On October 27 2017 04:20 washikie wrote: although innovation is realy strong right now I'm pretty well set in my prediction that rouge win this tournament. After seeing rouge utterly stomp ino in the super tournament I don't think ino can beat rouge if they meet, he has to hope rouge gets sniped in a zvz. Im hoping inno finds a way though.
Man I don't call 3-2 a stomp ! Also mech game were some long painful 20min animation death but INno's bio was quite something, despite a slighty zerg favored meta. I think that if he got Rogue for ro8 with a week of prep he can do really well against him.
On October 27 2017 04:20 washikie wrote: although innovation is realy strong right now I'm pretty well set in my prediction that rouge win this tournament. After seeing rouge utterly stomp ino in the super tournament I don't think ino can beat rouge if they meet, he has to hope rouge gets sniped in a zvz. Im hoping inno finds a way though.
He didn't really get stomped. He went 2-1 in non-mech games against Rogue. Would probably win a bo5 if he just played bio every game
On October 26 2017 21:45 DieuCure wrote: Olli gave up because of the spam about the title. And he is right. Even if it's sad.
Seriously INno's (and Neeb s) fan boy aren't really smart.
Instead of whining about meaningless things like the rank ( we can't all agree) or the title ( lol ) you should appreciate what you just read, you divas.
Every loss is hurting now that the community is small.
It would have been easily and swiftly avoided had Olli responded as any reasonable writer and editor would - edit the damn title. There is an obvious problem with it, it's no biggie, it happens all the time. To double down on it and even engage in ad hom attack with others just derailed the entire thing.
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer.
On October 27 2017 11:04 Twinkle Toes wrote: On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer.
Not true. Life had a frightening peak near the end of WoL too. He was a royal roader for a reason:
On October 27 2017 11:04 Twinkle Toes wrote: On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer.
Not true. Life had a frightening peak near the end of WoL too. He was a royal roader for a reason:
On October 26 2017 21:45 DieuCure wrote: Olli gave up because of the spam about the title. And he is right. Even if it's sad.
Seriously INno's (and Neeb s) fan boy aren't really smart.
Instead of whining about meaningless things like the rank ( we can't all agree) or the title ( lol ) you should appreciate what you just read, you divas.
Every loss is hurting now that the community is small.
It would have been easily and swiftly avoided had Olli responded as any reasonable writer and editor would - edit the damn title. There is an obvious problem with it, it's no biggie, it happens all the time. To double down on it and even engage in ad hom attack with others just derailed the entire thing.
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer.
Yeh I think that was probably more an example of a guy who was already just about to go over the edge based on the lack of long-term positive feedback in relation to the work he put in. And when he received what he considered to be not positive/slightly negative feedback on the Innovartion article he snapped. I can definitely relate to that though it obviously would have been easier to just edit the title.
Anyway, personally I think its good if this will result in changes to future content, because narrative style articles are only interesting if you haven't followed the player before. And at this point in time, 95% of the readers know everything in the articles.
I much rather prefer some more indepth-analysis that attempts to explain why that player is exactly # rank 5 instead of #rank 8. Here you can look at mechanical or strategical leaks the player has shown over the past few months. And combine that with some hard data from Aligulac.
I am sure that if you ask Aligulac they could provide you some that looks at the win/rate of the player over the past 2-3 months against players of X skill level. That's a ton more interesting than unfiltered win/rate for the entire of 2017.
When it comes to past history/narrative, I would tell it in relation to where he exactly improved as a player over the past 1-3 years (e.g. no longer losses to early game all-ins/improved his multitasking etc.).
This type of analysis is ofc very time-consuming and does require more analytical skills, but is the only type of content I care about. And I am sure if would ask some of the pro's/casters to assists you with analysis they would help you in the proces.
Generally speaking I get the impression that most of TL's writers are aspiring writers/journalists rather than people who write because they believe they through their analytical skills have opinions on players that are worth sharing.
And I think that is something TL should change going forward (if they want more positive feedback/views). I am sure that there are master league + players who has decent writing skills and could be interested in making free analytical pieces on players.
Most "analytical" content in Starcraft has historically been focussed on builds/strategies and not on analyzing players which I find to be a shame and it is in sharp contrast to the LOL-scene.
