Might be a good idea to hire <Tabanus> since it's crystal clear he knows exactly how to do this particular job. Why waste a domestic talent pool like <Tab> and <Stonehenge>...

I am sure there are other useful tasks <Caisso> could more profitably spend his time on?

<twinlark> used to keep every current player page updated for years eh?

He quit shortly after <Daniel> died, citing the unfortunate outburst of incredibly rude behavior that erupted. Surely that was a low point for cg.com... we were really bleeding then, looked like we might even bleed out...

Luckily <Susan> stepped up to the plate and saved us, something we should never forget eh?

Let's strive for a better point now-- there is lots of talent and hard workers around here why not make better use of them? Instructing your hires to pay close attention to the errors <Tabanus> and <Stonehenge> have been pointing out for weeks now would make a good start.

Do you want to duplicate wiki? Do you want to be a ready platform for GM fansites? Do you want to be an instruction site? Do you want to be the best historical site on the net?

What should <CG> be?

One critical decision <Daniel> made early in its historical is what he didn't want <CG> to be - i.e. a platform for members playing chess games against each other online.

<Caisso> It's hard to muster much support for your efforts, however well met, when the evidence stacks up against you.

I noticed that your additions to player bios are not made in correct formal English, as they should be in any published work that means to be taken seriously.

This is not acceptable. I can see from your most recent posts on this page that you are in the habit of writing English with an informality bordering on uneducated.

Example:

<Updating bios and tournaments is not rocket science. Yes, i made errors, specially at the beginning. But i am getting the hang of it. Anyone will like to congratulate me on expanding the database? Again, this is what chess players want. After all is called chessgames.com for a reason.>

Writing in this fashion in your posts is one thing, though even there it doesn't do much for any gravitas or attention to detail. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

You can't write like that in a player bio, end of story.

So your informal English can easily be fixed by just refusing to be sloppy and lazy, as you were in your post.

You need to write English like this if you want to have any credibility as an editor who writes text on any chess page:

<Updating bios and tournaments is not rocket science. Yes, <<<I>>> made errors, <<<e>>>specially at the beginning. But <<<I>>> am getting the hang of it. <<<Would anyone>>> like to congratulate me on expanding the database? Again, this is what chess players want. After all <<<it is>>> called chessgames.com for a reason.>

100% LOLS!

I could make some suggestions, but I won't bother, since no one would listen anyway.

1. Large database of master games. (Expand it.)

2. Members can comment on the games, tournaments, etc. among themselves. The setup is simple and easy to use.

3. An easy-to-use opening database.

The bios are less important, as the administration has openly admitted that their accuracy is not a priority.

Oops forgot...

From your perspective I suppose that's a fair critique.

<Daniel> made a similar comment as yours, not so long ago. I wish I could find it - though he clearly acknowledged my, let's say, "good intentions".

Perhaps my "bedside manners" aren't so swell, but I am trying to help - even when I'm at my, shall we say, most caustic.

1. Having ongoing top tournaments on the homepage.

2. Live games.

3. Adding lots of new master level games to the database.

4. The opening explorer.

5. Puzzle of the Day

6. Game of the day.

As long as there are live games, <CG> will be a place people go to watch them. As long as new games are always being added to the DB, this will continue to be a valuable resource.

<Z> I would argue that your criticisms are in and of themselves helpful.

Who has written the most player bios up until now?