Life In 19x19

Well, well, well.
I'm not angry or disapointed or anything, but maybe it's time to look back at what went wrong? If for no other reason so that others may learn from the mistakes.

Personally, if I would (or could) engage in a similar project I would have concentrated on core features mostly mimicing KGS (chat rooms, review tools etc). Only after that would I get into "cool" stuff that "no other server offers" (video, malkovich), nice but not so important things (voiced countdown, chat translation), and arguably unnecessary or even stupid features (muzzle, karma).
The second thing that comes to mind is the interface, had it been the first shot I wouldn't mind (it's not core) but I understand that quite a bit of effort was spent on it.
There are a couple of things to say:
Terrible management of space (start game button takes the equivalet of three chat lines of space, 6-7 lines if you count the whole start game block, just to mention one example)
A mix of alignments (left, center, right) and fonts/sizes that defies all rules of thumb when it comes to graphical design).
Lack of customiziation (not important by itself, but a lean and simplistic layout with the possibility to change "items" to the way they are now would have been much better).
For example the way some tabs of games show a preview kind of board and a big fat avatar: Make it look like the everything tab (minus the alignment issues) with the option of turning on the "fat" view. (Of course, this falls under my first objection to the priorities as well, the "fat" view isn't core).
Lastly some minor nuances that should have had priority:
I never know if I'm logged on properly, there are a couple of different timeouts so that sometimes I disappear from the user list, sometimes I can chat but not see others chat etc.
In some cases the chat section is shifted so that I cannot see what people write, eg after maximizing the browser window and restoring.

I have talked with quite some people about why they don't play on Kaya, and apart from "too few games" all have said "bad priority" (eg review is more importand than muzzle), some disliked the interface, and more than I would expect disliked it being web browser only.

/Mats

Is it actually time for the obituary? I agree with others that Kaya has spent too much energy on cool features while alienating users with shaky core functionality and an unpopular way of starting games, but just because the developers won't be working full time on the project doesn't mean that it's dead in the water.

First of all, the cool features are indeed cool - and could still prove valuable. The malkovitch tag is a fantastic teaching tool, and the automated translation could potentially open the door to, and encourage the cultural exchange with non-western-speaking Asian players. Why this has not been pursued more aggressively is beyond me.

There are however reasons to doubt Kaya's viability. Mosart has mentioned a few significant weaknesses of the interface. What stands out to me is the baffling lack of better review tools. Gabriel's reasoning for not implementing them, that users haven't yet discovered the current features, is questionable at best. My impression is that the current review functions, while better than they were a year ago, are still too cumbersome and non-intuitive and lacking in core marking functions.

Many of us have invested time and money in Kaya, and we had high hopes. We found Gabriel's promise of a modern go server exciting and inspiring. Just because he has not succeeded at making a sustainable business model does not mean that we have to abandon our hopes as well.

I think the comparison to nova.gs is interesting. Similar to Kaya, Nova is a two man show and both teams have developed a well functioning web based go server. The most significant difference I perceive is the attitude of the developers. Nova appears to add features based largely on what people mention in chats, whereas Kaya has developed a good deal of machinery to deal with suggestions and difficulties. While Nova's casual and personal approach feels refreshing and flexible, I suspect that Kaya's more formal concept of tweakis and feedback might be better suited for the long haul.

Gabriel clearly hasn't given up on the project - just on it's current ability to provide a full-time income. I don't think we should give up on it either. We should continue to press Gabriel to improve and refine his already good product, and visit it more often.

Did you know that there is an ASR League on Kaya?

@ Gabriel ----->

mohsart wrote:Well, well, well.
I'm not angry or disapointed or anything, but maybe it's time to look back at what went wrong? If for no other reason so that others may learn from the mistakes.

