Talk:Gaia Online/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism?

What happened to the section about criticism? It was probably the best written section on this article.

I agree. It was also very relevant. Certainly more informative than describing every little feature of the site. Kyphe 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, without a counter-point, this article turns into a e-handjob.164.116.71.226 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What does THAT mean?!?! 71.224.225.84 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"infested with illiteracy"

I moved the criticism from the second paragraph of the article to here for discussion. The section appears to have been added by User:Raavea (diff here). Here's the text:

Though originally Gaia was intended as a place for like-minded individuals to get together and chat, roleplay, and generally escape from their lives, in recent years it has become steadily more gold-orientated. Though there are still nests of literacy amongst the forums, many users would arguably say that Gaia has begun to become infested with illiteracy and trolls.

I see two issues with this section that I'd like other's opinions on. I think the article should first describe what Gaia is, and putting criticism of a sub-area of the site in the second paragraph gives undue weight to the criticism. Also, I feel the criticism needs some credible citation to be included, and not "many would argue ...," because as stated it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV. I would like to hear what others think about this. --Zippy 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Gaia was NOT intended as a place for like-minded individuals to chat; it was originally made for anime links. 72.200.27.179 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticism has merit. The majority of the users on Gaia don't seem to know how to spell their own names.134.241.213.42 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an outside source for this information? Something more substantial than a blog entry? 'Cause Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, you need a source.Spriteless 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle System

I looked over the battle system. The quote about the rings being called "Battle Rings" is unverified. Someone had added similar uncited information on the gaiapedia and I was informed that the statement about Rings being the primary method of the game was true, but they had never been named "Battle Rings" or "Skill Rings" so technicaly if that is even there it shouldn't be quoted. A more acurate revision of the battle system was created here. Dantman 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit too large.

I notice lots of users randomly making up theories about unreleased features. For instance, saying that there will be "skin kits". That was a glitch taken advantage of by the CSS coding. This was a lot better off as a stub. It is a cesspool of illiteracy. 70.160.99.244

I think there should be one section for the flash/shockwave games, the arena doesn't need individual subsections, plot could be condensed, and the shop list could be removed. The top of the article looks decent, it seems people keep adding increasingly crufty content to the bottom. We don't need a subsection for each little feature.

Hoo, at first I thought this was for the talk page being too big. It's larger than the article!131.7.52.17 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability tag removed

OK, I'm being bold in my edits, so please bear with me. I removed the notability tag from the main article. There has been no serious discussion about Gaia not being notable in months. Further, the topic clearly passes both the Google and Alexa tests. The notability guidelines, being guidelines, are not set in stone, and I believe the topic has a clear hold on the claim of notability. However, I invite serious discussion here if anyone thinks the notability tag should go back up on the main article. --Zippy 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One addition - User:Ste4k, who I believe represented the "not notable" side on this discussion page, is blocked indefinitely from editing the Wikipedia according to their user page. --Zippy 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

GaiaOnline is clearly notable. The user who stuck that notability tag up there was probably a troll. Fairy Incognito 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is an assertion of notability (see WP:WEB, which explains the notability criteria for things on the web. Notability is not subjective, there are clearly defined criteria, at least in this category. It being a guideline is mostly irrelevant because a lot of the people who are familiar with the guideline follow it.): "As of 25 October 2006, Gaia is the largest English language forum on the Internet in terms of users and posts". However, there's no source. I think this really needs a citation (along with large parts of the article, but this one in particular). ColourBurst 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Added cite for "largest forum" claim. --Zippy 09:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

• This article is almost entirely original research. I highly suggest the editors involved in this article clean this thing up. If you'd rather have me get rid of all the unverifiable OR, drop me a message and I'll gladly do it. Wickethewok 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inacuracy from Citation

I looked at the demographic and it didn't look right. The demographic lists a source but doesn't seam to use the actual information given.

It states: "Around 58% of users are 18-21, 26% in the 13-16 range, and the other 16% are 12 and under or 20 and older. There are also some users as old as 60+, although the aforementioned age group isn't seen as often on the forums."

But the Demographic it lists at [1] gives the 13-16 range 58%, 17-20 26%, 21-24 as 6%, and 24+ and 12- respectively have 5% each.

