The new boards page is coming along well and I'm now looking for suggestions for board tags. These will be used as a quick way to filter which boards are visible in the boards list. At least initially these tags would be set by the board reviewers at the time of reviewing the board.

So far I have:

Geographic (anything based on map type geography)
Novelty (e.g. pinball, arcade style games)
Duel (2 player only boards)
Classic (simple Risk like boards)
Abstract (
Fictional (boards based on places that don't exist) 

I am looking for around 10-20 different tags initially. There will be separate filters for size, popularity, difficulty, fog etc so don't worry about these.

World, Europe, North America,  (More specific on the geography)

Sports, Board Games, Video Games, 

Tri, Quad (to go along with Duel)

I second Sports, Board Games, and Video Games.

Other ideas:

Books/Movies/TV (may fall under Fictional?)

Space

Tactical

Hordes

Non-Combat (Five, Seven, etc.)

And I'm going to go ahead and link WF just for ideas: http://wiki.warfish.net/wiki/Board_Tags

Would be cool if you could somehow automate the Game Duration information on a Board's Chart page, so boards with 75% of games completed within 3 days as Quick, within 7 as Fast, within 30 days as Average, within 60 days as Slow, above 60 days as Long... or something.

I guess this could be a tag set by reviewers, but could be tough and would be nice if it was automatic (and since it appears this info is present for the Charts page perhaps it could be).

Yes although duration is heavily related to number of players. Probably need to gather some stats on game speeds to see how this distributes first.

tom wrote:

Yes although duration is heavily related to number of players. Probably need to gather some stats on game speeds to see how this distributes first.

But if you go with 75% (or some percent), then wouldn't you get the average duration within the average game size?  Which would give a "good enough" representation to slap a tag on a board.

/e awaits to be bombarded by the math gurus...

are they going to fall into more than one category? for example nadroj's WoT maps will be 'geographical' but also 'book/fictional'

Yertle wrote:

And I'm going to go ahead and link WF just for ideas: http://wiki.warfish.net/wiki/Board_Tags

That is rather handy! I think a lot of those can be automated. Perhaps we should also discuss what the criteria should be for Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced boards.

Should there be separate Main Category and themes? I was thinking of rolling those both into 'tags' so a board could be tagged both 'Geographic' and 'Fictional'.

I like the idea of multiple tags to a board, although perhaps a Main Category would be nice...

I believe Comrogue came up with most of the layout/info on that WF wiki page...it is laid out pretty good.

A "top board" tag could be useful for the 5 or 10 most popular boards on the previous month, for example.

Agreed the WF tags look pretty good.  

I would be for eliminating the "main" category though and going with all "theme" tags.

geometric and/or tiled

2 other possibilities:

1) (Since I just asked about it in the forums last week) Maybe Artillery is a tag?

2) (although it is already available via Player Info screen...) Board Designer
I find myself drawn to Yertle and Kjeld's boards, so maybe I want to go find another one of theirs to play.
Maybe it's a "Thank You" to the prolific board designers who we all appreciate:  once you've brought 5 boards to WG, you get your own tag??

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

Yes although duration is heavily related to number of players. Probably need to gather some stats on game speeds to see how this distributes first.

But if you go with 75% (or some percent), then wouldn't you get the average duration within the average game size?  Which would give a "good enough" representation to slap a tag on a board.

/e awaits to be bombarded by the math gurus...

I think Yertle's right:

Yes, number of players does play a huge role.
But I think that most (if not all) boards will have a tendency to move towards an ideal number of players for that board.
For instance, Antastic/Colossal Crusade/Europe 1560 would generally drift towards games of many players, while boards like any Mario board/Micro Mission would drift towards games with fewer players.

I'm not saying that someone couldn't start a "small game" board with 12 people, but that's why you add Yertle's percentage in:  to remove the outliers.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

Yes although duration is heavily related to number of players. Probably need to gather some stats on game speeds to see how this distributes first.

But if you go with 75% (or some percent), then wouldn't you get the average duration within the average game size?  Which would give a "good enough" representation to slap a tag on a board.

/e awaits to be bombarded by the math gurus...

Could we compute an average time per player?  So come up with something like an average of 4.25 days per player on Antastic? 

In either this or Yertle's idea we are looking at rough estimates, but I think doing so has merit.

Should game duration be measured in rounds instead of days?  It seems like that would be the more useful measurement.  In fact I guess you could measure in turns - would that help to normalize the # of players factor?  

Then you'd probably want to use the avg. # of rounds or turns to bin into a more useful category like the ones Yertle suggested (quick, average, slow, etc.)

Edit: I think this is functionally equivalent to Amidon's suggestion.

How about recently added maps? Filtering newest to oldest or vice versa

Yes that view has been added. The new page is almost done, I'll release it to the test players tomorrow all being well.

tom wrote:

Yes that view has been added. The new page is almost done, I'll release it to the test players tomorrow all being well.

This in testing?

I decided to wait until after the long weekend to avoid and potential disruption. This will happen after the server move on Tuesday, assuming all goes well.