Shipped Various improvements

[Frode]

Many of these will also apply to the GameHub main addon

1) Can this be removed or hidden? For SEO maybe it’s OK to keep? But it steals vital space at the top. Especially this is important in regard to mobile, as you don’t want too many unnecessary things to take up valuable space at the top of their screen before the main content. The breadcrumb is OK, but no need for the intro text to be visible, don't you agree?


Same with this:

The info text. Then the “games, ratings, players” is already listed in the sidebar below. So, we can save space and remove it from the search bar.

Keep the one in the sidebar:

2) Recent plays:
I would move the score info boxes up to the top of the “sidebar”. I want it to be more visible for the users. They are still hidden by default.
And as you see with my long recent play log, it takes up a lot of space on the page. Literally all the screen on mobile view ^^. It is probably better that the more important information is viewed first.
So “At the table/the box says…” is first, then recent plays, then before you play and so on. If there are many more recent plays (which there hopefully will be!) or they are long, like mine - maybe a collapse/expand option at X characters? Or something that allows users to browse between them without reloading the whole page.

Add the ability to be able to edit the plays log?


3) Featured widget on Games front page: Remove the “add a game” button. It is already at the top of the page, and it looks very odd on mobile view. Also, could you add the option to “feature a game”? Default XF function. (for those with the permission to do so).

4) Copy field (to copy the content from the base game) when adding expansion/stand-alone expansion does not appear. Bug?


5) Improvement to the base game / expansion links:

There are a few metrics that I see will be challenging in terms of not providing the best data set to the reader. As often, many expansions (especially small ones) are rated and viewed both individually but also together with the base game. Most traffic is usually found on the base games, and many just rate the base game, with already all their expansions also in mind (since that’s what they own). This will sadly muddle the ratings for the game, as some will do it correctly (rate the base game objectively alone) and some will rate with several expansions in mind.

Mockup of the design:


5a) Base game page:
I would divide the top game bar into Grade & weight for base game, and then grade & weight for optimal experience with expansions.
I think to boost the usability of the database, a new module should be used: “Recommended Experience with expansions”. Condition: If_expansion OR expansion_standalone: Show module. Do not show with revised edition, as that is basically a new rendition of the original game, and generally old content is not compatible anymore with it. So, there is no need to show this if no expansions have been added to the database. It should be the top module on the page, right below the header. Before “at the table” and “the box says”. See mockup for suggestion

The module would include the full details for what was teased in the header (which was just the actual grade and weight):
Best score/weight for base game (as today) & best score/weight for “base game + expansions”. Below it, it will list the expansions the user has added to this “optimal score”. Example: Expansion A, B, D, but NOT C. A nice way to show it would be a list of all the expansions the game has, and a green check-mark or red X cross next to the expansions included in the optimal score. There is also a text field so the user can provide an explanation for his choices.

Would also be super cool if below this, there was a small comment field where users could drop their comments! These are very trimmed in layout (do not include the full user area with group banners etc etc, to save as much space as possible). Just name, date and small avatar. A max of 3 comments are shown before you have to expand the next section. This comment section can also collapse once you are done browsing. The default is show = 3.

Grade for this score can be down or upvoted, like the “rules people get wrong” or “house rules”. Only the top suggestion will show, you have to click “next” to view other alternatives (if any) to the optimal combination of expansions.

This is because for many base games that have lots of expansions, rarely is anyone going to play that game alone without some of the expansion content. And usually (but not always!), they improve the content in the base game. The same can be said for Gamehub and PC games, when new expansions are released!

Similar to your module “At the table”, this would be very relevant to provide. We could also provide the setup/teaching time and optimal player counts of the two experiences, as that could differ substantially. If it does not (result is the same), it could just show the base game table.


5b) Expansion & stand-alone expansion page:
Almost untouched. Just would be useful with a reminder on the expansion page: "The suggested weight, setup/rule time, is based on explaining/complexity of the expansion content only. For example, if the setup time for the expansion is 10 minutes, that means the expansion simply adds 10 min to the total setup time for the game".