On October 26 2017 21:45 DieuCure wrote: Olli gave up because of the spam about the title. And he is right. Even if it's sad.
Seriously INno's (and Neeb s) fan boy aren't really smart.
Instead of whining about meaningless things like the rank ( we can't all agree) or the title ( lol ) you should appreciate what you just read, you divas.
Every loss is hurting now that the community is small.
It would have been easily and swiftly avoided had Olli responded as any reasonable writer and editor would - edit the damn title. There is an obvious problem with it, it's no biggie, it happens all the time. To double down on it and even engage in ad hom attack with others just derailed the entire thing.
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer.
Yeh I think that was probably more an example of a guy who was already just about to go over the edge based on the lack of long-term positive feedback in relation to the work he put in. And when he received what he considered to be not positive/slightly negative feedback he just snapped.
Anyway, personally I think its good if this will result in changes to future content, because narrative style articles are only interesting if you haven't followed the player before. And at this point in time, 95% of the readers know everything in the articles.
I much rather prefer some more indepth-analysis that attempts to explain why that player is exactly # rank 5 instead of #rank 8. Here you can look at mechanical or strategical leaks the player has shown over the past few months. And combine that with some hard data from Aligulac.
I am sure that if you ask Aligulac they could provide you some that looks at the win/rate of the player over the past 2-3 months against players of X skill level. That's a ton more interesting than unfiltered win/rate for the entire of 2017.
When it comes to past history/narrative, I would tell it in relation to where he exactly improved as a player over the past 1-3 years (e.g. no longer losses to early game all-ins/improved his multitasking etc.).
This type of analysis is ofc very time-consuming and does require more analytical skills, but is the only type of content I care about. And I am sure if would ask some of the pro's/casters to assists you with analysis they would you in the proces.
Generally speaking I get the impression that most of TL's writers are aspiring writiers/journalists rather than people who write because they believe they through their analytical skills can provide content that is worth reading.
And I think that is something TL should change going forward (if they want more positive feedback/views). I am sure that somewhere out there there is a master league + player who has decent writing skills and could be interested in making free analytical pieces on players.
Most "analytical" content in Starcraft is focussed on builds/strategies and not on analyzing players which I find to be a shame and it is in sharp contrast to the LOL-scene.
You're talking about TL Strat, a division that's now dead because nobody cared about their pieces enough to warrant the effort. I'm a masters league Protoss, I could write analysis about Protoss all day. But the interest in in-game happenings has always proven to be mininal.
Most "analytical" content in Starcraft is focussed on builds/strategies and not on analyzing players which I find to be a shame and it is in sharp contrast to the LOL-scene.
You are misunderstanding how analytical content could be done. Esport viewers do not care care about what the best builds or strat are (which is what the strat forum is about).
However, what would be interesting is looking at past VODS of players and identifying where they stand out in relation to other players of that race. What potential weakness's does that player have? How has his opponent usually played against that type of player?
Is it likely he will be exposed against player Y or throughout the tournament? And then base the arguments on 20 second clips from youtube showing some examples of either mechanical weakness's or the player dying to chese etc.
Make content that informs the average viewer when it comes to who is likely to win (and roughly by how much) and WHY. Not content that tells the story about who he was 6 years ago or what the best build orders are. And don't just mention facts about the players for the sake of it. Only mention facts/the types of openings if you can contextualize it to how it impacts the match outcome.
In LOL the vast majority of content that is upvoted on the reddit is that type of content. In Starcraft this type of content has never received a chance - instead we have been fed up with narrative-based content.
I find that I always am the most interested in watching matches when I - based on research - have opinions on how I think the match should play out. Because then I can see whether I was right or wrong in my hypothesis. So as writers your job should be to give the readers some type of same experience.
Convince me that player Y will actually beat player X even though player X may appear as the better player to the average viewer. If you do that, I become invested in seeing whether your argumentation and prediction actually turns out to be correct.
Just to expand a bit further on this comment by me:
And don't just mention facts about the players for the sake of it. Only mention facts/the types of openings if you can contextualize it to how it impacts the match outcome.
You go very detailed on builds, but it's not apparent why the average esports viewer should care.