Either the demographic should match the source given, or the source should be removed and proper citation for the demographic should be given, cause as it is, it looks like someone made a vanity edit for their age group. Dantman 03:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else is replying on what the real source for the current article is, I'm just going to fix it so that the demographic matches the one cited. Dantman 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it seams someone has already fixed the section but I didn't catch it. Dantman 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Quest System

Jebus, it had two sections and several references! How much should this warrent?131.7.52.17

 I'd say not much. It just started, and it's already down.Katthevamp 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert A

There were some remaining vandalism bits, the details box was a bit small, so just detailing reasons and reverts here: (PS: I did this all in one go by reverting to a older version by Escarbot) Revert changes can be seen by comparing these versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaia_Online&diff=91243329&oldid=90963468

• "[[War of the Worlds]]" was added to the page for some unknown reason, there is no official statement to Halloween 2k6 and War of the Worlds being similar, but even so, it's not in the right place, shouldn't this be part of the context of the section, not the title. (Excuse me for this one, this wasn't actually intentional, but I could only revert to a valid edit by removing this one. Feel free to re-add it to the proper area if it has a purpose, but I'm not the editor to find that)
• Extra =='s that were disrupting the page but were left over from a vandal was removed by the revert.
• Extra lines above Criticism and it's extra =='s was removed.
• Tektek link was removed again (Previous arguments have deemed this link not to be suitable for the article, also someone added "Sister-site" to the title of the link, and that's just plain false, it's a fan site with tools that have no use to a article reader.)

Dantman 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Term

"They also give donors in-game rewards of limited-edition gifts."

I think this should definitly be reworded seeing as the Administrators announced that your "donations" were now just being considered buying monthly collectables. Whether it was merely for legal reasons or not, they made it pretty clear that you were buying the item, rather than donating, and then recieving the item as a gift. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.174.92 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Content Removal

Some Content from Monthly Collectibles was removed:
Monthy Collectables prices tend to inflate the fastest of items in Gaia, ranging from 1.5 million to over 10 million for donation items from 2003. The most expensive donation/collectable item is the first one, the Angelic Halo, though it is the least versatile. There is no upper limit on its price - assuming an owner chooses to part with the item to begin with. Many users donate large amounts of (real world) money to profit from selling them on the site, making them a major part of Gaia. Monthly Collectables are highly sought after, due to their rarity and ability to be worn by avatars in many ways.

I don't know if this should actually be removed. The facts that some of the 2003 items reach past 10 million gold in price is true, and the parts of inflation and the lack of a upper limit on price. Dantman 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought the same thing, but was unsure of whether to altogether remove it or to just edit it. DroEsperanto 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed unvarifiable user demographic statistics

I removed this part of the article:

Around 58% of users are 13-16, 26% in the 17-20 range, 6% around 21 and 24, 5% less than 12, and 5% more than 24. There are also some users over 60, although the age group isn't seen as often on the forums.

The source that it cited on these numbers was a thread on Gaia. The poster stated that this was the only "official" report, but since this user is not affiliated with Gaia and did not gather these numbers, nor did she say where she got these numbers, I would not call her a reliable source. This part of the article also didn't mention that these statistics are from well over a year ago, so it is not appropriate to use the present tense, which misleads the reader to think that those statistics still hold true, barring the aforementioned questionability of the numbers.

This also falls under the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources, which says not to cite bulletin board messages as sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DroEsperanto (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The source isn't actually the thread. A user just posted the source up in that thread. The actual source is the image displayed in the thread, it was from a demographic that Gaia Online took back in 2005 and the image should actually still be on their server. The image states that it's from 2005, but instead of deleting it completely, maybe we should cite the image distributed by Gaia and rephrase the section to state that this is from info a year old. Dantman 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it doesn't state the year in the image. But the source is actually from Gaiaonline http://graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/mediakit/mediakit_04_demographics.gif it's even on one of their servers. Dantman 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying that, other than what was said on a thread, which can't be cited as a source. Plus, I don't think year-old statistics are really relevant to the article as a whole. DroEsperanto 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Added cleanup and unreliable sources tags

I added the cleanup tag because much of the article seems to be various pieces of irrelevant information about Gaia that other editors (good-natured as they may be) added. This does to comply with the Wikipedia guideline on What Wikipedia is not.

