Conquer Club

IcePack wrote:Quick edit doesn't work for me...

nietzsche wrote:(Nietzsche edit)

Funkyterrance wrote:I know it's much more fun to bitch but has anyone noticed that there have been some pretty thoughtful improvements to CC lately? The quick edit thing, the changes to the games waiting list, etc..

To risk not being in fashion, I would have to say CC has become more fun for me in the past month or so. Perhaps some credit is due to the new leadership? I'm thinking these changes are a sign of good things to come.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I know it's much more fun to bitch but has anyone noticed that there have been some pretty thoughtful improvements to CC lately? The quick edit thing, the changes to the games waiting list, etc..

To risk not being in fashion, I would have to say CC has become more fun for me in the past month or so. Perhaps some credit is due to the new leadership? I'm thinking these changes are a sign of good things to come.

Still not seeing any substantial changes that will entice more new comers to stay here.

The quickedit feature was a waste of resources which satisfied x-amount of regular forum users, who are a very small minority of the total users.


But I wonder: How satisfying is the Quickedit feature for the mods and CC-volunteers?

TeeGee wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I know it's much more fun to bitch but has anyone noticed that there have been some pretty thoughtful improvements to CC lately? The quick edit thing, the changes to the games waiting list, etc..

To risk not being in fashion, I would have to say CC has become more fun for me in the past month or so. Perhaps some credit is due to the new leadership? I'm thinking these changes are a sign of good things to come.

Still not seeing any substantial changes that will entice more new comers to stay here.

The quickedit feature was a waste of resources which satisfied x-amount of regular forum users, who are a very small minority of the total users.


But I wonder: How satisfying is the Quickedit feature for the mods and CC-volunteers?

I haven't had a chance to use it yet.. can I play with your posts?

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Still not seeing any substantial changes that will entice more new comers to stay here.

The quickedit feature was a waste of resources which satisfied x-amount of regular forum users, who are a very small minority of the total users.


But I wonder: How satisfying is the Quickedit feature for the mods and CC-volunteers?

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Still not seeing any substantial changes that will entice more new comers to stay here.

The quickedit feature was a waste of resources which satisfied x-amount of regular forum users, who are a very small minority of the total users.


But I wonder: How satisfying is the Quickedit feature for the mods and CC-volunteers?

Like I said, it's more in fashion to complain/focus on the negative.

I was under the impression that the quick-edit function was a relatively easy thing to do(a function that has probably been available for a while, just nobody specifically asked for it) so admin maybe figured "why not?" and threw us a bone?

If they continue to have this philosophy I can only see good things resulting. Experimenting with easy changes first is a mark of efficiency and any sound businessman knows that efficiency is key.

The fact of the matter is that on this site, for every suggested change there are 20 people who object to it, giving a possibly falsely negative response to it, regardless of how easy a fix it may be. Given this, I feel that trial and error may be the best route to increased membership. Let the numbers dictate what's a good idea, not the loudest complainer.

EDIT: Just noticed after this post that the CC clock has been implemented. My whole point of this thread was to point out how CC is actually doing something as of late. Time will tell if these changes are going to draw in new people/satisfy veterans but these new changes are to me an indication of a more proactive leadership.

iAmCaffeine wrote:The quick edit feature will have been a rather simple php upgrade of some kind, not like many resources will have gone into that so I don't see a problem there.

TeeGee wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I know it's much more fun to bitch but has anyone noticed that there have been some pretty thoughtful improvements to CC lately? The quick edit thing, the changes to the games waiting list, etc..

To risk not being in fashion, I would have to say CC has become more fun for me in the past month or so. Perhaps some credit is due to the new leadership? I'm thinking these changes are a sign of good things to come.

Still not seeing any substantial changes that will entice more new comers to stay here.

The quickedit feature was a waste of resources which satisfied x-amount of regular forum users, who are a very small minority of the total users.


But I wonder: How satisfying is the Quickedit feature for the mods and CC-volunteers?

I haven't had a chance to use it yet.. can I play with your posts?