Personally, if I would (or could) engage in a similar project I would have concentrated on core features mostly mimicing KGS (chat rooms, review tools etc). Only after that would I get into "cool" stuff that "no other server offers" (video, malkovich), nice but not so important things (voiced countdown, chat translation), and arguably unnecessary or even stupid features (muzzle, karma).
The second thing that comes to mind is the interface, had it been the first shot I wouldn't mind (it's not core) but I understand that quite a bit of effort was spent on it.
There are a couple of things to say:
Terrible management of space (start game button takes the equivalet of three chat lines of space, 6-7 lines if you count the whole start game block, just to mention one example)
A mix of alignments (left, center, right) and fonts/sizes that defies all rules of thumb when it comes to graphical design).
Lack of customiziation (not important by itself, but a lean and simplistic layout with the possibility to change "items" to the way they are now would have been much better).
For example the way some tabs of games show a preview kind of board and a big fat avatar: Make it look like the everything tab (minus the alignment issues) with the option of turning on the "fat" view. (Of course, this falls under my first objection to the priorities as well, the "fat" view isn't core).
Lastly some minor nuances that should have had priority:
I never know if I'm logged on properly, there are a couple of different timeouts so that sometimes I disappear from the user list, sometimes I can chat but not see others chat etc.
In some cases the chat section is shifted so that I cannot see what people write, eg after maximizing the browser window and restoring.

I have talked with quite some people about why they don't play on Kaya, and apart from "too few games" all have said "bad priority" (eg review is more importand than muzzle), some disliked the interface, and more than I would expect disliked it being web browser only.

/Mats

Contrary to what as a user you evaluate, what our observation suggests is that we had to focus even more on user aquisition.
Review tools has been mentioned over and over to make it an easy pass-over from KGS to Kaya. But the vast majority of our registered users didnt open a sandbox. MY conclusion for that is, along with other observations, that review tools represent a very small % of the activity of a Go server. You can check IGS, KGS, Tygem, Wbaduk combined and compare the number of games vs the number of reviews, and see that there is a 100/1 relationship.

The number one concern is being able to quickly find a game. If you concentrate on looking deeply to technical aspects, you will not be able to understand why Flyordie has more users than Kaya.

On the other hand, much for full SGF-review support has been done, and its not far away from being implemented. Mainly, the lacking part is on the Gospeed Board to draw and post those properties to the server.

daal wrote:Is it actually time for the obituary? I agree with others that Kaya has spent too much energy on cool features while alienating users with shaky core functionality and an unpopular way of starting games, but just because the developers won't be working full time on the project doesn't mean that it's dead in the water.

First of all, the cool features are indeed cool - and could still prove valuable. The malkovitch tag is a fantastic teaching tool, and the automated translation could potentially open the door to, and encourage the cultural exchange with non-western-speaking Asian players. Why this has not been pursued more aggressively is beyond me.

There are however reasons to doubt Kaya's viability. Mosart has mentioned a few significant weaknesses of the interface. What stands out to me is the baffling lack of better review tools. Gabriel's reasoning for not implementing them, that users haven't yet discovered the current features, is questionable at best. My impression is that the current review functions, while better than they were a year ago, are still too cumbersome and non-intuitive and lacking in core marking functions.

Many of us have invested time and money in Kaya, and we had high hopes. We found Gabriel's promise of a modern go server exciting and inspiring. Just because he has not succeeded at making a sustainable business model does not mean that we have to abandon our hopes as well.

I think the comparison to nova.gs is interesting. Similar to Kaya, Nova is a two man show and both teams have developed a well functioning web based go server. The most significant difference I perceive is the attitude of the developers. Nova appears to add features based largely on what people mention in chats, whereas Kaya has developed a good deal of machinery to deal with suggestions and difficulties. While Nova's casual and personal approach feels refreshing and flexible, I suspect that Kaya's more formal concept of tweakis and feedback might be better suited for the long haul.

Gabriel clearly hasn't given up on the project - just on it's current ability to provide a full-time income. I don't think we should give up on it either. We should continue to press Gabriel to improve and refine his already good product, and visit it more often.

Did you know that there is an ASR League on Kaya?

