The problem with answering your questions isn’t that I can’t find answers. It’s that I don’t consider the questions themselves to be valid. It’s a straw man, Tony.

Thanks. You might just be a baboon with a keyboard, but both your comments and your blog have been added to my daily reading material. And to think, I found you through the Carnival.

Thomas

Part of the whole point of the Internet is that any baboon with a keyboard can contribute. I get the feeling that even if this were edited, you’d still be complaining, because the editor wouldn’t necessarily have any credentials, nonsensical as that may be. I think there’s plenty of room for indie games journalism to improve in multiple ways. Some of us may choose the Carnival, and others may choose more established outlets.

But let’s look at those established outlets. If I were to write for “indie game writing,” where would I go? I could certainly write for Insert Credit or one of the webmags, but couldn’t we level the same criticism at them? I like IC, but there’s no denying that it can be uneven and rambling, and what I want to say may not fit its style. Wherever you go on the Internet, it’ll always be baboons with keyboards. For that matter, according to your own website you’ve done all right being a baboon with a keyboard–you’re an art school dropout who decided to strike out and become a cartoonist. You’ve done a lot of writing for online magazines. Good for you! Seriously! …what’s the point? How does that relate to a collection of amateur writings that were clearly marked as unedited? And why is it that this concept is so offensive? Can you tell us what REAL harm it’s doing to indie journalism, or are you just making it up?

Okay, there is more to games writing than what the Carnival is providing. Like what? Do you have any concrete examples, or are you just pointing to the nebulous sky and crying for the gods to fill the void? I’m not understand what the problem is here. You have a real beef with the lack of editing, but you won’t actually give us any examples.

Just because something is not being written in an edited environment does not make it automatically invalid. I’ve done both, and clearly so have you. Are your opinions on your blog worthless, just because you didn’t have to work them through an editorial desk? I wouldn’t accuse you of that, personally. I think it’d be rude, and it would miss the point.

And likewise, just because we’re not writing for an establishment publication, it doesn’t make our criticisms of these publications less valid. We’re (theoretically) the people who are reading those magazines–or not, whatever the case may be. Some of us are trying to point out WHY we don’t read them. Meanwhile, editors and writers for those media outlets are whining about how no-one understands, and no-one is buying, and why don’t they get any respect? There’s a fundamental communication mismatch here, and I think it’s coming from the fact that you feel like you’re under attack.

Well, you may be. But that’s not our problem. We’re not here to make you feel better about yourself.

I started a blog because I need to write–it’s part of who I am. Speaking for myself, I may write badly or I may write well. Clearly, you think I need to improve, and I really would like to take that advice to heart. But saying that I’m more interested in attention than improving, well, that’s not good feedback. What would you have me do instead? We think this is a cool idea. Would you consider it “more indy” if we just left it in a tiny corner of the Internet, instead of letting other people know about it? What’s the point of writing if nobody reads? Tell me, did you become a freelance jack of all trades by remaining quietly off in the middle of no-where?

I’m breathing deeply, Tony. I won’t claim that I’m necessarily calm, because I think this is a frustrating discussion, and I’m passionate about it. But I’m trying my best to figure out just what it is you’d rather us do, because as far as I can tell you just want us to be docile little readers for your content. I’m not willing to do that.

As I’ve said, I’d genuinely like to listen to some good feedback on improving the Carnival. When do we get to hear it?

You seem to be full of critique but lacking completely in solutions. Oh dear, so buttonmashing actually tracked the traffic. You act like that’s a totally useless statistic, which is just completely seperate from the reality of running any kind of website. Oh, so the Carnival doesn’t “weed out undesirables”. Well, so what. If people submit to the CoG and don’t see any real uptick to their traffic or new responses, they’ll probably stop after a while. And if some “baboon with a keyboard” actually ended up being entertaining to people, then it works out. Nobody had to be the judge or editor-in-chief who decided for the reader what they should or shouldn’t read.

And let me repeat this clearly, because you, Gallant, et al just can’t seem to get it through your skulls. The Carnival didn’t make any statement on the mainstream media. The Carnival is not out to start a revolution, or overthrow the man, or spark anyone’s career. If some of the blogs made statements about the MSM – go discuss it with them. That was, after all, the point you guys seem to fail to understand. Instead you bitch about stats and “lead articles” and mandates and whatever.

Your contribution is for us to step back and breathe? Take your own advice, because you are taking this whole thing way too seriously. If you have a post to contribute, offer it up. If you reallly didn’t like any of the posts mentioned, then well … sorry. I’ll see if we can get you a full refund. If you did, you might follow the Carnival next week to see what those blogs contribute again.

Otherwise, I don’t really see what you have to contribute, other than complaining needlessly. And if you think that’s what game blogs need, you won’t be missed. If Gallant had just went to Tea Leaves and took his complaints there, then he could have actually debated it with the blogger. Instead he and you seem determined to focus elsewhere.

I’ll tell what isn’t “helping indie games journalism”, and it’s bickering and bitching like that.

I think what I’ve been suggesting since my first post is that hits are a bad way to measure success, unless your definition of success is getting traffic. Other than this, I’ve responded to comments about the merits of traffic data. I can’t really control what kind of “vibes” you get from my postings, but I think if you wear a tinfoil hat it might help.

Here are my lengthier thoughts at this time:
I get the impression that perfecting your craft seems to play second fiddle to getting attention. I think that’s a shame. The Carnival doesn’t even have a quality filter, which means any baboon with a keyboard can contribute. How can you complain about the standards of the so-called “mainstream” games media when the Carnival has no standards of its own? I feel that the Carnival isn’t helping indie games journalism. On the contrary, I think it’s painting a pretty poor picture. There is so much more to games writing than what the Carnival offers. My contribution to the Carnival is inviting you to take a step back and breathe.

The stats won’t be useful until the next Carnival. Then you have a basis of comparison. The more Carnivals, the more data, and then the numbers will actually mean something.

And, no offense, but what will we do with them then? If the numbers go down, are we doomed? Or would that mean we’ve scared off the riffraff?

I think the numbers debate is being blown way out of proportion. As Van Hemlock said, Tony did a great job with the idea and pulling this together, and now he’s happy to have seen so many visits–which seems to be the spirit with which he posted the numbers. That doesn’t mean the Carnival will go away if the hits change one way or another.

My guess is that the second Carnival will see less traffic, but that the traffic in general for the event will trend upward from there over time. That’s how this kind of thing normally works. That’s fine by me. I’ve found some great new blogs to read through this Carnival, and trust me when I say that there’s also great material coming for the next edition. If the Carnival isn’t your cup of tea, then that’s fine too.

I think there’s valid criticism of what we’re trying to do here. I think there’s a mature way to discuss the editing (a point I’ve raised in the past, and actually have changed my mind on) or what we’re trying to accomplish, exactly. I don’t think raising a straw man about the numbers will help anything.

I’m curious, Tony Walsh. I get a weird kind of passive-aggressive vibe from your posts, but I’m willing to admit that I might just be reading them wrong amidst all the drama here. Do you have any lengthier thoughts on the Carnival? Will you be contributing at some point?

Based on attendance alone, you don’t know if people entered the gates to see a Carnival or a Freak Show. Even if you knew they’d come just to experience the Carnival, you don’t know how many of them puked on the rides.

The stats won’t be useful until the next Carnival. Then you have a basis of comparison. The more Carnivals, the more data, and then the numbers will actually mean something.