I added the other tag because much of the article does not cite sources on things it should (for example, the NPC list was removed more than once for this reason, as was the Plot sections). There are also several things that cannot have sources cited for them because they are blatant opinions or personal experiences (which are not facts), and hopefully, this will help to fix this in the future.

DroEsperanto 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For the NPC list, wouldn't the fact that they actually exist as NPC user accounts which can only be created as NPC's as admins be proof of NPC existance. And as for Christmas, the note was placed before it, but alien's and Christmas together has been foreshadowed by the admins in a newsletter [2] and in a NPC interview [3][4]. Dantman 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would if those profiles were cited or linked in a reference tag thing in the list. However, they weren't, and it could have been very easy to add a false addition to the list without anyone knowing. Be my guest to go and add links to the NPC profiles.

As for the plot, links to the memorable threads that archive the events would work, I think. Still, though, I have my doubts as to whether a plot summary is even necessary: I, personally, don't think it's a crucial part of Gaia, at least not so much that a person who doesn't know what Gaia is would want to know about all its little details and when they happened. I think mentioning that there is a plot would be good enough.

I think most of the plot stuff is done by Gaians who, as has been previously stated, want to contribute every little "fact" they know about Gaia as they can.DroEsperanto 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a complete synopsis isn't necessary, but it deserves the same kind of overview you'd give to an episodic cartoon, comic stip, radio program, or anything of that nature. Recurrent character motives, plot devices, etc. If people want to extend the article with the specific arcs, there probably isn't anything wrong with that either, but we should at least give that information as we would for anything else containing that kind of story. - Narfness 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I removed it. It has been uncited for half a year, and I don't think it's possible to cite it, because all it was, I think, were opinions held by its authors, which is in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. If you think that the criticism section does belong there, feel free to start it back up again, as long as you cite sources when you do so again. Otherwise, it looks to readers as if it's just a place for Gaians on Wikipedia to kvetch about stuff they don't like, whether or not that's the case. It's also pretty unencyclopedic. DroEsperanto 13:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Content Moving

I'm noticing a trend in the sections of the articles for someone to build up the description of the topic in question, then instantly drop down with a negative factor in a way that seams to use opinions to lower the view of something. I'm thinking we should reformat all the sections to give out purely encyclopedic descriptions of the topics, then place any negative factors or citable critiques in a new, cited Critisism section. Dantman 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The view dropping may only be in a section or two, but other than that I'm also noticing topics to instantly change from a descroption to an illiterate comment. Should we revert any edits in which someone only adds a sentence instead of making proper content from now on? Dantman 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we even 'have' any sources to cite? Any newspaper articles about Gaia?

It all depends on how it's done. Feasibly, if you put the criticism throughout the article, and cite it and express it in such a way that it has a NPOV, then we wouldn't really need a separate criticism section. However, people are definitely not doing that, so yes, I think those kind of reverts might be appropriate. After reading Wikipedia's simplified ruleset, I've changed my mind. Rule number seven there says not to revert good faith edits like that. DroEsperanto 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it's hard to leave comments alone when they have already been literately stated in another portion of the article.

It is possible to find some sources on the subject. But we may half to follow the rule that says to ignore the rules by using some forum posts as sources. But we'll try to stick to ones made by administrators. Though I think we can use some of the better guides made by users as sources for how the different parts of the site work.

I've done some reformatting of some sections. Made some of the sections flow better. There was a blatent statement "You can chat with and meet friends at Gaiaonline" which I had to remove because it is stated all over the article, and the statement was placed in a way that made one of the refrences look like it was pointed to the wrong subject. The Arenas had comments on which was more popular than another, but that's nothing but opinion because there is no sources for that. I pulled out a blatent coment about the arenas and made it fit into the content as well. Dantman 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Again

The article was just starting to gain some literacy and starting to look like an actual encyclopedia article. Now a new uncited criticism section has been added. Which states things that are easily picked out as opinions of random members of the site instead of facts. And it even throws in namedropping. Not to mention one editor is using comments wherever she adds or rewrites something and putting the original content into comments (not needed in a wiki because of the page history). What are we going to do to keep the article literate? Dantman 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, first of all. They were probably just trying to help, but didn't know the right way. As for the comments, those are fine; it's not harming the article, although I would advise against it. As for what can be done? Do your best to fix it, and put an appropriate User Talk message templates in their user talk page, if appropriate. But again, remember to Assume Good Faith! I'm working on a MAJOR re-write/edit of the article as we speak, by the way. I hope to take out a lot of the un-encyclopedic information. DroEsperanto 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Major edit

I decided to finally Be Bold in editing this article and made some major changes. They are listed below.