@ Gabriel ----->

Kudos to this post .

Kaya.gs wrote:Contrary to what as a user you evaluate, what our observation suggests is that we had to focus even more on user aquisition.

Sorry to jump in like that, but - How? How are you going to 'focus' on that?
You can't just order the users to come.
You have to offer what the users want, first and foremost, and THEN lead them on the path you think is better.

As for the rest of my post - please note that I know how you feel... and what I say is not meant as bashing, but rather as constructive criticism. I would like Kaya to succeed very much, and I find it frustrating that the project struggles so for what I think are very avoidable reasons. Anyways - if you have enough negativity, just stop reading right here.

Kaya.gs wrote:Review tools has been mentioned over and over to make it an easy pass-over from KGS to Kaya. But the vast majority of our registered users didnt open a sandbox. MY conclusion for that is, along with other observations, that review tools represent a very small % of the activity of a Go server.

Not sure you can draw such conclusions...
Its not the percent of activity that matters, but what your customers perceive as important, what they want and what they need (or think they need.) If you don't give it to them, then it does not matter how much you crunch the numbers, people will go elsewhere - especially since perfectly reasonable alternatives do exist!

You might have a vision, but people have a vision too. Unless these two visions merge, you will not be successful.

From the developer's perspective - if users keep mentioning a specific feature, review tools in this case, as missing, while you claim it is there, then there is an obvious disconnect. Either the feature is not right, not intuitive, not where expected, or whatever... I mean - people do not keep asking about it out of malice, do they? You really need to get to the bottom of this and then fix it - or you will never have a successful application.

A proper approach as a developer, to any customer request, would be: ok, I think what you ask is there, but can you please tell me why do you find it insufficient, and I will fix it. Instead, what I hear is the mechanical 'drop a tweakie, maybe we look into it' or 'its already there, you just have to do it our way.' The notion you have that why worry about features users ask for since there are so many features alread people don't even use - from the developer's perspective this is just wrong! If any developer working for me said something like that - I might just fire him/her on the spot! Its like you writing the software for yourself rather than for people to use. Listen to your customers! They are telling you what they want.

I mean - this goes back to what you say you want to focus on - user acquisition.
To do that you have to first give the users what they want and how they want it, how they are used to it, and how they want to use it. You need to listen. If you have a better idea, then you still need to do it the way users want, and maybe THEN train the them to do it your way... But from the number of REPETITIVE requests, which seemingly go unanswered, if seems you guys are not doing it.

I think that a lot of what mohsart is saying is true, his tone notwithstanding - and you might help your own cause to listen to that rather than being defensive and/or dismissing it as you seem to be doing.

The same goes for lots of other stuff you have (or don't have, or have it in a way people don't like.) Match setup, rules, timing, etc... I am no Kaya expert, so maybe all of this has been solved, but I hear a lot of griping about stuff like that... little things people want and they want it in a specific way...

Ask yourself this: People were very excited when Kaya was announced, to the point they donated a lot of money to you guys to see it through. To the point of being ready to abandon their old pastures and move on to Kaya even in its half-baked state. And they kept telling you they want this and this and this... and it seems like instead you implemented that, that, and that. Now it seems many are disappointed, and more still turned away and gave up. Why? Do you really think it is because they were just toying with you, its somehow their fault? I don't think you are self-critical enough, and what I see is you 'blaming' the people for 'not seeing' rather than looking into how can YOU improve what YOU do to make people more happy. Even if you think you know better - it does not make it so, and dealing with people can be tricky.

PS>
It has been mentioned to you quite a few times that your priorities are backwards, and I agree with that. You implement all kinds of bells and whistles which bloat the software and which are not important or even used right now. Karma, muzzle, streaming, whatever - people probably can fill in all kinds of stuff here... Its almost like you guys are creating a 'proof of concept' rather than a serious application.

