Musings on… BoardGameGeek (#25)

Moderated By Tom Vasel
Edited By David Fair
January 19, 2006

A note to readers: This topic really came about as 4 separate questions, and most participants in the forum had something to say about each one. Instead of listing responses by individual, I have grouped them in with the sub-topics. I hope this makes each of those topics easier to follow.

Also, there have been some recent, major, changes at BoardGameGeek, and this discussion took place before that happened, and concluded just as those changes were in their first stages. Still, much of what is said here is still quite relevant.

Tom Vasel:

There’s no denying that www.boardgamegeek.com (BGG) has become one of the, if not the most influential board game website in the English speaking world. With pretty much every game on can think of in its database, thousands of reviews, hundreds of thousands of comments and ratings - it’s both a massive database along with a giant community. So what is the role of BGG in today’s community? This leads to more questions…

Alfred Wallace:

I love the ‘Geek. It’s one of the websites I keep open all day, reloading. Whenever I run across a game I haven’t heard of, I always hit the ‘Geek to see what’s on there. I’ve played my share of E&T games, submitted 92 obscure games and some lousy pictures, and at one point got myself declared “Geek Royalty� on a Geeklist. (Although I was listed as a “knight,� which isn’t really royalty, I don’t think.) I’m not one of the super-contributors, by any means, but I’m certainly a big fan.

That said, the ‘Geek doesn’t do everything, and I don’t participate in everything the ‘Geek does. I’m not a big fan of getting into “furball� internet discussions; I’ve never done an ultimate trade, or been in a Werewolf game. I wanted to do something I could stamp more of my personality on, so I started a blog for talking about games rather than post too much to the ‘Geek. I think it’s a big enough electronic world that we can all do what we want.

Craig Massey:

Derk and Aldie do a tremendous job with BGG. It is THE go-to resource for information about games in general. I can’t begin to imagine the amount of time and effort that they put into it.

Ultimately, Derk and Aldie have a good thing. But it just feels like BGG is growing too large and too fast. I’m no longer sure of what its main purpose is. I know why I use it. I also know that it provides a huge list of features that I don’t pay attention to because there is too much info and too much poor behavior by some members of the BGG community. Much of what BGG provides I will seek out elsewhere in a smaller, more personal setting.

One question that comes to mind is, “Are Derk and Aldie making an attempt to get a return on their investment with BGG?� Given the time, effort, and funds it takes to run the site, it would make sense. Would it be possible to turn BGG into some type of business venture? This would include the site, the con, and the award. Just curious.

(Ed. Note: Have Craig pick my next set of numbers for the Powerball)

Jason Little:

It’s hard for me to have anything but glowing remarks for BGG, as it has dramatically changed the way I game—and all for the better.

First and foremost, it is the ultimate game information tool, from the database entries to reviews, user comments, session reports and user submitted player aids. I would go so far as to say that a good quarter of my 500+ game collection is directly attributable to the information and access BGG provides. In fact, I would never even have heard of, let alone gotten the opportunity to play/purchase gems like die Macher, El Grande, Um Reifenbreite, Hansa, Santiago or Wallenstein were it not for the information and insights available on BGG.

Secondly, the BGG community (warts and all) has become my “workplace� of sorts. As a guy who works from home, I don’t have a convenient office water cooler to stand around and chit chat with co-workers. For the last three or four years, BGG has been my main social outlet during the long work days. It’s great to be able to hop online and check out a review of a new game, read over a Geeklist, or get involved in an interesting forum topic.
Just like a real job, sometimes you’re stuck working with people you don’t like—so I do my best to ignore them and focus on those I like being around; a ridiculously small price to pay for what I get out of it.

Even more importantly, BGG has led to finding gaming friends. Over the last year alone, I’ve met a dozen people via BGG whom I never would have had the opportunity to meet otherwise. Some are casual gaming acquaintances, some I see regularly, others I can get some PBEM gaming in with…

Is BGG becoming too commercial? Perhaps, but who am I to complain? BGG is a phenomenal free resource… Many other sites charge subscription fees yet offer only a fraction of the content available on BGG. I can’t blame Derk & Aldie for trying to make money on their creation.

All that said, I do think there has been a dramatic shift in the general attitude on BGG within the last 12-18 months. There’s no longer the sense of the small, diehard group of enthusiasts, glad to stumble into the site that there once was. Topics and comments are more vitriolic. There seems to be fewer adherences to the “unwritten rules� of online conduct as wave after wave of anonymous users surge into BGG and look to apply the same attitudes and behavior that they’ve used elsewhere.

Larry Levy:

It’s been a long time since I thought the Geek was useful for much more than an information resource. As the latter, it’s undoubtedly the best site on the web and I access it multiple times every day to get summaries, pictures, and rules of games. This makes the site incredibly valuable and I would be heartbroken if it should disappear. The other functions of the site, however, are way too unwieldy for my tastes.

That isn’t to say I don’t like to browse the Geeklists and threads; I do. But more often than not, it’s just for passing time and doesn’t particularly entertain or educate. I remain ignorant of many of the Geek’s more elaborate functions because, frankly, I don’t want to work that hard.

The biggest problem with the site, of course, is its sheer size. If ever a website was a victim of its own popularity, it’s the Geek. Back in its infancy, I could check out the ratings and comments on a new game to get a good idea of what others thought, both the good and the bad. Now, even a less popular game has hundreds of ratings and comments, making quickie glimpses almost impossible. I realize that coming up with a list of Geek buddies is the likely solution, but again, that requires work. One of these days I’ll get off my ass and compose such a list, but in the meantime, I get much better information from user groups and blogs.

Then there’s the low signal to noise ratio, which doomed rgb and would threaten the Geek if it wasn’t so valuable in other ways. Again, I see no real solution to this, but it does make it easier to give up on a thread once the nastiness quotient gets too high.
How much of this do I think stems from Aldie and Derk’s desire to add every feature imaginable to the site? Some, but not much. Even if were just bare bones, I think the Geek would get a ton of traffic because it’s just so darn useful. With such volume comes an inevitable dilution of information. In addition, history has shown that it is also accompanied by the all too familiar flamers, whiners, shills, shillbusters, and all the rest of the internet crazies. On the ‘net, it seems, freedom leads to anarchy. Not, as Seinfeld would say, that there’s anything wrong with that, but it can make the overall experience less than ideal. Consequently, most of my Geek accesses are for information gathering, with a minimal amount of dabbling in the site’s many other features.