Removed the Company information section

All of what was said in there was either more appropriate for the opening paragraph(s), was already included in the infobox, or was just superfluous information. The fact that a company invested in Gaia is not noteworthy, and a person reading the article, honestly, doesn't care, unless it's greatly impacted Gaia in a way that IS noteworthy. It hasn't, however, so I took that part out.

In removing this section, I also added to the opening paragraphs and added a quote from the Gaia FAQ that explains what Gaia, according to itself, is.

Removed the Basics section

It just seemed to be an eclectic party of irrelevant information with some good bits tossed in. For example, Daily Chance is a pretty minor feature; it doesn't need to be mentioned. The same is true with the other "currency" items you can get in games, like tickets and credits. Those are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and if they are to be mentioned, it shouldn't be in the "basics" section, but rather in the section on the Flash games.

The part about customizing avatars should be in its own section about the avatar, which is a critical component of Gaia.

The part about the items you get when you first sign up (and the ones you used to get) is also pretty trivial. I removed that as well.

The part about buying things I put in with the Gaia gold section. The part about questing should go in the Quest system section or, since they're slightly different types of quests, in the section on Monthly collectibles (but only mentioned in passing, such as "Many users quest, or save up, for these items" or something, but now even that seems trivial).

" Gaians can browse and comment on each other's profiles, talk over private messages, add people as friends, chat in forums, play various games, and explore and socialize in Towns." is mentioned throughout the article, and is not needed for the one millionth time. It was pretty much only needed in the first paragraph, since it's a summary of what people do on Gaia.

Popularity section

You may not agree with me, but I think that overall it shouldn't be in there. The statistics are incredibly misleading, because likely almost half of the accounts are mules, most (or many) of the posts are bumps with no content, and all it does it promote Gaia in an unencyclopedic fashion. A whole section on the fact that Gaia is, according to BigBoards.com, the largest English forum on the internet, is not needed; a sentence in the first paragraph with a reference footnote at the bottom linking to the data is good enough. Also, by heading the section "Popularity", it fallaciously leads the reader to assume that these statistics mean that more accounts = more popular, which is not necessarily so.

Collecting section

It was unnecessary. You can do lots of things on Gaia, and most people would assume that collecting certain items was one of them unless stated somewhere else that it wasn't allowed.

Environment section

Also pretty inconsequential to Gaia as a whole. I've also got no idea where this whole "planet Gaia" thing came from; I've never heard of Gaia being its own planet. It also contained personal observations (the events on the map are usually "discovered" then "destroyed"), which is Original Research.

Community section

The stuff said there has been said several times throughout the article, and it was a one-sentence section to begin with. Got rid of it. However, the number of forums might be good in the "forums" section.

Criticism and unfair banning sections

These were entirely Original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Ditto for the New Gold System section. The new gold system, by the way, is also pretty inconsequential to a person reading the article who doesn't even know what Gaia is.

Forums section

I'm removing the parts that describe little snippets of some of the forums and subforums. The section should mainly focus on how they operate and such, not saying which ones have more activity than the others.

In conclusion

In conclusion, editors, as well-intending as they may be, should see Wikipedia's policies WP:NOR and WP:NOT (especially WP:NOT#INFO. Also, I apologize if any of this came across as harsh in tone; it definitely wasn't intended to be reprimanding to anyone.

DroEsperanto 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of those sections could use the removing. But shouldn't we keep the external link to the official site? Dantman

I thought not, because the link was already at the top of the page in the infobox. However, maybe you're right. DroEsperanto 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we go by what appears to be common. I'll go to the pages of 3 similar type articles (about webpages/mmorpgs/online comunitys) which have a box at the top with the url there, and if the majority of those have the external link even though it's in the box. Then I'll add the external link back where it was.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace (Does)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43_Things (Does)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VampireFreaks.com (Does)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexopia (Does)

Well it appears that it's unanimous. I guess it's standard formatting to have the external link to a site even when the infobox has it. That sounds reasonable, it's not that easy to notice the infobox at times. I'll add the link back. Dantman 09:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation please?