I think you should put the effort into developing or improving the features people ask for. If, as you say, some features are there but people are not using them - you really need to get to the bottom of WHY people are not using them, and then YOU need to redesign so that people do. Maybe they don't want/need those features, maybe they are designed badly, or maybe they just want it to be different. This is the core of what makes a Go server a success. Again - it seems like you develop Kaya for your own pleasure rather than for others, concentrating on what is most fun for YOU.

It seems to be a very developer-centric approach.
To repeat myself - I think you would do much better if you try to listen to your customer a little more.

Bantari wrote:

Kaya.gs wrote:Contrary to what as a user you evaluate, what our observation suggests is that we had to focus even more on user aquisition.

Sorry to jump in like that, but - How? How are you going to 'focus' on that?
You can't just order the users to come.
You have to offer what the users want, first and foremost, and THEN lead them on the path you think is better.

As for the rest of my post - please note that I know how you feel... and what I say is not meant as bashing, but rather as constructive criticism. I would like Kaya to succeed very much, and I find it frustrating that the project struggles so for what I think are very avoidable reasons. Anyways - if you have enough negativity, just stop reading right here.

Kaya.gs wrote:Review tools has been mentioned over and over to make it an easy pass-over from KGS to Kaya. But the vast majority of our registered users didnt open a sandbox. MY conclusion for that is, along with other observations, that review tools represent a very small % of the activity of a Go server.

Not sure you can draw such conclusions...
Its not the percent of activity that matters, but what your customers perceive as important, what they want and what they need (or think they need.) If you don't give it to them, then it does not matter how much you crunch the numbers, people will go elsewhere - especially since perfectly reasonable alternatives do exist!

You might have a vision, but people have a vision too. Unless these two visions merge, you will not be successful.

From the developer's perspective - if users keep mentioning a specific feature, review tools in this case, as missing, while you claim it is there, then there is an obvious disconnect. Either the feature is not right, not intuitive, not where expected, or whatever... I mean - people do not keep asking about it out of malice, do they? You really need to get to the bottom of this and then fix it - or you will never have a successful application.

A proper approach as a developer, to any customer request, would be: ok, I think what you ask is there, but can you please tell me why do you find it insufficient, and I will fix it. Instead, what I hear is the mechanical 'drop a tweakie, maybe we look into it' or 'its already there, you just have to do it our way.' The notion you have that why worry about features users ask for since there are so many features alread people don't even use - from the developer's perspective this is just wrong! If any developer working for me said something like that - I might just fire him/her on the spot! Its like you writing the software for yourself rather than for people to use. Listen to your customers! They are telling you what they want.

I mean - this goes back to what you say you want to focus on - user acquisition.
To do that you have to first give the users what they want and how they want it, how they are used to it, and how they want to use it. You need to listen. If you have a better idea, then you still need to do it the way users want, and maybe THEN train the them to do it your way... But from the number of REPETITIVE requests, which seemingly go unanswered, if seems you guys are not doing it.

I think that a lot of what mohsart is saying is true, his tone notwithstanding - and you might help your own cause to listen to that rather than being defensive and/or dismissing it as you seem to be doing.

The same goes for lots of other stuff you have (or don't have, or have it in a way people don't like.) Match setup, rules, timing, etc... I am no Kaya expert, so maybe all of this has been solved, but I hear a lot of griping about stuff like that... little things people want and they want it in a specific way...

Ask yourself this: People were very excited when Kaya was announced, to the point they donated a lot of money to you guys to see it through. To the point of being ready to abandon their old pastures and move on to Kaya even in its half-baked state. And they kept telling you they want this and this and this... and it seems like instead you implemented that, that, and that. Now it seems many are disappointed, and more still turned away and gave up. Why? Do you really think it is because they were just toying with you, its somehow their fault? I don't think you are self-critical enough, and what I see is you 'blaming' the people for 'not seeing' rather than looking into how can YOU improve what YOU do to make people more happy. Even if you think you know better - it does not make it so, and dealing with people can be tricky.