So vive la Geek, warts and all. I wish it were more like it was soon after its birth, but time doesn’t stand still. One of the many wonderful things about the site is that it can serve as different things for different people, so if all the Geek can be is an invaluable information resource, that’s plenty good enough for me.

Ryan Bretsch:

An aside to Larry’s point: If the geek focused exclusively on being that invaluable information resource/database, it should be plenty good enough for everyone. BGG already is the best database out there. It is just a matter of getting back to the core fundamentals of the site and doing things well.

By the way, it would be a fool’s errand for me to discount that BGG offers some incredible services and is a wonderful resource for boardgames. In fact, it is the best resource for boardgames I have come across.

The time simply comes when BGG must ask themselves, “What is our primary mission and purpose?â€? You can always view critique in the light of “you don’t understandâ€? or “that’s unfairâ€? and you can be angry about it… but the best companies welcome critique as a path to become even better. The criticism (positive or negative) just has to be valid. So likewise the question is to us… is our critique valid?

Morgan Dontanville:

The reason I like the geek is that you get what you put into it. It is like the Leatherman Tool of the board game world, it is versatile, handy and sometimes just entertaining to fool around with. Plus, the pull out bits that you don’t ever use stay firmly in place.
If you don’t care about trading or buying through them, don’t trade or buy. If you don’t care about ratings, don’t rate games. If you don’t care about werewolf, or geeklists, or forums, they aren’t obtrusive; but they are there for you if you so desire them.

It supplies what you need, and if it lacks, then it allows for you to request it or create it.
White noise is minimal for the discerning.

About making a profit? Well who doesn’t deserve it more than Scott and Derk?

About cons? Easily the best con I’ve been to.

About “new� snarkiness? Look at old posts, people were snarky then. The only difference was that you knew who the people were. I’ve seen more personal attacks and subsequent apologies on some other sites with a frequency that eclipses any cattiness on the geek.
Awards? Well, what is wrong with increasing recognition of games? IGA comes the closest to my tastes and even still they certainly don’t often pick my favorites (to say it mildly).

I’m of in the camp where I see nothing wrong with trying new things. Who cares if some new feature doesn’t work if three other features do? But, then one of the main reasons that I like the geek is that there are no watchdogs. On a particular site, I was threatened to get kicked off for posting something that I didn’t post, I responded to it (as many people did), but I sure as hell didn’t post it. On the geek even if I did post something political, I wouldn’t have to justify it to a private inquisition. If you make yourself look like an idiot (as most people, including myself, have done), you become hoisted on your own petard, and hopefully you learn from it.

Other game sites are greatly appreciated, but for me the geek is the only one that is necessary. When the geek is down, I become ... unsettled.

Tom Vasel:

- Has BGG tried to encompass too much? From a database, to a community, to a place where one can play online games, to a podcast, to a convention, to a possible award - BGG does an awful lot. But can it do all these things well, and should it concentrate on a fewer things?

Nick Danger:

Perhaps. As a repository for information about games, translations, rule corrections and such I think it’s an invaluable resource. Even so for the strategy discussions, session reports, and other on topic game specific chatter.

All the rest is chrome in my eyes. Some will like it, some will not. Whether it helps or hurts the gaming community is mostly in the eyes of the beholder.

Alfred Wallace:

I think that, for the most part, BGG has had the Midas touch: it’s a great database, great place to play E&T, I love BGSpeak, and by all accounts the con was a rousing success. I think there’s a possibility, though, that this run of success can mean that not only can BGG do anything, but that it should do everything. I see posts sometimes along the lines of “Why don’t bloggers put everything on BGG?� or “Why isn’t Boardgame News on the ‘Geek?� I’m not saying that most, never mind all, BGG members think this way but the sentiment’s out there, and the people who hold it sure do like to post stuff.

Craig Massey:

It does feel as if BGG has tried to encompass too much. The saying jack of all trades and master of none applies here on a general level. I use BGG as a resource to get rules and information on specific games. As a database, BGG is unmatched. This is what BGG should be a master of.

I also love the fact that the boardgaming community contributes to the site in terms of the content. Without this community approach to adding and contributing content, BGG would likely stagnate.

My largest problem with BGG is that the community itself makes the site too unwieldy. The discussions and forums can be vicious. Not that this is a new problem. We all know that this happens all over the net in newsgroups, discussion lists, etc. Now that it is happening on BGG, it tends to sour the overall experience and diminish all the good things that BGG has to offer.

Rec.games.board used to be the place to get information on this hobby. As it grew, the noise too often drowned out the worthwhile info and posts. So people left and went to smaller and sometimes private discussion lists. Spielfrieks picked up where r.g.b. left off. But it feels that it too has suffered a similar fate. Now, much of the discussion happens in and out of the forums and geeklists on BGG. And we are seeing a corresponding increase in the type of behavior and posts that drove so many of us crazy and away from r.g.b. and to a lesser extent spielfrieks.

I realize that there are ways to avoid this type of info and it can be easy to avoid. The same could have been said in r.g.b., but for some reason people don’t avoid it and it sours them. The community has become so large and in many cases so vocal, that it often ceases to feel like a community.

Jason Little:

Perhaps, but if what they do garners more interest and attention for my favorite hobby, it’s hard to see it as a bad thing… Even bad press, as they say, is good press. There will always be content, comments and contributors I disagree with or that come across as elitist and caustic. Thankfully that sort of content is fairly easy to avoid or bypass.

Shin Yoo:

The very core of BGG is the database. That is what BGG does best, period. Other sites may come and do other things better - like user community, news, whatever. However, the collective data that BGG has accumulated over the years is priceless, and it will be probably impossible (and meaningless) to do the same thing from the scratch again.
Some other features at BGG are natural extensions of the database feature - logging played games, user comments & ratings, etc. These are always welcomed. Geeklists added a bit of personal touch to the DB. It was a fun way of finding out games that you did not know about, until the number of lists which submitted in a day outgrew what I can read in a day. And they began to become repetitive.

The whole “forum� move might have seemed as an obvious step further, but I think it was a move to combine two totally different ventures - the DB and the community. If you look at BGG, there’s not enough cross-action between them. I don’t know if that kind of interaction is possible. You can probably separate the DB and the forum without losing any of their functionalities, apart from the user convenience.

