it, and unwilling to help replace the computer. This was a $1200 computer!!!

etc.

Yes, I have experienced many companies that seem to no care about their customers, but BGA would not be on that list.

I'm curious which businesses people have such wonderful experiences with that would make them say, "BGA is a business that does not care about its customers".

[h_illes]

If I am not mistaken, my BGA membership costs $36 or maybe $42 a YEAR. For a website that offers 1400-ish different games, discussion forums, game tutorials, Elo ratings leaderboards, Arena leagues, customized tournaments, full player histories with game replay viewability, and a bug report forum in which the developers actually respond to individual bug reports and generally fix the bugs and have games that function mostly free from bugs.

It is not about being a good deal, it is about admins actively spending effort to make the site worse. That's just very sad.

About the rest: yes, there are many other operations that are run poorly. Why are those the basis of comparison, why not user friendly sites?

[FrankJones]

If I am not mistaken, my BGA membership costs $36 or maybe $42 a YEAR. For a website that offers 1400-ish different games, discussion forums, game tutorials, Elo ratings leaderboards, Arena leagues, customized tournaments, full player histories with game replay viewability, and a bug report forum in which the developers actually respond to individual bug reports and generally fix the bugs and have games that function mostly free from bugs.

It is not about being a good deal, it is about admins actively spending effort to make the site worse. That's just very sad.

About the rest: yes, there are many other operations that are run poorly. Why are those the basis of comparison, why not user friendly sites?

I was just thinking of various types of businesses off the top of my head.

Which websites would make a good comparison to BGA? I did mention [other gaming site] and its higher prices and shoddy service and products.

If there are websites out there similar to BGA offering what BGA offers for a similar price, I am not aware of them.

[h_illes]

Which websites would make a good comparison to BGA?

Unfortunately, it is not allowed to mention any specific board game sites here. I do play on one other site which offers a very limited selection: about 4 board games that have an actual audience. It is free (you can donate money and you will get a badge, but no other effect). The user interface is very player friendly, I know of players who still play over there but have stopped playing on BGA due to the UX.

Over the years, there were a few incidents I know about: troll accounts flooding one of the games once, and cheaters with multiple accounts another time. Both were handled properly. ELO score is kept track of and NOT tampered with. Also, there are regular tournaments for some of the games, with the results also kept track of. Of course, overall it is a much smaller operation than BGA, but still.

[FrankJones]

Which websites would make a good comparison to BGA?

Unfortunately, it is not allowed to mention any specific board game sites here. I do play on one other site which offers a very limited selection: about 4 board games that have an actual audience. It is free (you can donate money and you will get a badge, but no other effect). The user interface is very player friendly, I know of players who still play over there but have stopped playing on BGA due to the UX.

Over the years, there were a few incidents I know about: troll accounts flooding one of the games once, and cheaters with multiple accounts another time. Both were handled properly. ELO score is kept track of and NOT tampered with. Also, there are regular tournaments for some of the games, with the results also kept track of. Of course, overall it is a much smaller operation than BGA, but still.

But still ... ???

I think the examples I gave are better examples than this example. How is a site that has 4 games analogous to what BGA offers?

I realize we cannot name other sites, but we are allowed to write "[other gaming site]". To my knowledge, BGA is the only website structured as it is, with 1000-1500 different games and all the various features. Many of the people here work for free as volunteers, which to me indicates a site where the people involved DO care about the players. I listed the examples I listed because I could not think of any analogous websites to BGA to make a comparison.