 

[Gwendal]

All of it is in 1.1.0, on the store now. Taking your points in order, then the big one.

1. The intro line and the duplicate counters​

You are right, and the SEO worry has a clean answer. That sentence is what XenForo prints from the page description, and the same description also becomes the meta description search engines read. Those two can be separated: the meta description still goes out, the visible line does not. Nothing is lost for SEO and a phone screen starts on the content.

It is an option, off by default, so anyone who wants the sentence back can have it.

The three counters beside the search box are gone. The sidebar already carries them two inches below.

2. Recent plays​

Reordered exactly as you asked: At the table, then The box says, the table says, then your recent plays, then Before you play. Your long report was the right example of why, and it is the kind of thing that only shows up once someone actually uses the add-on.

The two guide panels moved to the top of the right column, still closed.

A long play report is now folded with a Read more link that expands in place, no reload. The threshold is an option, 420 characters by default, and zero never folds.

And yes, a play can now be edited. Until now the only way to fix a typo was to delete and rewrite, which lost the original date.

3. The featured widget​

The second Add a game button is gone.

Featuring a game by hand now works through the standard XenForo function, permission controlled, from the menu on the game page. The block on the games home follows that choice and falls back to the best rated game when nothing is featured, so nothing changes for a board that never touches it. A featured game also shows up in XenForo's own Featured content, so it can go on the forum home if you want it there.

4. The copy field does not appear​

A real bug, and an instructive one. XenForo puts the marker attribute on the inner list of a checkbox row, while the class that hides the row sits on the row itself. So the script was faithfully revealing an element that had never been hidden, and the row stayed shut. It now walks up to the row, wherever the attribute lands.

While chasing it I found a second one behind it: every moderation action on a game that writes to the moderator log was failing silently, approving and renaming included, because two required fields were never filled in. Fixed too.

5. Base game and expansions​

This is the best suggestion anyone has sent me about this add-on, and it is built.

The problem you describe is real and it is not solvable by averaging harder: a single number cannot mean both "the box on its own" and "the box with everything I own". So there are now two readings, and the page says which is which.

The module. On a base game that has expansions in the database, a member proposes a combination: which expansions are worth having, which to skip, and what the game becomes with them. Rating, both complexity axes, setup, teaching and playing time, and how it plays at each player count. Every expansion in the database is listed with a check or a cross, so what was deliberately left out is as visible as what was included, and there is a field to say why.

Others vote it up or down the same way they do a rules note. The best supported one is shown, the rest are one click away with Next suggestion. Each proposal has its own comment thread, three shown before a Show all link, trimmed to name, date and a small avatar as you asked.

It sits directly under the header, before At the table. It does not appear on revised editions, on expansions themselves, or on a game with no expansions in the database, since it would have nothing to say.

The header. Base game rating and weight, and beside them the same two for the recommended experience, linking down to the module.

At the table and the player counts. Both show two columns when the combination declares different times or different verdicts, and stay single when the expansions change nothing. Your two mockups, essentially.

One deliberate difference from your sketch. The with expansions player counts come from the proposal itself, not from a second round of community voting. Asking your members to vote twice on every game would thin out both polls, and the person who worked out the combination is the person who knows how it plays. The base game poll is untouched.

5b. Expansion pages now carry the reminder, close to your wording: the complexity and the times describe the expansion content on its own, so ten minutes of setup means ten minutes added to the base game, not ten minutes in total.

Two permissions come with it: suggesting a combination, granted to registered members on install, and editing or deleting anyone's, granted to moderators.

On GameHub​

You are right that most of this applies there too. Everything here was built in the board game edition first because that is where you are using it. I will port what makes sense once this has had some real use, and your point about expansions for PC games holds.

Thank you for this one. Most feedback tells me what is broken. This told me something about the data model that I had not seen.

 

[Frode]

Thank you Gwendal! Going on vacation for some days now, but once I get back it is back to adding stuff to the db!