I’m not saying that it was a bad move. I just think that, if the BGG today feels crammed with too much stuff, the reason is because it is trying to catch two rabbits.

Greg J. Schloesser:

For me, absolutely. I used to enjoy reading the various updates, including the “lists�. However, now, it is inundated with thousands of posts per day, and most of them are mindless drivel. I completely understand the desire to make the Geek THE site for gamers everywhere, whether your love is Euro-Games, American games, collectible card games, role-playing games, war games ... whatever. Sadly, that dilutes the relevance of the site for me. Selfishly, I want a site that contains solely material that I want to read. The only way to do that is to create my own site and only allow folks whose tastes mirror my own to post and comment. So, I have to be much more realistic. The Geek is trying to be THE source for ALL gamers. As such, they are doing an admirable job. I do wish, however, the editing and pre-screening was a bit more heavy-handed so the hundredth “help me decide what to buy� list wouldn’t appear.

Morgan Dontanville:

Greg, it is amazing how completely opposite my feelings are on this.

BGG is the sum of its parts. Everything that is there comes from what people have contributed, moderation hinders growth. I feel that there are enough fanatics out there (no offense to our favorite fanatics) that will create their own websites tailored specifically toward what they want in a site. That’s fine. What you want in a neatly trimmed bonsai. The problem with the bonsai is that it is fragile and its beauty lies only toward the particular people that appreciate that particular shape.

The Geek is a wild old growth forest, which is taking back land faster than people can cut it back. My emphasis is on “taking back�. I don’t know how many times a week someone posts a random Geeklist about how they are coming back to gaming, and soon they list games in their childhood. This may seem tiring to some, but these people bring their own perspectives, often they bring memories of some obscure forgotten gems with them. As many games as you and Siggins, Thornquist, Heli, Bloom, Vasel, Huber, Applegate, Branham and others (of long standing merits that I’ve failed to mention) have played, you can’t play them all. More importantly, you can’t play them as often. Many of these people will play one game 30 or 40 times, to me their insight on the mechanics of a game is tremendous.

My feeling is that while I certainly respect most of what the pillars of our gaming society have to say, the voices of those that have only played 30 games are just as valuable to me. In fact, they represent a perspective that I will never be able to view again, if not through their eyes. I don’t look at this as white noise, just more information that I may or may not process at the time.

I would not be surprised if we dug through some old rgb archives and found a Schloesser “help me decide what to buy� post. I certainly had one when I first started on the geek, it was an easy way to get answers to specific questions all in one space.

I am encouraged by the growth in the geek. I’m pleased by our growing community. I like the silliness that people contribute, regardless of whether or not it is pertinent.
The Geek constantly amazes me. I was impressed at how well the meme adapted to the influx of bailing con-simmers. Now, we have a well rounded perspective of the history of our hobby. Hopefully, the information provided by them inspires new groups and new designs. I look at CCGers and Wargamers as nothing but a shot in the arm, keeping everything fresh and alive. A game, is a game, is a game. If Crokinole is an acceptable game for the geek why shouldn’t Paths of Glory be?

The concept of the awards just sounds fun to me, but I’m sure would be just as hit or miss in my book as the SDJs and IGAs are. In general, I tend to like the nominated games for all of the awards more than I like the winners. I feel, at this point anything that promotes the hobby is a good thing.

My feeling is (for obvious reasons) that as long as a publisher can come to the BGG as a gamer they are fine. I encouraged the geek to put a press release section in so that companies wouldn’t cross the lines, but wouldn’t be put into a false promotional runaround where they have to tell Rick Thornquist and he has to leak the news. I’m appreciative of what Rick does, but on the company end this seemed silly. For me, the official stuff is also appreciated when it is properly labeled on the game pages.
Greg, I understand where you are coming from and in some ways I miss the old geek, but personally, I really have come to appreciate its evolution.

Jim Ekted:

BGG is a huge repository of public contributions. Some are factual: game entries, images, Q&A, session reports, and news. Some are opinion: reviews, and other comments. Some are just for fun: geek lists, variants, etc.

I don’t really think that BGG is “trying� to be anything other than a container for all of the above. In order to make the exponentially growing amount of information accessible, the site is adapting by interconnecting people and games.

If some new site came along and, for example, set out to become “the premier internet site for game rules�, I don’t think BGG would make any effort whatsoever to compete. But I also don’t think such a site would do well since any publicly available information (like rules) would make its way to BGG anyways.

David Fair:

I think it is fairly obvious that it has. The podcast hasn’t been done in some time, the database updates take a very long time to approve, and the site has the definite feel of an unfocussed one, of late.

If I had my way, the forums would be gone, and we would go back to the older method of game discussion taking place in the pages for those games, and journals for each user. As it is now, there are too many places to look, and the good information gets lost in the search.

Tom Vasel:

- Is it a good idea for BGG to start up yet another award?

Nick Danger:

It’s a good way to piss off half the community! Whatever the basis of the award ends up being half will agree with it, the other half won’t and will fill up the pages with complaints. On that I’d bet the farm.

Alfred Wallace:

It’s not that I think BGG, in particular, shouldn’t start up another award; I think the market’s pretty saturated with awards already and I don’t see the purpose of another one. I foresee a day when a game comes out that has no box art, just award logos on the front.

Craig Massey:

I think this is one award too many and I’m not entirely sure what the purpose of the award is. It feels like there are more than enough awards out there. I realize that many feel that none of them represent there tastes or choices. But such is the nature of the award beast in all fields. In the end, with such a vocal community a BGG award may only serve to stir the pot, ultimately increasing some of the viciousness that sours people on the overall experience.

Ryan Bretsch:

There was a comment made by Derk (a key representative of BGG) who was answering the question of why the world needs another Game of the Year award. His response:
“Because many of the other awards don’t have our bully pulpit and therefore we feel we can do it better. Because the more I study the gaming revolution that went on in 80’s in Germany, it seems to be very tied to the rise of the Spiel des Jahres. Because much of what the ‘Geek is, strictly from a business perspective, is creating ‘buzz’ and an award should create more ‘buzz.’“

Jason Little:

Another award? I don’t see how it can be a bad thing. If it’s embraced, great, BGG’s clout is recognized and more people come to use and interact with this community. If it fails miserably, there’s no tangible negative impact that I can imagine. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Greg J. Schloesser:

Another selfish answer: NO! We are trying hard to make the International Gamers Award recognized by the general public as a seal of quality. Another award further dilutes the relevance of importance the existing awards, including the IGA’s. Plus, what is the criteria, who are the voters? Will the votes be stuffed by one segment of the hobby? What safeguards are in place? These are all questions that would have to be answered satisfactorily.