PS>
It has been mentioned to you quite a few times that your priorities are backwards, and I agree with that. You implement all kinds of bells and whistles which bloat the software and which are not important or even used right now. Karma, muzzle, streaming, whatever - people probably can fill in all kinds of stuff here... Its almost like you guys are creating a 'proof of concept' rather than a serious application.

I think you should put the effort into developing or improving the features people ask for. If, as you say, some features are there but people are not using them - you really need to get to the bottom of WHY people are not using them, and then YOU need to redesign so that people do. Maybe they don't want/need those features, maybe they are designed badly, or maybe they just want it to be different. This is the core of what makes a Go server a success. Again - it seems like you develop Kaya for your own pleasure rather than for others, concentrating on what is most fun for YOU.

It seems to be a very developer-centric approach.
To repeat myself - I think you would do much better if you try to listen to your customer a little more.

Advanced SGF markers are the 21st idea in order of votes on User voice. It was a huge priority when we started, and it was lowered as we read more and more about what our users were voting for

Listening goes both ways. The reason why we chose to be so open about our user feedback is for users to be able to see themselves what they, as a community are asking for. We then take that input, compare it to other sources of information, the cost of implementing it, and the value of having it. We have the more transparent process of any other server, which gives you the opportunity to disagree with it.

On this side of the court, i have heard at least 50 "this is a must" feature requests that range from money betting to draconian moderation and we pick which one we want to do from the combination above, plus our own ideas and experimentations.

Kaya.gs wrote:Advanced SGF markers are the 21st idea in order of votes on User voice. It was a huge priority when we started, and it was lowered as we read more and more about what our users were voting for

Listening goes both ways. The reason why we chose to be so open about our user feedback is for users to be able to see themselves what they, as a community are asking for. We then take that input, compare it to other sources of information, the cost of implementing it, and the value of having it. We have the more transparent process of any other server, which gives you the opportunity to disagree with it.

On this side of the court, i have heard at least 50 "this is a must" feature requests that range from money betting to draconian moderation and we pick which one we want to do from the combination above, plus our own ideas and experimentations.

Alright then, its all on the Users.
Bad, bad, bad Users... How dare they not follow your lead.

But joking aside...
Listening does not always work both ways, especially in this situation. The users do not have to listen to you - they can just go elsewhere, to a server that fulfills their needs and wants. If you want to avoid that, YOU need to listen to them, and try to give them what they want/need. No way around that. I know its not easy. If you are confused, solid market research can supplement that - what makes other servers a succes, lets first have THAT!

For example - why didn't you poll people for why they don't come to Kaya? I have not seen anything like that... Talking to your users is fine - but they are often the ones already convinced, you need to get the ones which are not yet users - the ones who do not use Tweaki, who do not talk to you on the server, might not have even seen Kaya. Did you ask THEM what features might convince them to give Kaya a chance? If you did, kudos to you, bud... but it might have not been very well advertised.

All I am saying that there seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm in the beginning when you announced Kaya. And then over time a lot of it fizzled out... we can lay that on the flaky community if you want.

PS>
Look, dude... don't give me excuses. I am not attacking you. I have been in your shoes more than once, with projects stalling or going backwards or even dying... Its not fun, I know. And I can imagine how hard it was for you guys to make the decision to go back to paid work, and then make this decision public... My sympathy is with you, all the way. What I am saying is not bashing you or Kaya - its sharing a very hard-won knowledge, from one developer to another. Please take it in this spirit. If you don't need advice, if you know better, disregard all I have said.

I like Kaya, but I think the basic problem is that despite the hype, it is simply not as good as KGS, let alone better.

KGS has thousands of users, and a tried-and-true way of setting up games. It also has very functional review tools. Furthermore, the way the board, clocks and chat are presented is very efficient.

True, there are a number of things I wish KGS would change, and some of them Kaya does better, but in the very basics, KGS still sets the standard.

Also, while I have not been playing, I have been keeping an eye on things, and it seems that Kaya has not actually changed in any interesting (to the ordinary user) way for more than 6 months. The world moves very quickly these days, and a loss of momentum is hard to recover from.