First of all, I'd like to apologise for editing out the quote box at the top of the article; I was trying to fix the whole article, but somehow my wireless internet connection screwed up and then there was an edit done before I tried to submitt my edit...

Anyways, I'd like to ask that someone cite some of the information on the article. And also, I was thinking of deleteing the links to each forum in the forums section- the don't seem right to me for some reason... DiamondDragon contact 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay; I assumed that something like that was the case. Also, I agree with your suggestion: I think that the links are pretty unnecessary and do not improve the reader's understanding as external links should.

Thanks for your help, by the way. —DroEsperanto 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple suggestions

I finally got around to checking this article out, DroEsperanto. Nice job cleaning it up. If I may make a suggestion, I'd say the "Shops" section needs to be removed/reduced. As a reader who has never used Gaia Online, this section adds nothing to my knowledge of Gaia online. I'd recommend removing the list and replacing it with prose describing what shops are in general and maybe giving a couple examples. Long lists in articles are not informative to non-players (does it enhance my knowledge of the subject by knowing that Gambino Hat Rack is run by Ruby and Peyo? This is incredibly forgettable/trivial information thats not really encyclopedic). I'd also recommend merging the PM section into the forums section, as PM-ing is generally a forum function. Wickethewok 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! DroEsperanto 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Donation Items/Monthly Collectibles | Popularity

Someone Changed Monthly Collectibles to Donation Items, which I'd like to remind, is not the name anymore. [5] They Officialy changed it to Monthly Collectibles because of legal issues.

Also, there was some discussion on the removal of the Popularity section and someone just added it back in teh worng area without making any statements on the talk page. I pushed the page back a bit to get rid of the change of donation items to monthly collectibles, and in the process the popularity section also got chopped out. I think we should talk about that section before anyone decides to add it back just because they think it belongs. Dantman 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a popularity section, but we should have a brief mention of how big the forum is (just something a sentence long is all we'd need). DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 07:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More Mass Changes

I noticed multiple Impropper additions to the article again. I basicaly this time used a comparason of the current article to the last one I had, and pasted the valid content back in so those sections weren't reverted.

Listed changes here:

• Vandalism Revert on change to 'Go-Gaia'.
• Removed content added to the forums section because it consisted mostly of removed content blended with the kind of stuff a vandal puts in.
• Chopped out the comment: "Some users use the PM system as a way to avoid getting banned while cybering."
• Someone changed the October 2006 listed in the games section to january 2007 even though they made no change to the listings of games and no games have been added. So that was misinformation. Unless someone comes up with a valid edit on that.
• Removed the General Discussion Section which was obvious vandalism and dosen't even fit as a valid part of the article becuase individual forums don't deserve sections and it wasen't even part of or near the forums section.
• Someone removed Naruto's Headband from "Anime-inspired items, designed to closely..." even though the steel plated headband is known to be a item inspired from there.
• Another part of the Monthly Collectibles section was removed so it's been added back.
• I made sure that when I pulled the revert the edit to the arena section wasen't removed.

Aparently someone made a mass revert to vandalism back to my edit, so all the reverts I were making was already reverted, so all I really did was add the valid content about the arenas was added back.