Andy Daglish:

I think it’s a good idea, and amalgamation with another award such as the IGA would tend to create something more meaningful. The advantage of Geek is that their awards can be conspicuously criticized on their own site, and even lists of alternative prize-winners published.

David Fair:

If it is an award based on BGG ratings, or one in which every BGG member gets to vote, then it is not a good idea. The user base at BGG is too large and eclectic to produce a meaningful award by those methods.

Tom Vasel:

- Now that the community at BGG has exploded into a huge one (relatively speaking), is that a good or bad thing. Should the posts there be more moderated less moderated, more focused, etc.?

Nick Danger:

While I’d like them more focused its easy enough to ignore the general stuff and just go to game specific stuff so I don’t see any problem with it. More moderated? Don’t know. I’m usually under the banner of if you don’t like a thread or where it’s heading, don’t read it. I tend to err on the side of free speech under the feelings of “if you give someone enough rope they’ll hang themselves.� I know I’ve left myself kicking in the air enough times in the past!

Alfred Wallace:

I’m not a big fan of a lot of what’s getting added to the ‘Geek, a lot of times, but I don’t think there’s a way to throw out just the bathwater and leave the baby--at least via more admin moderating, approving geeklists before they go up, etc. Overall, I think the increased size of the community is a good thing, but it’s not an unmixed blessing. I perceive a snarkier tone than before, which wouldn’t be unusual for discussion boards as they become larger.

Greg J. Schloesser:

HEAVILY moderated. MORE focused.

Andy Daglish:

Moderation is a pain in the bum and those that require it are even worse, but it is better than non-moderation. Recent experience suggests the BGG admin have no interest in enforcing their own rules, except in cases where the site is being used to exchange insults of the more extreme variety. The interesting thing is that BGG seems to be beating up the twits, whereas previously the opposite was the rule, so you can’t say they haven’t got it right.

Jim Ekted:

One of the main reasons we have choices and competition for most things in the real world (eg news, music, movies, books) is that each entity has their own content and their own control over how their information is presented. BGG is just everything that anyone cares to submit. No one stands to gain or lose anything by filtering or controlling that content.

I’m not personally aware of any moderation on BGG other than for seriously offensive language. The only other types of controls applied are loosely enforced using categories. Posts for games are broken into categories: reviews, session reports, general, questions, etc. This forces contributors to perform a little bit of organization on submission side. This is a good thing.

All that being said, BGG is not the only voice. There are many great blogs, podcasts, gaming sites, and of course BGN. But I don’t think there’s any reason to feel anything more than friendly intellectual competition. We are, after all, one hobby.

Tom Vasel:

- How involved should publishers and designers be with such a site?

Nick Danger:

They should be plenty involved. However, seeing as how they get treated quite often I easily understand them not wanting to even enter the arena. Cripes, they catch a bushel of crap about a stinkin’ calendar for crying out loud!

Alfred Wallace:

I think they should be as involved as they can be--customer service, as you will. Answering questions, talking about product, etc. Of course--speaking purely hypothetically, you understand--if some unscrupulous person--I can’t imagine such a thing happening--were to create a bunch of “clone� accounts to, I don’t know, post laudatory reviews of that designer or company’s product, that’d be different. Creating geeklists and whatnot for the sole purpose of banging the drum for their games also seems a little icky. Is there even a word for that kind of behavior? I think it could be called “shilling.� (This is one of those things I think Consimworld does better than the ‘Geek, by the way. I like the special forums for the individual game companies.)

Greg J. Schloesser:

They should be involved as much as they desire, but with the caveat that they cannot use the board as an advertising or promotional forum.

Andy Daglish:

If you are easily-led, it doesn’t much matter who does the leading, nor whether they profit financially from it. The test is whether or not a game is any good. It is not as if it isn’t hard to make fun of these guys, on Geek, should they produce a string of dismal failures. Forget the Wallensteins: how does the rest of the line stack up? As it says on the Days of Wonder site “1. Pick a theme that draws you in 2. Let yourself be seduced by the components and overall [a]esthetic of a game.� Then have a good laugh at the quality of the design, on Geek.

David Fair:

Smart ones should check the forums for their games, answer questions, and try to build excitement about their upcoming releases by talking about them in their Journals, oh, I mean forums. Publishers and designers should feel free to rate their own games, but should do so honestly and state their affiliation up front.

Tom Vasel:

- Is it good to have a site in which all the eggs are in one basket, so to speak? BGG is attempting to be the single site for board games on the internet. Is this a good or bad thing?

Nick Danger:

Attempting? The Walmart of web board game sites? Nah, I don’t think the guys are trying to become the single site, just perhaps the most abundant information-wise. But just because they have the most info doesn’t mean it’s the best. There are still plenty of sites out there offering up solid board game related info - sometimes you just need to look a little harder to find them.

Ryan Bretsch:

Boardgamegeek, to my understanding, was created to be a repository database for listing boardgames. Forums were created for discussing boardgames and geeklists were added to create an even more personal connection to games. The concept of this idea was brilliant and it was well executed… making boardgamegeek one of the best boardgame sites around for its purpose. It ever growing community has proved that and it has made BGG one of the most well-known websites about games on the web.

Certainly, every company wants to grow and expand when they have a run of success. The issue with boardgamegeek is that they have seen the demise of The Games Journal, Gamefest and a few other websites and have recognized “opportunityâ€? in the vacuum this has created. So they have swooped in to fill that void and want to be all things to all people. So now we have BGG hosting a con, giving out game awards, running a podcast, advertising game calendars in conjunction with companies, running contests with manufacturers, aggressively lobbying to bring all news through a central location… the location, of course, being BGG… opinions, editorials and the list goes on. In other words, BGG has become consumed by Derk’s aptly noted contention that BGG is the ultimate bully pulpit and that they can do it better than anybody and everybody.

The problem is.... they can’t.

There are a lot of things BGG does that are mediocre and I think that is because they have gotten away from their core… which is to be a repository database for boardgames.

BGG’s hand is simply in too many cookie jars.