Instead I would build the article up differently, like this: (just made up the arguments)
"Zest will get at least 1-2 "free wins" against Ty from the early game! The reason is that he uses builds Z and X And ty normally reacts to it w/ build Y which which losses 50 % of the time due to ZXY."
With that type of writing you immediately grab the viewers attention because you make a bold claim. And then you use strategic analysis to support it. Discussion can then be centered around whether your argumentation is legit or what it is missing other factors --> You grab the interest from the community and make them invested into the outcome.
Hence don't just add information about the players for the sake of it. The overall goal should be to inform the viewer how likely it is that player X wins and how it will be done.
If you make that type of content I am certain it would be shared and discussed a lot more around social medias. Obviously it wouldn't result in less negative feedback but opinionated content always has that.
As an example of a content creator who has mastered the "claim + argumentation" type of content is Thorin. Below is an example of a video that received a ton of feedback and made a ton of people discuss a "not that interesting on paper" LOL quarter finale:
Unfortunately the video demonstrated Thorin didn't understand the current meta of the game and had other nonsensical arguments, however it is definitely possible to do similar type of content using more reasonable statements and argumentation.
The claim doesn't neccasarily have to be bold. Just present what you consider to be the most likely outcome and use qualitative and quantitative arguments in the proces.
As a nother type of more reasonable discussion is the below discussion of who should be the top 20 players at LOL worlds. Obviously the type of format is different from what you would do as a writer, however I included the video because they start up with the claims that PlayerY is a the xxth best player and then they explain their reasoning.
Nothing about narratives nor which types of items the players will build and jungle-patterns for the sake of jungle-patterns. Those things are only included if they have relevance for their ranking.
Another problem is that, in this day and age, it's very rare to find players with specific playstyles because most already play a huge variety of strategies so they won't get found out and blind countered. When they do stand out (GuMiho, herO for example), I think we do talk about it. Especially for tournaments like BlizzCon, they then also often prepare specific things behind closed doors that we have no insight into.
That's probably easier in games like LoL, Dota or CSGO, where teams and players often very clearly have prefered hero-pools or sets of strategies (think TL's KotL pushes at TI7 for example).
On October 27 2017 17:18 DieuCure wrote: Problem is : most of TL posters are good enough at the game, so we don't need someone to analyze what we can.
RTS aren't games with the hardest meta.
I mean Olli said he was master league protoss and in the Zest vs Ty preview I referenced we definitely saw focus on explaining builds.
However, I just think the approach is wrong. I think every writer before starting an article needs to be aware what they are trying to do with the article? Is it to make the viewers aware of the exact build orders? Or is it to make viewers aware of who he was 6 years ago?
Or as I want it: Who is going to win and how is the match going to play out?
And yes some writers do not have the skillset to write that type of content at the current time, but you have to start somewhere. You just need to watch alot of VODS and look at some hard numbers. E.g. why does player X have < 40% win/rate against terran?
What is he doing wrong? And then you watch his most recent 6-12 games and try to identify patterns. And based on that you can make a prediction on how he likely will perform going forward.
RTS aren't games with the hardest meta.
But games are still lost or won based on strategy and not just execution. And some players have a better/worse track-record than others in that regard. And as a viewer I would be interested in knowing exactly why that is because it means I can try to look out for that while watching his future games.
Maybe his future opponent has had a tendency of shutting down early game aggression and always getting into macro games?
Another problem is that, in this day and age, it's very rare to find players with specific playstyles because most already play a huge variety of strategies so they won't get found out and blind countered. When they do stand out (GuMiho, herO for example), I think we do talk about it. Especially for tournaments like BlizzCon, they then also often prepare specific things behind closed doors that we have no insight into.
I don't disagree, but some players are winning more than others? Why is that? Is it macro? Is it a better understanding of map movement? Is it multitasking? Is it timing execution?
And as mentioned previously, refer to actual games to support your point. Too many times people will make comments about players because that was the type of player he was 2 years ago while ignoring that they may have fixed their weakness's/strenghts.
Like, let's take Rogue for example. What exactly has he done/improved upon to now be considered the top zerg player? What mistakes did he make 13 months ago that he doesn't do anymore? According to the TL preview the explanation is just "he plays better in standard macro games" and he improved because he played a ton of ladder.
