I want to discuss here the best way to give compiliation info in the game entries that we editors can agree on to use universally.
At the moment there are two types to handle this and its done differently by editors:
1. Putting the info as an editor's note. Example:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-10298-Super+Hang+On
2. Putting the compilation title as alt name in game entry.
https://www.uvlist.net/game-49214
I personally prefer #1. Whether cross-linking to the rest of the titles in the compilation is necessary or only the compilation name is given is personal taste and a question of how much of work an editor puts into it. A compilation with 50 titles won't look good when listing all the single games. The Super Hang-On example looks good with only a couple of other titles. I would wish some sort of style-guide how to do this when #1 is chosen and its done via editor's note (same wish for styleguide for addons/dlcs).
#2 has the advantage that you can search for the title easier. However there are two major drawbacks. First its technically not an alt name of the game, so its sort of wrong. And secondly it looks bad if the game got released in multiple compilations which makes the title look far too much blown up.
Where to put compilation title info?
I prefer option #2, for searching. Yes, if a title is in many compilations titles will look derisible. But this is only a small minority of games.
I believe I suggested long ago, another option for this; Compilations get their own entry as a false game page that shows in searches and groups, but not stats, and serves to point to the real games and helps to distinguish any uniqueness that applies to the compilation but not the original games (ie: tags. Say the compilation uses a cave theme as a way for players to 'navigate' the menu to a game to play). Now that game relations are standard, this seems even more useful.
EDIT: there is also the "Packaged With" relation suggestion. This doesn't completely solve the naming issue. This would cover flippy disks, the various separate Tandy 1K & DOS in the same package, and runs a different version on different machines (fatbinary)(C64/128 for example).
I believe I suggested long ago, another option for this; Compilations get their own entry as a false game page that shows in searches and groups, but not stats, and serves to point to the real games and helps to distinguish any uniqueness that applies to the compilation but not the original games (ie: tags. Say the compilation uses a cave theme as a way for players to 'navigate' the menu to a game to play). Now that game relations are standard, this seems even more useful.
EDIT: there is also the "Packaged With" relation suggestion. This doesn't completely solve the naming issue. This would cover flippy disks, the various separate Tandy 1K & DOS in the same package, and runs a different version on different machines (fatbinary)(C64/128 for example).
I want to bring this topic up again with a request/suggestion. Is it possible to have compilation titles and addon titles being a bit separate from AKA title? In a similar way as it is done with "bootleg" names?
Example:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-42338
--> It kinda hurts to see Monkey Island 1&2 as alt title for Monkey Island 2. Its not clear that this is a compilation title. For the "uninitiated" it looks like "false information". And there are dozens of compilations with this game. Too many for having as alt names. I would rather have compilation titles gathered at a different place in the entry. I added "Test" as bootleg in the entry. It would be nice to see bootleg titles, compilation titles and addon titles group like this at that place. The titles should be searchable via game search. Since its possible with bootleg title I assume its easily possible with compilation and addon titles. It also makes addons searchable, which I tend to add as an editor note, which is also not really optimal. With a solution like this I think it combines the best of the 2 options that I mentioned in the original post.
What do you think about this?
Example:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-42338
--> It kinda hurts to see Monkey Island 1&2 as alt title for Monkey Island 2. Its not clear that this is a compilation title. For the "uninitiated" it looks like "false information". And there are dozens of compilations with this game. Too many for having as alt names. I would rather have compilation titles gathered at a different place in the entry. I added "Test" as bootleg in the entry. It would be nice to see bootleg titles, compilation titles and addon titles group like this at that place. The titles should be searchable via game search. Since its possible with bootleg title I assume its easily possible with compilation and addon titles. It also makes addons searchable, which I tend to add as an editor note, which is also not really optimal. With a solution like this I think it combines the best of the 2 options that I mentioned in the original post.
What do you think about this?
1) I like the Hang-On example, clean and informative, but yes, it is not searchable.
2) To make it easily searchable (and almost easy to set up), we could use something similar to how right now alt and bootlegs titles are stored, using round and square brackets.