Shannon Appelcline:

I don’t even understand this concept of “too much�. In an ideal world, BGG would cover the entire spectrum of board gaming. Forums, news, awards, whatever, it’d all be there, all easy accessible through a well-conceived and well-structured set of directories and links. There’s no “too much� because that’s a problem that’s easily solvable with more administrators, more sub-administrators, and more bandwidth.

The more relevant question is, “is there room for improvement�, but I don’t see how that’s an interesting question to debate either, because of course there’s always room for improvement. Personally, I’d like to see some improved web design, and especially some improved navigation.

But anyone begrudging BGG any additional board gaming topics that they decide to bring into their community: I just don’t get it. I mean, best case, they do it well & no one else can compete with them. Worst case, they do it poorly, and another web site rises up and takes over the sub niche.

That’s the economy of the Internet.

Frank Branham:

Historically, BGG has been reasonably good at making things more visible and bringing people into the hobby. People who I don’t know personally are now contributing bits and pieces of useful and wonderful information. (I’m hoping desperately that Ava Jarvis finishes a Heroes in the Underworld translation soon.) And it is really nice to see a community forming outside the tiny world that it was a few years ago.

The problem is that it is a big giant unruly mosh pit of a community. It has the same mob / snob and weird dynamics as Slashdot.

And...I don’t think I’ve seen a way to make it better. Online communities are like that, and I don’t think I’ve seen a model that doesn’t have issues once it hits size. Even the old, quiet, contemplative days of things like The Well, and rec.games.board started getting more abrasive and having less actual content as they grew.

At worst, BGG could beam up its big giant loud signal flare to people and use its size to make people look. Then the brighter ones could go off and find more coherent and interesting places and ways to express ideas about their hobby. Like the whole musings on thing.

Shin Yoo:

I think Frank is spot on here. Been there, done that. It’s like stars. Some will never reach the critical mass and fade away. Others will collapse under their own weight. Only those with the right weight will live a long peaceful life. With the talks about new award, BGG is still growing and no one knows what lies in the future

Ryan Bretsch:

Boardgamegeek is the ultimate sacred cow in the boardgame community… In a lot of people’s view, it rises to the level of revolt that we would even think of discussing this as a topic.

That is not a good sign in my opinion.

I totally and respectfully disagree with Shannon’s assertion that in an ideal world BGG would cover everything. Shannon states his point eloquently but I feel it is off base.
When everything falls into the same limited scope, you are seeing the world through one controlled viewpoint. For instance, what if Dan Rather reported ALL of the news? Wouldn’t you say that there might be a distinct bias in reporting the news towards the viewpoint that Mr. Rather feels it should be reported as? Whether Mr. Rather’s viewpoint is right or wrong is not the debate. But the ability to get differing perspectives allows the public to make up their mind about what viewpoint is correct or most helpful… rather than just having one big, giant, monolithic viewpoint imposed upon them. More administrators, more sub-administrators, and more bandwidth… it still equals the same viewpoint.

Second, I really think that BGG’s format is no longer easily accessible through a well-conceived and well-structured set of directories and links. As BGG has become larger, and more features are added, the whole system has become increasingly unwieldy, uncoordinated and burdensome. The website constantly crashes. Imagine, just for a moment, if BGG could add all of this content they want… how would one go about finding all of it… does anyone honestly think it would be easy?

In addition, how many of you have read about, personally inquired about or in any other way seen people offer a legitimate question that winds up not being answered by the BGG administrators? Don’t get me wrong, I think they answer a ton of questions and give many useful answers. But I certainly think their bandwidth is certainly stretched. Again, this goes back to the primary reason for BGG’s existence and whether or not it is upholding that purpose.

For the moment, I will add this question… have you noticed that if in anyway, BGG is criticized, pinned forum discussions just disappear? While I certainly think they have every right to remove non-productive conversations and otherwise do as they see fit… it is one of the dangers I alluded to earlier in having a single viewpoint dictating what is seen and heard. Admittedly, even as I say this, I think BGG has been fairly responsible in this regard.

My point is that the website needs work… but instead of maintaining a solely outward focus, BGG does need to take greater care in updating and improving its core infrastructure and purpose. I certainly think some content they have added should stay. However, at the same time, I keep being reminded of that old James Bond movie title: The World is Not Enough.

So for all of you Star Trek fans out there: BGG should not become The Borg of boardgaming.

Craig Massey:

Ryan brings up an excellent point about the indexing of all the content. In a previous life I worked for a large research company that produced a huge amount of content. My job was to effectively manage that content, making sure it was labeled, tagged, indexed, sorted, etc. in a way that it made it easily accessible to find on the website. This was not an easy task even with a set of standards that all of the content creators and editors had to adhere to. It boggles the mind to think of the content management issues at BGG as an open community without strict standards. Adding new functionality and areas of coverage will only make things harder for what most of us view as BGG’s core competency - the database of games and associated content.

Imagine if BGG took on the functionality of Rick’s Gone Cardboard or Essen Previews etc. Or if it hosted all of the individual gaming blogs that have sprung up in the last year or so. Or Tom’s Dice Tower, or Musings On....or any of the other smaller sites, lists. Again, jack of all trades.....

Paul Tevis:

I think I want to take the middle ground between the positions that Shannon and Ryan have staked out, though I may be a bit more toward where Shannon is. That is, it’s not that I want BGG to do everything, but I certainly don’t mind if they try. We all seem to agree that the BGG database is of inestimable value, and I think we’re all glad to have it. Outside of that core competency, however, the value that BGG brings to the table seems to diminish. Geeklists? Not a bad idea. Forums? Ok. Beyond that? Eh. I agree with Ryan that the further BGG gets from its original idea, the useful it is. I agree with Shannon, however, that that shouldn’t stop BGG from trying to do these things, because in the worst case, someone else says, “This sucks,� and does them better. I don’t get any of my gaming news from the Geek, nor do I read any of the forums there. In my experience, there are so many better places to fulfill those needs, but that doesn’t mean I begrudge BGG for trying to do it. As it seems extremely unlikely that BGG will overextend itself and lose the one thing that we all agree has value, I say let me them do whatever they want.

Rick Young:

I feel pretty much the same as Paul on this one. BGG’s strength comes from the extensive data-base that is unmatched anywhere. When you add to that the files, player aids, reviews, session reports, images, and links, you have a game information resource that is unrivalled.

