Talk:Hasbro Q&A

Archiving

Is there a reason the actual answers from other sites can't be archived here ("think of the children", if anything happens to another site)? I realize that as each round comes in those answers act as a "draw" for each site, but surely older rounds could be written up here. Perhaps a round of answers could be added after two rounds of subsequent questions. Khajidha 11:49, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Alternatively, rather than a verbatim cut-and-paste of the answers, which other sites could (rightly) argue belongs to them, we could summarize the answers. Especially for a previous round, I don't see this as impacting their site. --Jimsorenson 11:51, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I probably should have stated more clearly that it could be summarized. Khajidha 11:53, 23 December 2009 (EST)

I'd rather not summarize the answers either. Let the sites have their content. We link them for all the answers, and if the answers are useful, they're integrated into the site where they're applicable. --ItsWalky 11:58, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Previous discussion on the matter, FWIW: Talk:Hasbro Q&A/October-November 2008 --Jeysie 12:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Should we discuss the overall quality of the Q&A here?

I'm referring to stuff like "depending on who is assigned to answer a site's questions, the site may get useless PR-washed non-answers that often miss the actual point entirely, instead reacting to certain keywords in the question and giving out what seems like pre-written stock answers that vaguely match those keywords, or slightly more useful answers written by an actual human being who shows an ounce of humor and personality and likes to insert specifically highlighted hints even where more concrete answers aren't possible"?--Nevermore 07:45, 25 December 2009 (EST)

The Wiigiis don't like it when we make fun of Hasbro's Q&A. Hooper told me off for even suggesting making mild light of the answers on the front page, a few months back when we got bad PR company answers. --FFN 07:54, 25 December 2009 (EST)

It might be worth analyzing to see if there's any effect wording/type of question has on the quality of the answers. --Jeysie 08:20, 25 December 2009 (EST)

That analysis strikes me as an activity best done off-line (or at least elsewhere.) I think the "Wiigiis" have a very reasonable concern about not biting the hand that feeds them. --Jimsorenson 09:29, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Well, let me know what you folks come up with, then, I guess, as the wiki and the message boards are my only avenue for talking about wiki stuff. (Not that I can get how simply noting that certain types of questions are more what Hasbro wants to answer than others qualifies as "biting the hand that feeds you". Seems more like doing Hasbro a favor by not wasting their time with questions they can't/won't answer.) --Jeysie 09:35, 25 December 2009 (EST)

(Or to put it another way, that's nice, but private chit-chats between a circle of friends don't really do anything to inform everyone else involved who wants to be able to constructively contribute. (Which goes for a lot more than just the Q&As, really.)) --Jeysie 09:47, 25 December 2009 (EST)

OH NOOO THE WIIGIIIIIIIS! THEY DID IT THEY ARE MEAN!!! Seriously, dude, the reason I jumped on someone's shit is 'cause Hasbro doesn't even have to do this thing. Sitting here right next to where the answers are posted and talking about how shitty the answers are seems to be inviting them to, uh, uninvite us. Do it on your talk page or something. Then we can just say we don't actually know you. -hx 11:51, 25 December 2009 (EST)