Please keep at it, if you can, but please give us the same basics as kegs and something exciting to get the momentum back.

Kaya.gs wrote:
Advanced SGF markers are the 21st idea in order of votes on User voice. It was a huge priority when we started, and it was lowered as we read more and more about what our users were voting for

Don't know what's so advanced about SGF markers. Seems so basic that it probably didn't occur to most people that it was something they should need to vote for.

Kaya.gs wrote:Contrary to what as a user you evaluate, what our observation suggests is that we had to focus even more on user aquisition.

Kaya.gs wrote:easy pass-over from KGS to Kaya

Kaya.gs wrote:On this side of the court, i have heard at least 50 "this is a must" feature requests

I really wish there was a less harsh way to say this, but: you will not see any users until you have produced everything that people think is necessary on a go server. When people tell you there are 50 absolute must features that you don't have, don't see this as unreasonable criticism. See this as your potential userbase telling you why they're not quite with you yet. And get coding.

(Basically, I echo what Tami said. Kaya must be at least as good as all other servers, and the transition must be desirable to make, otherwise very few people will come. You can expect a lot of respect for putting great effort into kaya, but it's nothing but your own personal little project until people have a good reason to choose it over KGS. Developing features and acquiring more users are essentially the same thing at this point. See go9dan for an example of a go server with all the advertising in the world, but which can't stand on its own two feet.)

Kaya.gs wrote:the vast majority of our registered users didnt open a sandbox ... compare the number of games vs the number of reviews, and see that there is a 100/1 relationship.

If you're using this to conclude that 99% of people would be happy with no review tools, this is a very spurious use of statistics.

Tami wrote:please give us the same basics as kegs

billywoods wrote:you will not see any users until you have produced everything that people think is necessary on a go server.

Agreeing with these.

I found it enlightening that any new go server is in fact expected to be KGS + additional new features + new interfaces.

Its a good point to take note for any would be go server writer.

Kudos to wms for setting the standard.

Two of my friends and I tried Kaya when we started playing (along with IGS, Tygem, DGS and KGS) and really liked the look of the interface (relative to KGS). We honestly made a serious effort to stick around...

As others have already pointed out though, we found a lot of the available features non-intuitive, some expected features missing and found development a bit sluggish, at least in areas we thought were a necessity for a go server. For me, as a beginning player, very good review tools, a decent user base as well as an intuitive, uncluttered UI was a criteria.

Later, I spoke to some of my friends at our university go club and some of them said they had a similar initial experience with Kaya, and ultimately went back to their ol' stomping grounds to never return, forsaking their Kaya beta accounts.

I still keep high expectations... and... if and when Kaya gives atleast some of the same tried n tested features as IGS/KGS (along with anything else that enhances it relative to these servers) would love to play games there once again.

Best wishes !

As a supporter, while I have great respect for the energy and the skills of Gabriel and DP, Kaya did not meet my expectations.

I was just trying to connect from my iPad to doublecheck and both with Mercury and with Safari browser, I could not be logged onto the server.

The issues have already been mentioned, but I hope it helps in the sense of constructive criticism if I give my view:

- ineffective use of UI space. There had been a slight improvement, but still not sufficient. I am already 'turned off' when I see that in the chat window the text does not start directly after the user name, but in another row. UI was actually the part were I put the most hopes into given the 'old' and inflexible looks of KGS. Currently, I like the KGS UI a lot more.

- not enough focus on robustness

Would these two be solved, I would give it another try ... before that I am glad to have proven and mature servers like KGS and Tygem.

Regarding usage of space during the game, it is quite simple: the board has to extend from the very bottom of the screen to the very top of the screen. Everything else, like clock, player names, chat, ... has to go to the right or to the left.

It cannot be difficult to get that right.

On a 1024 resolution wide screen, I expect to get a userlist, chat, and list of games. Ineffective use of screen real estate is a big issue and one that was never on the mind of the developers it seemed.