Given that, it is no stretch to appreciate that BGG tends to be the first place a gamer goes for information on just about anything to do with the hobby. It is no surprise, further, why those interested would not want to stick around and participate, or at least read, the discussion threads and lists that have sprung up to support the data-base. As far as I’m concerned, there is no limit to the extent of the support to the hobby that can be developed there. Obviously, the quality of these will be uneven. Features will come and go as some already have. The whole package is continually evolving. I estimate that I take advantage of about a quarter of it - but that is not to say I might not someday chase down a nook or cranny I haven’t explored yet.

That said, I have remarked before on the care that must be taken with anything one encounters there. The size of the site and the number of contributors is a two-edged sword. Some of the contributions are superb; many are quite interesting, while a few are less than helpful. Such is the freedom (anarchy) of unfettered participation. So while BGG is the first place I go to research a question I have related to our hobby, it is far from the last. No one should ever consider a single source of information as sufficient on any topic let alone this one.

If the proliferation of services and features on BGG results in some gamers using it as their exclusive source of gaming information and opinion, they will remain under-informed. However, I wouldn’t see that as a reason to constrain BGG from any activity they should wish to undertake. I don’t see any legitimate reasons, come to that. What they do, or don’t do, will have little or no bearing on what I do or how I go about my involvement in our hobby. Therefore I see no reason to concern myself in their activities.

Greg J. Schloesser:

See my answer to question #1. Clearly, they are trying to be THE site for all gamers. As such, they are doing a great job. My personal preference, however, would be for the site to be smaller and more focused.

Andy Daglish:

Rec.games.board is said to have been reduced in worth by some of the more useful posters immigrating to other forums. Geek’s great size seems to have a palliative effect on the type of stuff that prompted them to go. A less useful thread may be rapidly superseded by others, and the “times viewed� statistics help, for example when a small group realizes they are posting and reading rubbish incestuously. However Geek, or the passage of time, or something else, has made one or two of the more afflicted ex-members of Club RGB happier. Several excellent Geek comments and posts have been noted coming from these unlikely sources. I suppose this leads onto the unwelcome fact that it’s not so much distinct personalities that emerge after a lot of posts, but diagnoses. But this is rare. Far more often, to my mind, posters and writers come across as pretty much the same, varying in perspicacity but equal in blankness.

David Fair:

Diversity is a good thing. I like BGG as a place to find resources for playing games. Rules, player aids, and some other interesting tidbits are there. I don’t find the forums easy or quick (and I’m on DSL) and thus I don’t find the community aspect all that enticing.

Tom Vasel:

And let me say that I do appreciate the ‘Geek. It helped me learn about many, many games - and is still the first place that I go to when seeking information about games. I just feel that it has perhaps mutated into a slightly unwieldy website, with a rather vicious community at times.

Alfred Wallace:

BGG gets a 9/10. It’s indispensable, and a mine of game information. It has features I don’t use, and I have game needs it doesn’t fill, but those aren’t really criticisms. I’ve learned where the swamps are, and I avoid them. It’d basically only get a 10/10 if, suddenly, everyone woke up and decided to never again post a “Games I Found on the Sidewalk� Geeklist, and leave them for truly useful and brilliant geeklists like the ones giving away GG for winning silly contests.

Ryan Bretsch:

An interesting conversation has developed on the thread Tom Vasel has at BGG announcing his moving of content of MUSINGS ON and THE DICE TOWER. One person in particular makes this assertion:

“The folks here at BGG have been kind enough to provide you with storage space for your many reviews, interviews, and the like. And while you may think it’s perfectly legitimate for you to decide where to place your material (and it is, really), I think it’s a slap in the face to yank something you’ve been placing here to put on a “quality site. I understand you’re trying to give Rick a hand with his “quality site� and all, but when will you bow down before the might that is BoardGameGeek?�

First let’s make this VERY clear.... this is NOT the official position being expounded by Boardgamegeek itself. However, the comment does have illustrative value in that it holds true to what I feel is a common misperception about BGG. The notion that Boardgamegeek is the benefactor rather than the beneficiary of user content that goes into the site is incorrect. And while not an official position, I suspect the comment by the loyalist BGG user expressed above pervades the current thinking at Boardgamegeek. When Derk starts expressing that BGG is the most qualified to hand out boardgame awards… I think that is a prime example the BGG is moving beyond “confidenceâ€? in their product to realms that will stand to cause a level of discomfort to others.

I also see this attitude displayed in Boardgamespeak. The key to a successful interview is to allow the subject to have the spotlight. I see this interview rule broken time and again in the interview style conducted at Boardgamespeak. Listeners should never have to guess if Reiner Knizia was actually offended by the line of questioning or not. Am I wrong? There is a fine line between entertainment banter and discomfort on the part of the listener in wondering what is truly going on. The fact of the matter is that this particular interview brought more attention to BGG than it did to the interviewee. And it is not the only time this has happened. Maybe it is then defensively cloaked in “Well, it’s not meant to be taken so seriously… you are taking things too seriously.â€? But my assertion is that if Boardgamespeak fails to take itself reasonably seriously.... then why should we? I think podcasts should have an “edgeâ€? but there is a fine line that I think is often crossed with Boardgamespeak. And I think the reason goes back to what I have alluded to… the notion that BGG should become larger than the hobby itself. I am not sold on that.

So the bottom line? It is user driven content that makes boardgamegeek go.... not the other way around.

But let’s take a look at the flip end for a moment. Because there are some things Boardgamegeek is getting wildly “right.� And they do many, many good things. How about the expanded Personal Top 10? And the Hot 10? The sortable features now that are under My BGG? The expanded user profile and marketplace features? All of these things were excellent and superb upgrades and were well-conceived additions to make our experience more enjoyable. But what is the common denominator driving these successes? They were all internal content and user-driven. This is what BGG does extremely well and it is their bread and butter. It is also what their focus should be.
Going too far beyond that in focus begins to weaken their core product. And I can’t say this enough… it is the user content and effective management of that content that makes BGG successful… not the other way around.

Nick Danger:

You lost me there Ryan. Are you stating it (Boardgamespeak) should be taken seriously or not?

Myself, as a listener to every segment they’ve done, I have no problem with the format or delivery. It seems to walk the line of infotainment pretty well. Sure, they may wander off one side or the other a bit but in general I’d say Derk and Aldie do a very nice job of keeping things informative and entertaining. Not an easy task as there are a lot of podcasts (I’m not necessarily referring to gaming podcasts) that fail at one or the other miserably.