If it's true that there are only two types of players (A) those who are good at standard macro games and (B) those who aren't. Yes then it's impossible to hype up starcraft players and it is a shitty esport.
However, standard macro game needs to be split up into categories. Is it macro? Is it drop defense? is it the ability to take smart engagements?
And again make that in relation to where he was 13 months ago.
I also think others have pointed it out, but the overall structure of making isolated player analysis/descriptions in power rankings doesn't work. It needs to be more relative. Why is he a better player than Dark?
Think about this: A lot of your (intended) target group will be players who do no longer follow Starcraft actively but did maybe 1-3 years ago. They will know Dark as the best zerg player so what happened?
And you may worry about making the article too long, however in the article I just see a lot of sentences that doesn't help to tell me alot about Rogue's skill. Like this:
It is time to start looking towards the Korean ladder as a valuable indicator of skill. "Ladder doesn't matter" is foolish commentary. Nonsense. All the best Korean players have, for years, said in interviews that ladder is their primary tool for practice. They take it seriously. And as such, the examples of players reaching top spots on the Korean ladder and then carrying that skill over into tournaments is extremely long. Then-(P)Liquid'HerO reached the top of the Korean ladder before his breakout performances at Dreamhack, MLG and NASL. IM_(P)Seed's GSL championship was predated by a surge to #1 on ladder. (T)Maru's Starleague championship shortly after the beta of Heart of the Swarm was only shocking to those that had not followed his absurd ladder record at the time. (P)Zest's all-kill against SKT, his GSL championship following immediately after, as well as his domination of 2014 as a whole were all accompanied by him holding the top spot on the Korean ladder for almost the whole year. (T)TY and (P)Stats battled for the top spot early this year, when TY won WESG and IEM Katowice and Stats took home his GSL Championship. (T)INnoVation, in his stretch of dominance this year, was second only to Rogue on ladder. Rogue himself is only the latest in a long, long list of champions built on the Korean ladder.
Yes I get ladder matter, but it doesn't seem reasoanble to spend 12 sentences on it when it comes to Rogue. Especially since we know he is good based on his tournament results (right?) It's not like we are predicting his performance based on ladder rankings. That said, his ladder dominance is an interesting fact but I keep it to 3 sentences while restricting yourself to 2 examples.
The issue I have with the below sentence is that the viewers who did not watch alot of Starcraft in 2017 do not actually understand the timeline here? When exactly did Rogue get good (no idea when shanghai was) ? Refer less to individual tournaments and more to time periods.
And was IEM shanghai all he won? Was it 1 month ago? Did it have all of the best players?
At the start of the year, Rogue crashed out of the GSL in the first round and did not even qualify for SSL. There was talk of him playing more Overwatch than StarCraft II, and even retirement was murmured to be an option for him. When Rogue tore his path through the IEM Shanghai championship to win his first ever trophy, he appeared a fundamentally changed player.
Below I am using imaginary facts to explain how it could have been structured to inform the average viewer more easily:
"Rogue was bad for the few months, played OW yada yada.... However from June he improved his significantly and has since been arguably the most succesful player winning tournmant X and Y and most recently in August he won Z against all of the best players. He now comes into blizzcon as the succesful player with xx% win/rate in past 3 months? That contrasts to a win rate of zz% in the first 3 months of 2017"
That gives the viewer a better understanding of when he got good and by how much he improved. After that the article should be focussed on explaining which part of his gameplay he improved and why he is better than number #3-5 on the list.
Obviously that is a bit nit-picky, but I just found alot of the articles to not be very good at informing the casual viewer. And understanding the timeline of when someone was shit and when someone was good is extremely essential for the average viewer to be interested in your content. Again, I would refer to Thorin as someone who always is very good at briefly introducing relevant facts (performance over the year) and then basing his analysis of that.
Probably not what you wanted to hear since it's criticism and I don't think the above sentence is a major reason why the article wasn't well-spread out. But I just think it's one of many examples of why I don't think the articles were well structured, both when it comes to what they should contain (and not contain) and also what the intention of the articles should be.
EDIT:
Reading through the article I notice the following sentence:
His rather weak 2600 WCS points are boosted massively by two tournament victories towards the end of the year—IEM Shanghai and GSL Super Tournament. Had Rogue not won both of them, he would not be here.