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

TeeGee wrote:

nietzsche wrote:(Nietzsche edit)

Looks like I miss all the good stuff

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

This is of course absolutely true but It's also generally in the best interest of a company to satisfy it's loyal customers as well as it's potential ones. In other words, rewarding loyal customers and maximizing profit are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

While BBS may be able to tell us the textbook definition of what makes a market, he's just as clueless as the rest of us as to what specific changes will create a more marketable CC.
Again, I feel that activity/experimentation is more likely to find the answer to membership decline than inactivity/pussy-footing around what the "voice" of the community says, which consists of a relatively small handful of users AKA forum goers. It's great to get ideas from players but I don't see the harm in trying out updates to see their impact membership-wise if they seem like they are worthy.

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

Companies don't gear toward a loss intentionally, but please argue that they do. If not, then we can agree that profit is the goal. Although there are many means and different targets of profit, that still doesn't refute the fact that companies strive to become profitable. Note: profit-maximization has to be understood in context too (i.e. it is particular to time and place).

RE: the underlined,
no one here is saying that's the end of the world, but strawman full speed ahead, sir.

Although a few customers may have been satisfied with marginal improvements, does that correct the current trend of decline? Does that bring CC to the path of long-run profitability? (Is that even the goal of the owner, or is he hoping to sell soon and be done with it?)

If these insignificant improvements do not lead to profitability, then those resources (thought, time, labor, etc.) which were spent on improving insignificant aspects were wasted--relative to pursuing better opportunities. Do you feel that CC is pursuing the better opportunities?

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

Companies don't gear toward a loss intentionally, but please argue that they do. If not, then we can agree that profit is the goal. Although there are many means and different targets of profit, that still doesn't refute the fact that companies strive to become profitable. Note: profit-maximization has to be understood in context too (i.e. it is particular to time and place).

RE: the underlined,
no one here is saying that's the end of the world, but strawman full speed ahead, sir.

Although a few customers may have been satisfied with marginal improvements, does that correct the current trend of decline? Does that bring CC to the path of long-run profitability? (Is that even the goal of the owner, or is he hoping to sell soon and be done with it?)

If these insignificant improvements do not lead to profitability, then those resources (thought, time, labor, etc.) which were spent on improving insignificant aspects were wasted--relative to pursuing better opportunities. Do you feel that CC is pursuing the better opportunities?

Do you have evidence that the site is in a "current trend of decline," or that it is not currently "long-run profitable?"

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

This is of course absolutely true but It's also generally in the best interest of a company to satisfy it's loyal customers as well as it's potential ones. In other words, rewarding loyal customers and maximizing profit are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Funkyterrance wrote:While BBS may be able to tell us the textbook definition of what makes a market, he's just as clueless as the rest of us as to what specific changes will create a more marketable CC.

Funkyterrance wrote:Again, I feel that activity/experimentation is more likely to find the answer to membership decline than inactivity/pussy-footing around what the "voice" of the community says, which consists of a relatively small handful of users AKA forum goers. It's great to get ideas from players but I don't see the harm in trying out updates to see their impact membership-wise if they seem like they are worthy.

show

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:This may surprise BBS, but it is not actually a law anywhere that companies must make the most profit-maximizing decisions. Sometimes a company can make a decision to reward its most loyal customers, and it's really not the end of the world.

Companies don't gear toward a loss intentionally, but please argue that they do. If not, then we can agree that profit is the goal. Although there are many means and different targets of profit, that still doesn't refute the fact that companies strive to become profitable. Note: profit-maximization has to be understood in context too (i.e. it is particular to time and place).

RE: the underlined,
no one here is saying that's the end of the world, but strawman full speed ahead, sir.

Although a few customers may have been satisfied with marginal improvements, does that correct the current trend of decline? Does that bring CC to the path of long-run profitability? (Is that even the goal of the owner, or is he hoping to sell soon and be done with it?)

If these insignificant improvements do not lead to profitability, then those resources (thought, time, labor, etc.) which were spent on improving insignificant aspects were wasted--relative to pursuing better opportunities. Do you feel that CC is pursuing the better opportunities?

Do you have evidence that the site is in a "current trend of decline," or that it is not currently "long-run profitable?"

I'm not going to address your question until you reciprocate. Otherwise, you're not proving that you're worth the discussion.