I’d say Boardgamespeak is actually one of the strengths of the geek and extremely unobtrusive to the inner workings of the site.

Ryan Bretsch:

Me personally? I think they should strive to be taken seriously. But neither can I say that it is necessarily an absolute requisite to achieving success. It becomes a requisite, however, if they insist on having serious discussion with the boardgame industry’s leading “big names�. These “big names� should be accorded an extra measure of respect and special allowances made to harbor their important insights. Basically, I want to listen to Reiner Knizia speak. Can I leave it at that? Beyond that, I am on the wrong topic if I offer too much in this regard. I would concede that there are some things Boardgamespeak does well on their podcast.

So that’s another topic. You are correct in the assertion that Boardgamespeak is unobtrusive to the inner workings of the site. Given the historical nature that it was the first podcast about boardgames (unless Mark Jackson’s came first) it is something that would be easy to keep that would not place undue hardship on the other things BGG does. Boardgamespeak definitely has the potential to be a strength of the site. It is for others, other than me, to determine if that potential has been realized.

Larry Levy:

With regard to the Geek Musings On… thread:

That’s a pretty outrageous statement that was posted, even if it was meant partly in jest. That said, I notice that the individual is pretty much alone in his comments, with most of the responses being equivalent to smacking him upside the head. So this particular sentiment is probably not a majority view.

However, it’s also good to keep in mind what the Geek represents to many gamers. To them, it IS the center of the gaming world. They don’t check out spielfrieks, rgb, or the gaming blogs. They’ve never been to an invitational con. They don’t read Counter or Games International. Probably at first, this was because they weren’t aware of these things, but now, I bet most of them don’t see the necessity. The Geek was their introduction to gaming and it continues to be all things to them, so why bother with anywhere else? You can debate whether this is good or bad, but my point is that it needs to be understood that this type of gamer exists. To those of us with a dozen or more gaming bookmarks in our Favorites list, Tom’s decision is of no concern at all, but to someone who depends on the Geek for all their gaming news, the impact is real. The actual effect on them is one of perception, not reality (how many comments did the Musings On posts actually generate when they were posted on the Geek?), but it is felt nonetheless.

Not that this should affect Tom’s thinking with regard to the Musings On decision. I honestly don’t know why he chose not to continue putting them on the Geek (maybe he just wanted to limit the double postings), but it’s his ball and he can decide what to do with it. Thankfully, most of the responders on the Geek thread recognize that fact and appreciate all that Tom has contributed to the hobby.

Ryan Bretsch:

For a second, I didn’t know what statement you were referring to Larry… then I realized you were talking about the comment that was made by that person (we’ll leave out names) on BGG for the MUSINGS ON thread that Tom Vasel initiated. And you’re right… most people shot down his sentiments quickly.

I want to end my comments on a positive note: I’ve been very, very tough on BGG today… but it is only because they do so many things well. I think we all want them to continue to have the enormous success they have had previously and should continue to have. Let’s face it; Derk and Aldie have contributed more to the boardgame community in one day than most people have personally given to it in a lifetime. I certainly believe they want Boardgame News to succeed and they would never do anything to intentionally hamper anyone else’s success either. Heck, they were the ones who forked over the website name to us practically as a gift. So I think we agree BGG is not out to *deliberately* monopolize everything “boardgameâ€?… they are just simply looking at the perspective of seeking to fill potential opportunities which exist at the time.

For the record, I would hold to the opinion that BGG should try to expand too… very carefully. My previous comments are meant to serve merely as a cautionary tale for BGG to proceed in a manner so that they continue to do their primary business well… which is maintaining a useful, accessible and progressive boardgame database.

BGG is run by good guys and I think they will see this discussion for what it is… discourse initiated because BGG is important enough that we all actually care what happens to them. So it is a worthwhile discussion to have.

Michael J. Pennisi:

If you want rules clarifications, translations, player aids, or general opinions on virtually any game, BGG is THE place to go period. This makes it an indispensable tool for the boardgame aficionado.

But it’s an evolving tool with a growing number of features and users. Some features work and some don’t but I never doubt the desire of Derk and Aldie to make BGG the best it can be. I remember when there were no forums or journals, just individual game discussions and back then I did a lot of lurking. Now I participate a lot more. Sure, the higher level of interaction now available has led to a lot of worthless banter but that’s the stuff that builds community bonds and so you take the good with the bad. In addition to the interaction, BGG offers an easy way to keep track my collection and the games I play.
I’d be lying if I didn’t say all of the negativity there didn’t annoy me. People ask for opinions on “game x vs. game y� or “Con A vs. Con B� and they get a bunch of thread hijackers who say “game Z / Con C� or they ramble on about something completely unrelated. And then there are those that tear new users apart who are just happy to share the fact that they got their wife/friends to play game X. Ok...I’m getting negative myself so back to my point: There are 60,000+ users on the geek; that’s the size of a town and in any town there’s going to be jerks who don’t mow their lawns and there’s going to be a wrong side of the tracks. If you live in the town you learn who your good neighbors are and where to hang out, you put a chair on the porch, and life is just peachy.

Now as for Boardgamenews, I am all for it because to me it’s going to be a source of current, filtered information on new games and that is not necessarily what the geek is for. I also expect the dialog to be more focused since people are paying to participate but only time will tell. The “either-or�, Highlander (well done D.W.) mentality between BGG and boardgamenews is just silly. That said, it had never occurred to me that boardgamenews may seem “elitist� until I started reading this thread and some of the comments contrasting the two. Nothing is going to breed resentment faster than creating a sense, whether real or not, of elitism so I hope Rick, Tom, Ryan, et al., will not come off that way in the future.

Tom, personally I think a “Musings on� for a particular boardgame is a great addition to the ‘Geek’s database. Someone who is looking for info on a particular game like, say, Pirate’s Cove would be more likely to seek out the Geek first and then they would find your post. I’m not sure that same individual would seek out boardgamenews for info on an old game. I fear that only putting “Musing on� on boardgamenews is going to sentence the discussions to digital oblivion. Obviously it’s your work and it’s your call to do with it as you want.

David Fair:

Absolute, wholehearted agreement there. I haven’t seen the viciousness, but I agree that it is unwieldy.

