I knew at an early age that I wanted to make a career out of writing about games, and now I have. You'll find most of my stuff right here on HonestGamers, of course, but don't be surprised if my name pops up elsewhere. Living out my dream keeps me very busy, and I wouldn't have it any other way!
I like to expose myself to a fairly wide variety of movies, so when I found out that "Keeping Mum" existed (and that Maggie Smith and Rowan Atkinson both had roles), I knew it was a movie that should nicely supplement my almost steady diet of action movies and depthless comedies.
I'm a member of Netflix now, and it occurred to me that I can easily review movies on a regular basis now, as I watch them. My wife and I take turns picking out movies--I pick two and then she does the same--so some of what I'll review wasn't me making a boneheaded rental. It was her. Also, I don't prioritize for new movies. I rent whatever I feel like (or whatever she feels like). Anyway, here's some of the backlog...
Waiting for Guffman
Christopher Guest is a fairly funny guy, sometimes. I liked what I saw of "Best in Show," so I gave this one a chance and liked it a little bit less. It was a fairly predictable mockumentary and perhaps not as funny because the people it portrayed weren't funny so much as they were sad.
I noticed some funny business going on with the ratings system, in that the rank associated with games was not displaying properly. I found out that this was because the INT field in the database didn't want to accept decimals (the most common number in that system), and therefore the rankings were all skewed (since they're generated on the fly).
Anyway, I've done some coding behind the scenes and now games should rank properly. As far as I can tell, only games with five or more ratings are ranked (which was my goal). If you visit a profile for a game without enough ratings to qualify, you'll see "N/A" in place of a ranking.
Games that have received the same precise ranking score are then organized according to number of total ratings.
I'm preparing a news story to make it official throughout the site, but I drew the name of the raffle ticket winner (and four alternates, in case he can't provide a suitable address for shipment). The winner is...
Congratulations to all who participated, and congratulations especially to bsulpher!
The site server seems to be having a rough time of things right now. I've done everything I can to rectify the issue on this end. I just went through and trimmed out a bunch of fat in the source code.
I've also reorganized how the site ranks games. It will now rank them according to the ratings you assign games. This is an important change that will filter through the site over the next few days as game profiles are loaded by search engines (and you). In the end, it should mean that the recommendations you give games affect what users most readily see as they browse and visit from other locations.
For awhile now (I say when referencing a feature that as a whole has been available on the site less than 48 hours total), your ratings have been compiled and organized in a way that allows the site to display the top-rated games in the database. You just might not have known it.
Now, I've finally finished tweaking code so that the results display in an attractive, interesting fashion. You can see general results here:
It's worth noting that these results are real-time. The page will display ratings that reflect whatever is in the database at the moment you load it.
The Wii giveaway is coming up soon, and I'm sure you're all as excited as I am.
There's also a new feature on the site that has me very excited. It lets you rate games, as many of you have noticed. To me, that has all sorts of potential to really improve our audience of involved participants, but only if we start out strong.
So far, we seem to be doing precisely that. A lot of you are rating games left and right, and I appreciate that... enough so, in fact, that I'm going to offer a new incentive that is available this weekend only.