So yes too some extent the viewer could understand that he only recently got good, still the overall structure of the article is lackluster. Keep everything related to his results in the same (early) part of the article. Further, I personally take an issue with this type of introduction:
Banelings waddle up the natural ramp, looking for any potential connection. It makes little difference at this point, the game is Rogue's. A massive army of hydralisks and queens forces its way up, shooting down all interceptors before they can do any harm. herO realizes his defeat and concedes. Rogue has qualified for the WCS Global Finals. On match point, with his back against the wall, against one of the most dangerous players in StarCraft II, Rogue has done what seemed impossible only a few weeks ago. When all odds were stacked against him, Rogue pulled through.
I understand its a writing technique, and while it can work in some instances. E.g. in soccer where someone might dribble 2 guys and then shoot from 30 meters to win the champions league finale (great introduction).
I don't think it works here. As someone who skim-reads a lot, this makes it quite difficult to understand where - in the article - I am going to get the substance, and I would expect alot of the clicks you get from casuals are skim-readers. (I would be interested in hearing from others if I am alone here).
Instead, the best way you capture my interest (and this assumes I represent a larger part of the target group): You start the article with explaining his performances over time chronically (using 6-10 sentences). This makes sure all of the readers have the required background knowledge to understand the analysis afterwards.
Finale note: If you are going to go off-tangent (like discussing ladder results and their meaning) for more than 5 sentences, you should put that in a seperate part of the article with a distinght header. This way people who are interested in it can read that while those who just want to learn about Rogue can move on to the other part.
And don't just mention facts about the players for the sake of it. Only mention facts/the types of openings if you can contextualize it to how it impacts the match outcome.
You go very detailed on builds, but it's not apparent why the average esports viewer should care.
Instead I would build the article up differently, like this: (just made up the arguments)
"Zest will get at least 1-2 "free wins" against Ty from the early game! The reason is that he uses builds Z and X And ty normally reacts to it w/ build Y which which losses 50 % of the time due to ZXY."
With that type of writing you immediately grab the viewers attention because you make a bold claim. And then you use strategic analysis to support it. Discussion can then be centered around whether your argumentation is legit or what it is missing other factors --> You grab the interest from the community and make them invested into the outcome.
Hence don't just add information about the players for the sake of it. The overall goal should be to inform the viewer how likely it is that player X wins and how it will be done.
If you make that type of content I am certain it would be shared and discussed a lot more around social medias. Obviously it wouldn't result in less negative feedback but opinionated content always has that.
This is excellent. I wanted to avoid commenting on the article in detail as I have already expressed my general satisfaction with it, but let me ride on this wave since you started it already.
I understand the writing for TL is not necessarily the height of one's journalistic career, and I applaud all writers here since it is evident that they all do it with heart and passion. What it also evident is the writers lack range to provide anything mind-opening beyond the usual in-jokes and things we already know about as fans of the sport. I say this matter-of-factly and not to undermine the writers. I mean, you do not expect a larva to morph into an ultralisk prior to hive tech. It takes experience , command of the subject, and receptiveness to criticism to be able to improve. Like I said, I enjoy the articles on TL based on whether they are fun to read and on the goals they set for themselves. And in most cases, especially this series of articles for Blizzcon, I think they are good. I didn't even notice until someone earlier on the previous page pointed out some quotes from the article that it felt like reading a high school gazette with all the bizarre phrasing and diction.
Anyway, I agree with your analysis-approach to writing. And if TL did that more often, I think not only will it elevate the quality of discussion among everyone here, it might also strengthen TL as a prime source of in-depth SC2 content.
The ladder thing seems like a double standard to me, when ByuN was destroying both ladder and aligulac before winning GSL + blizzcon, people didn't acknowledge it because they didn't like his playstyle.
When it is Rogue it's even used as an argument by TL writers, weird.
And yeah, since this is a PR an explanation on why Rogue is a better zerg than Dark atm would be interesting, same for INno vs TY, or why TY>Gumiho in spite of Gumiho GSL win.
The content of the articles are nice to read but it doesn't bring anything new to those who follow sc2 regularly indeed.