Larry Levy:

Just as an aside, the “new� BGG debuted today (January 3) with a new interface and the news that 1) Aldie will be a full-time employee; 2) ads seem a bit more conspicuous; and 3) the site remains free, but users can gain a benefit (ad blocking) with a minimum contribution. The number of replies to this forum is too many for me to check out entirely, but from what I’ve seen, the response seems to be overwhelmingly positive (other than concerns about the new interface).

First of all, I’m very happy for Aldie and congratulate the Geek for reaching sufficient popularity to actually be able to hire him full- time. This can only result in enhanced service (although it’s hard to imagine him doing more than he did before). However, doesn’t this all sound familiar? Isn’t this very similar to what Rick did with the Boardgame News site? And didn’t he catch all kinds of crap from some Geek users for doing each of the things that the Geek is doing now?

No real surprises, I guess. Geek users are loyal to the Geek, which is how it should be. And maybe the vocal minority (and it *was* a minority that got steamed over the BGN announcement) is holding its tongue now that their own beloved site is proceeding down a similar path to BGN’s. But it’s also possible that some Geek users’ issues with BGN weren’t the ads or the fee or the potential conflict of interest, but simply that there was another site that would have content that might not get posted on the Geek. This was and is silly and hopefully is a non-issue now that BGN has completed its first month without the world of gaming falling apart. Anyway, most Geeks welcomed BGN with open arms, so it really isn’t a big deal. But the irony of today’s Geek announcement was too great for me not to comment.

Tom Vasel:

I agree with Larry. While Aldie does a TON of work on BGG, it is fairly comparable to the work Rick does on BGN, since Aldie has hundreds and thousands of helpers (contributors), while Rick has a dozen. I’m really confused about the bit of hypocrisy I’ve seen in the attitude towards the changing - not from BGG administration, but from their supporters.

That being said, I do like the new layout, and it makes sense for Aldie to be a full-time employee. I think that BGG and BGN can work hand in hand in the future. The fact that BGG has hundreds of rabid fans ensures its success in the short run, definitely.

Chris Brooks:

No offense to Rick and the time he puts into BGN, but I think you might be underestimating the amount of technical work required on Aldie’s part to run BGG. The infrastructure and DB requirements for BGG are such that it takes a great deal of administrative work to keep the site up and running. Aside from content and creative work, Aldie does most if not all of the development for what is essentially a custom software application.

Dave Fair:

Of course just a few days before we end this, the whole look and feel, along with the economic model, for the geek changes. I like what I see so far, and am really encouraged by the easier access to content. Hopefully, with Aldie’s new full-time status, things will only get better.

Jim Ekted:

[Regarding users being, for the most part, positive] I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. BGG has gotten a lot of flack today--over the changes and over the ads. I wouldn’t be surprised if BGG changes their attitude about ads a little. Unlike BGN, BGG content is 100% user submitted.

Ryan Bretsch:

I will go on record to say I really like the changes that BGG made for the top of 2006 on their website. Change is a difficult thing for people to get used to when they are used to using a website in a particular way. That’s OK. A little shakeout in this instance is only going to be natural.

But for the long run, I think the new BGG look is an excellent one. It is also good to see them addressing the core business is such a positive and focused way.

© 2006 Rick Thornquist

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

I still have to get used to the new look of the boardgamegeek, but despite this it’s definitely the best boardgame website. A good way to see how good it is, and how well Derk and Aldie manage things, is to compare it with the similar reference websites in other languages. Spielbox, the german reference site, is really cute and has a clearly designed home page, but it’s nowhere as dynamic as the geek, and not convenient when you’re looking for something specific. Tric Trac, the french reference website, has a very rich content, but the discussions in the forum often get out of hand, and everything on the site is usually written in terrible french. In comparison, everything always feels smooth and nice on the geek. OK, it’s probably more due to french gamers than to the website designers, but the result is here. This means that, even for french or german readers, the geek is now the reference gaming website - and that’s probably a good thing. Posted by bruno faidutti on Jan 20, 2006 at 03:31 AM | #

What about Luding, Bruno?  Derk and Aldie’s original goal, when they launched BGG in 2000, was to make the site the English language Luding.  Luding isn’t nearly as good at adding content for newer games, but for older European designs, I still find it very useful.  It also contains a lot of valuable information, like award nominations and victories, along with a very nice search engine.  Finally, it tends to be more accurate than the Geek with things like publication dates.  BGG has certainly eclipsed Luding, but I’m glad the latter site is still alive and kicking. Posted by Larry Levy on Jan 20, 2006 at 10:14 AM | #

In Italy we are quite lucky becouse “La Tana dei Goblin” (http://www.goblins.net) is really good. There are translations and reviews for thousands games ... good forums, articles, news, donwloads ... yes, of course it is all in Italian but english speaking peoples there is already BGG. Our idea was to make something like BGG for peoples speaking Italian. Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Jan 20, 2006 at 11:13 AM | #

I don’t consider Luding a website. Just a rough database, but a very complete one, that I often use. I think it becomes less and less useful now that the Geek is both a gtreat website and a database. Posted by bruno faidutti on Jan 20, 2006 at 11:48 AM | #

As the signal to noise ratio drops, I’ve discovered the BGG RSS feeds, and have added all the games on my list to Bloglines.  As a result, I find myself visiting the forums and browsing geeklists much less than I used to do. Also, while BGG has great data, I hesitate to call it a great database.  Basic datapoints for games, such as mechanics and category, have confusing, undefined authority lists that aren’t applied consistently.  Game descriptions vary wildly, from synopses to comparisons to other games to comments on quality to “coming soon” for a game published in 2004.  Threads about games often end up in the general forum and don’t get moved to the game forum.  Threads about more than one game can’t be linked in both game forums. Posted by Chris Shaffer on Jan 23, 2006 at 09:38 PM | #

Whoops, hit submit too fast.  To continue… Browsing files, rating comments, links, geeklists, etc. for a single game is time consuming, because each one ends up on its own page if there are more than 10.  There isn’t an easy way to search all information about a game - the search engine indexes geeklists separately from forums and files don’t appear to be searchable at all. And finally, to follow up on what someone said earlier, the value of BGG is derived from the content created by its users.  More and more, it seems to me like the BGG community is assigning (conceptually) the ownership of the content to BGG, and not to the contributors.  It gives the site a slant that makes me uncomfortable.  Another community site I use, Flickr, does a better job of recognizing that the content is owned by the users, and not by the site.  I wish BGG would move more in that direction. Posted by Chris Shaffer on Jan 23, 2006 at 09:44 PM | #

< Back Home