Page 2 of 3

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:23 Oct 2013, 14:00
by MZ per X
Ultyzarus wrote:I think we have to implement release dates by time zone ;)
*MZ per X hastily searches for something to throw at Ultyzarus...*

No, wait. We already have regional release dates, that should suffice. :)

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:23 Oct 2013, 14:14
by Ultyzarus
MZ per X wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:I think we have to implement release dates by time zone ;)
*MZ per X hastily searches for something to throw at Ultyzarus...*

No, wait. We already have regional release dates, that should suffice. :)
Oh yeah, the feature we were discussing earlier would apply here! :D Thanks!


Btw, sorry for spamming the forums :P It looks like I'm always commenting / replying on everything XD

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:23 Oct 2013, 16:45
by MZ per X
Ultyzarus wrote:Btw, sorry for spamming the forums :P It looks like I'm always commenting / replying on everything XD
No matter how hard you'll try, I will prevail. :mrgreen:

BTW I added a yes/no property to the release dates with which we can manually set the one release date to be shown in the data displays. I don't think an automatic algorithm is of much use here.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 16:46
by Ultyzarus
Here is a more academic approach by Indra, it basically covers Data List 25 and what we discussed here:


Proposal for Release Info Source Standards v1.1 (Tentative)

By Indra und Fred.



Description:

The following sources provide a hierarchy standard of evidence when citing sources for relese information, ordered from the lowest source (Level 1) to the strongest source. A small link or notice of the source level should be provided adjacent to the data being presented.



This hierarchy is loosely based on the scientific rules of evidence and accepted academic citation standards.



Level 1: Unconfirmed sources.

Covers sources where it's authenticity cannot be validated. This also included eye-witness testimony, regardless how reliable or reputable the individual providing the information is.



Level 1 sources should not be quoted for professional/official use or research.

Level 1(a): Eyewitness Testimony

Includes various forms of personal research, individual memory-based sources, or hearsay.

Level 1(b): Unofficial Authorative Source

Publisher, developer, or team sources via non-official sources. Also includes information provided by individual developers on their personal website/blog or a forum post.

Level 1(c): Additional Development Source

Information provided by additional development parties, not part of the main development team.

Level 1(d): Actual shipping date

Sometimes games are shipped one day after the official statement/notice. Usually based on eyewitness testimony.



Level 2: Manufacturer sources

Covers sources located within the software, media, manual, or packaging.



Level 2 sources should not be quoted for professional/official use or research.

Level 2(a): Copyright

Usually presented with a "(c) year" or similar variations, indicating the beginning date/year of the intellectual property rights of the holder. Note, that for game releases, that a copyright does not necessarily mean the date/year of its publication. Some (earlier) games have been known to be have a copyright year before its publication or even before the release of its intended platform. Copyright information may be presented within the software (e.g. in-game menu, read-me file, license agreement) or hard copy materials (e.g. media, manual, packaging).

Level 2(b): File Date

Some platforms (e.g. PC Booter, DOS, Windows) may have date information within its media, usually referring to file creation dates of individual files. When using this source, the latest file date is used. Note that this only identifies the latest file creation date, which usually does not correspond with the actual game release date.



Level 3: Third Party Journalism Sources

Covers sources via third party game journalism. Includes online gaming sites, reputable or otherwise (may require a separate standard to identify reliability of these third party sources).



Level 3(a): Gaming website source
Level 3(b): Gaming magazine source

Level 2 sources should not be quoted for professional/official use or research.



Level 4: Third Party Distributor Sources

Level 4(a): Official Games Distributor

Examples: Gamestop, Amazon, Play-Asia, etc.

Level 4(b): Official E-Shops

Examples: Nintendo eShop, Sony Entertainment Network, PlayStation Network, etc.



Level 4 sources may be quoted for professional/official use or research at user discretion.

However, please note that data entry human error are still known to occur from these sources.



Level 5: Authoritative Source (Online)

Covers sources by an authoritative party (i.e. publisher or developer) in their website. However, usually not in the form of an official statement. Usually identified as a release date in their gaming catalog.

Level 5 (a): News item from publisher website
Level 5 (b): News item from developer website
Level 5 (c): Release date from publisher website (catalog)
Level 5 (d): Release data from developer website (catalog)

Level 5 sources may be quoted for professional/official use or research at user discretion.

However, please note that data entry human error are still known to occur from these sources.



Level 6: Authoritative Source (Documentation)

Covers sources by an authoritative party (i.e. publisher or developer) in the product. Usually the most complete information is provided the readme file (if any) or within the game manual or other equivalent documentation.