On October 27 2017 18:19 Poopi wrote: The ladder thing seems like a double standard to me, when ByuN was destroying both ladder and aligulac before winning GSL + blizzcon, people didn't acknowledge it because they didn't like his playstyle.
When it is Rogue it's even used as an argument by TL writers, weird.
And yeah, since this is a PR an explanation on why Rogue is a better zerg than Dark atm would be interesting, same for INno vs TY, or why TY>Gumiho in spite of Gumiho GSL win.
The content of the articles are nice to read but it doesn't bring anything new to those who follow sc2 regularly indeed.
And as Hider observes, not even useful to new fans. But for me, they work ok enough as a source of entertainment, validation of my own appreciation of the game, and maybe even hype for upcoming events. Other people have different standardds though.
What it also evident is the writers lack range to provide anything mind-opening beyond the usual in-jokes and things we already know about as fans of the sport.
Maybe, but they are definitely investing so much time into Starcraft so they could - if they used their ressources differently - actually make that type of content.
E.g. I was reading the blog from mintzheyer (spelling?) and how he was making recaps of every game and how much time it took + how he hated it... And I just don't understand... why?
Instead if less ressources were spent on those types of tasks and instead more on "I want to make the best prediction on who the best Z player is or who the best European player is. I will watch a ton of vods and make a ton of notes, look at data from aligulac etc." --> Then make a list that goes pretty indepth.
Not only would that probably be more fun/rewarding for the content creator, it would probably be content that would be worth sharing (assuming it was high-quality). And if it is too time-consuming to analyze 10 players then limit your self to the 4 best.
I think that's the type of content that makes the scene more likely to feel "alive" whereas recaps... I don't know, I am sure they help a bit but it doesn't feel like it adds anything meaningful.
Yeah, but if for example the articles called out on Rogue for being better than Dark, maybe interviewers could ask Dark about it or stuff like that, so we would be talking about the PR on stream again?
On October 27 2017 18:45 Poopi wrote: Yeah, but if for example the articles called out on Rogue for being better than Dark, maybe interviewers could ask Dark about it or stuff like that, so we would be talking about the PR on stream again?
Yes and I want people to sit their and argue about how Dark was better that won tournament but just was unlucky cus of cheese and good opponent but since he beat Rogue 2 months ago in an online match he is actually better. Like there are cons and pro's of every player, and I want the Power Rankings to take initative to discuss and weight some of these factors.
And based on that "introduction" from the PR, people can argue on how they don't think online results should matter or how in that series it wasn't actually cheese but yadayada. Random thoughts from me below
As someone who follows (or has followed) multiple esports I always wonder what the impact of content-creators in the early stages of a games life is on the future type of content we see.
In early Starcraft we saw Starcraft content that wasn't revovled around game or player analysis but more about humour and jokes (SOTG example, most people rarely watched the games that were played, mostly in Korea ofc).
(Artosis Meta show was actually pretty fucking good though it came at a time where Starcraft was already declining in popularity).
If you contrast that to Summoning Insight in LOL which is a type of content that just blew my mind when I initally "transfered" from Starcraft to LOL. It had hosts who watched all (or most) of the games and then discussed it, some times with pro player guests who had extra insight. They developed theories on how good the teams actually were or who the good players were.
Obviously LOL is a fundamentally different game (meta changes + teamgame) so the content will be a lot different per nature, but I come to hate how so much content is so balance-foccused in Sc2 and everytime we see "predictions" on talk show it was just "that guy is better so he wins". The casual viewer do not really care about balance discussions (only active players do), but they care about player analysis and who will win and how.
I wonder if someone like Montecristo (host of summoning insight) if he had been an expert in Sc2 as well and hosted talkshows in 2011, how that would have impacted future content. In LOL it's my impression that the community wants to read about content that helps them to determine who is actually good or bad in a match. And I believe that's partly a result of the impact Summoning Insight had because I don't really see that as much in other esports.
Sc2 is honestly the worst esport when it comes to discussion/player analysis: People don't like criticism over players because "you are worse than them so you aren't allowed to talk (received comments like that multiple times everytime I attempted to do analysis)."
However, I think that is the type of content we actually need to see if we want engagement from the community.
EPT