I've seen that some other articles are semi-protected so that new users can't edit them. A lot of our vandalism, and edits that have already been deamed to not fit are made by those types of users. Anyone consider this article to be semi-protected? Dantman 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd pretty strongly vote against protection. If you look at the semi-protection policy page, one of items listed under "When not to use semi-protection" is "To prohibit anonymous editing in general", which is (essentially) what you're saying. The reason most pages are semi-protected is that banned vandals will come back to vandalize a page as an anon or with a fleet of new accounts after content disputes and whatnot. This isn't really one of those times, I think. Doing so would kind of be unfair to all the anon/new users who have made constructive or good-faith edits to the article. Speaking of good faith, a lot of the items you listed seemed to be good faith edits that just weren't in the style of Wikipedia (or were just superfluous information). If you could see the editor trying to be constructive by making the edit (like they're adding information to the article that may be trivial but could, to someone who's kinda new to Wiki, be seen as notable), you should do your best to Assume Good Faith and change/edit the page to how you think it might be better. If you think it's something totally ridiculous (like, totally) or obvious vandalism/nonsense (like "Lhflsadhg315hlgslaf" or "PENIS!!!"), then revert it and put a tag on their user-talk page. As of right now, I think most of the anon edits are made by people who just want to put what they think into the article which, although it's OR that isn't allowed on wikipedia, isn't screaming vandalism. When you see stuff that makes you think "Oh, God," just take a deep breath and assume they're doing it because they think it's making the article better. —DroEsperanto 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Here is what was deleted from the Criticism section. I believe this should have remained, but it definately needs to be rewritten and add sources to it. I know that there is no OR to be allowed on Wikipedia, but I know alot of people who hate the fact that prices are so high, and it takes you a year or more to get some of the more popular items. Same goes for people paying for IRL money for Gaia items. Anyways, if anyone wants to work on this, here it is:

TEXT BELOW

While the administrators have announced that Gaia Online is in the Alpha stage of development - there's no set time frame for Gaia to become Beta, however it has been mentioned that once the battle system is implemented that the site will move on to Beta - and as such glitches of varying degrees of annoyance should be expected, there still is often criticism to the length of time it takes for various glitches to be fixed that is compounded by the lack of staff and often lack of correspondence between users and staff.

One example of this is the clothing glitch that occurred as a result of a new implementation for the avatar system. Some combinations of clothes layered incorrectly, with items appearing behind the avatar when they should be on top, and often parts of clothing or hair become invisible. Although those that made avatars appear naked have been corrected, there are still many glitches. At times users can be seen with green splotches or highlighted outlined areas on their avatars. Other times, when an item has several poses, a player can equip it twice, despite only owning one.

Many criticisms stem from the donation item system, as many users complain that the items that are given to Gaians for donating physical money to the site rise in gaia gold price far too quickly. (For example, the "Staff of the Angels", a donation item that started off as 5,000 gold in October 2004, has, as of October 2006, reached a minimum value of 105,000 gold.) The administrators have refused to put a price cap on donation items, preferring to let supply and demand run its course.

Other criticisms taken from the Gaian Boards include:

The reward of large amounts of gold for voting in the avatar system, coupled with a glitch, caused poorly thought out avatars to win with improbably high averages. (This glitch has been fixed[7]) Constant delaying of features. For example, the battle and quest systems, which never had a set release date. Features being taken down due to glitch, and having a slow connection due to unplanned user participation Reduced gold given out for posting in the forums, commenting on profiles, and voting in the polls. Apparently, it was a glitch that these features gave out much gold to begin with. Inflation allows proportionately fewer people to afford avatars with rare items. The quality and type of role-playing on the site is generally low. This does not, however, deny the existence of some serious games, but does note the disturbing possibility of sexual material. Moderators do work extremely hard to combat this by deleting threads and banning users.

Sometimes features are made available, but then removed because of cybering. The personals listing and Hangouts (private, two person chat rooms) are the two main examples. Since cybering was already a widespread problem, the time spent on coding and implementing such a thing could have been better used elsewhere.

TEXT ENDS

Thanks. Disinclination 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Although you may know a lot of people who don't like certain things, the chances of you finding such information on a verifiable site is slim to none. The problem with criticism sections like these is that it tends to become a place where frustrated users can dump their own opinions in an medium that apparently makes them seem like fact, as cynical as that may be.

It is in my opinion that large sections of OR/unverifiable content should be removed, sourced, and then replaced. DroEsperanto 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

these aren't really criticisms of the site at all, but personal annoyances and user feedback of it's features. --80.41.119.242 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the whole part about inflation and the annoyance of rising costs in the marketplace just user criticisms? Personally, I have no problem with the prices. That part should be deleted because it has nothing to do with "real" criticisms about the site itself.Silver seren 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Monthly collectables caption cut off

If someone knows how to do it, fix the caption for the Monthly Collectable image.
--Imaginationac 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)