Level 6 sources may be quoted for professional/official use or research.



Level 7: Official source

Covers the official press release by the publisher or the developer. Usually easily accessible by most game journalists.



Level 7 sources may be quoted for professional/official use or research.



*still needs examples of how to cite these sources.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 20:51
by MZ per X
Ultyzarus wrote:Here is a more academic approach by Indra, it basically covers Data List 25 and what we discussed here:
Wow, would you dare updating Data List 25 to include this wonderful list?

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 20:56
by gene
MZ per X wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:Here is a more academic approach by Indra, it basically covers Data List 25 and what we discussed here:
Wow, would you dare updating Data List 25 to include this wonderful list?
Would't this be Indra's task?
He posted this list on facebook (and didn't say what it is meant for).

We should at least ask him.

Edit: Oh, it says "By Indra und Fred."

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 21:09
by Ultyzarus
gene wrote:
MZ per X wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:Here is a more academic approach by Indra, it basically covers Data List 25 and what we discussed here:
Wow, would you dare updating Data List 25 to include this wonderful list?
Would't this be Indra's task?
He posted this list on facebook (and didn't say what it is meant for).

We should at least ask him.

Edit: Oh, it says "By Indra und Fred."
My name is there only because I suggested some things that made the list go from 5 levels to 7.

I might update the data List 25 if I have time. We should start documenting what specific source (with links when possible) belong in which level.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 21:51
by MZ per X
gene wrote:Would't this be Indra's task? We should at least ask him.
Yes, we should. :)

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:05 Nov 2013, 22:15
by MZ per X
MZ per X wrote:
gene wrote:Would't this be Indra's task? We should at least ask him.
Yes, we should. :)
Oh, Fred did, and Indra approved. Cool! :)

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 03:39
by Ultyzarus
I'm wondering if we could enter release dates according to different sources the same way MG deals with their Moby Ranks. That would allow the contributors to submit the dates from different sources already in the database, which would in turn allow us to verify how accurate each source is. Of course the sources from the highest level (and highest reliability) would always be the one shown.

Let's say the best sources we have for a given date are wikipedia, gamefaqs and Moby Games. Since for other releases it was shown that MG was 90% accurate, gamefaqs 80% accurate and wikipedia 87% accurate (the system would compare the given date to the one of the best source for each different R), Moby Games would have the priority until a date from a highest level source is added (unless it is known that said date is wrong, in which case it could be manually flagged as such).

This could be troublesome to implement, but would probably be a good tool for anyone consulting Oregami for research purposes, as it would easily allow cross-referencing the different official and non-official sources.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 15:47
by MZ per X
Not sure, could one call this consequent stealing? :) Of course, our first aim should be on original research, I think.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 16:02
by Ultyzarus
MZ per X wrote:Not sure, could one call this consequent stealing? :) Of course, our first aim should be on original research, I think.
I don't get what you mean.
This would still put the priority on the top-level (official) sources while providing the most accurate dates when those top sources can't be accessed. The cited sources could even consult our database to verify the accuracy of their own dates, and academics could use it to compare the different sources (if one had such a research to do ;) )

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 17:02
by Trypticon
I don't consider Gamefaqs to be a credible source for certain platforms, and for the ones I do consider it reliable it's probably more of a question of comfort when I base something on it, rather than the unavailability of anything else.
Wikipedia itself instead of external sources given there seems more like a last resort solution as well.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 17:08
by MZ per X
Ultyzarus wrote:
MZ per X wrote:Not sure, could one call this consequent stealing? :) Of course, our first aim should be on original research, I think.
I don't get what you mean. This would still put the priority on the top-level (official) sources while providing the most accurate dates when those top sources can't be accessed. The cited sources could even consult our database to verify the accuracy of their own dates, and academics could use it to compare the different sources (if one had such a research to do ;) )
While I can see the value in this, I also see the danger of people mass-contributing such release dates. Okay, we could control this by the reward, when a source of level 1 will yield less points than a level 7 source.

Re: Release dates

PostPosted:06 Nov 2013, 17:12
by Ultyzarus
I wouldn't even give points (or very little for level 1 sources) since it's only linking to another website without any research actually done...
On another note, it would be good for those who actually try to use anything else than Wikipedia and Gamefaqs, to be rewarded for looking for trustworthy sources.

Anyway, it's just an idea, but I think being able to compare source trustworthyness and cross-referencing could be a big plus.