This was a /great/ idea twenty years ago, but it soon became an issue, so it is not the way to go.
3) The best way is to add a new entity (just like anything else, groups, reviews, platforms) and build all is needed to link games to them, make it searchable, etc.
Quite an effort.
4) A "lite" version could add a simple text field to game entries, where editors just list the compilations (no fancy meta data, but you could add the released date in brackets...), and make it searchable.
5) You will also remember that years ago I was implementing a super-cool improvement to manage game releases, that got abandoned for being too cumbersome (both in backend and frontend) basically option 3.
After this quick internal brainstorming, I would say that option 4 is the best choice right now.
Or... Try to fix the fact that option 1 is not searchable.
2) To make it easily searchable (and almost easy to set up), we could use something similar to how right now alt and bootlegs titles are stored, using round and square brackets.
This was a /great/ idea twenty years ago, but it soon became an issue, so it is not the way to go.
3) The best way is to add a new entity (just like anything else, groups, reviews, platforms) and build all is needed to link games to them, make it searchable, etc.
Quite an effort.
4) A "lite" version could add a simple text field to game entries, where editors just list the compilations (no fancy meta data, but you could add the released date in brackets...), and make it searchable.
5) You will also remember that years ago I was implementing a super-cool improvement to manage game releases, that got abandoned for being too cumbersome (both in backend and frontend) basically option 3.
After this quick internal brainstorming, I would say that option 4 is the best choice right now.
Or... Try to fix the fact that option 1 is not searchable.
Question to anyone:
Searching for compilation should have a specific search option, or has to be included in the game title search ?
Searching for compilation should have a specific search option, or has to be included in the game title search ?
Good question.
Option #1 has cleaner search results for those people who do not search for compilations (or addons). Example: A user searches a game with the name "power". The user would expect all games that have the word power in the title as result. Now it could happen (and it already happens like this now) that he finds a good number of games that don't have "power" in its title because there are lots of compilations name "action power" or "power pack 123454".
On the other hand option #2 is much simpler. Having it simple is my prefered option. At the moment I don't feel troubled with having a few more search results due to having some compilation names in the title. My brain can still sort it out. Using search terms with simple words like "power" or "collection" or similar will lead to overblown results, but when I search with these terms I am obviously doing a broad search anyway. When someone types in "Burning Crusade" in the search field its cool to have the World of Warcraft entry pop up as result. Thats what I like about option #2.
So for the moment I would slighly prefer option #2. Especially when its about addons. Addons are more important for me to document and being easily searchable than compilations (which I don't try to document at all... I just want to see it well organized/implemented when we have it in the game entries. If you and/or Zerothis think option #1 is better then go for option #1. Both options are generally OK for me.
Option #1 has cleaner search results for those people who do not search for compilations (or addons). Example: A user searches a game with the name "power". The user would expect all games that have the word power in the title as result. Now it could happen (and it already happens like this now) that he finds a good number of games that don't have "power" in its title because there are lots of compilations name "action power" or "power pack 123454".
On the other hand option #2 is much simpler. Having it simple is my prefered option. At the moment I don't feel troubled with having a few more search results due to having some compilation names in the title. My brain can still sort it out. Using search terms with simple words like "power" or "collection" or similar will lead to overblown results, but when I search with these terms I am obviously doing a broad search anyway. When someone types in "Burning Crusade" in the search field its cool to have the World of Warcraft entry pop up as result. Thats what I like about option #2.
So for the moment I would slighly prefer option #2. Especially when its about addons. Addons are more important for me to document and being easily searchable than compilations (which I don't try to document at all... I just want to see it well organized/implemented when we have it in the game entries. If you and/or Zerothis think option #1 is better then go for option #1. Both options are generally OK for me.
I would keep collections and addons separated (when the data is entered), so they are eventually searchable (and visualized) differently.
The global search will show them in different results.
The classic search could also show something like "also found these collections / addons" followed by the list.
The global search will show them in different results.
The classic search could also show something like "also found these collections / addons" followed by the list.