I don’t get it, therefore I ask, with the hope of your input. It looks that the Gamifying peer-review post has found some attentive ears, but the Game on the knowledge frontier not. It is very puzzling for me, because:
- the game on the frontier seems feasible in the immediate future,
- it has two ingredients – visual input instead of bonus points and peer-review as a “conquest” strategy – which have not been tried before and I consider them potentially very powerful,
- the game on the frontier idea is more than a proposal for peer-review.
My question is: why is the game on the frontier idea less attractive?
Looking forward for your open comments. Suggestions for improvement of such ideas are also especially welcomed.
UPDATE: Olivier Charbonneau writes:
Actually, that’s an interesting take on mass data visualization – imagine creating an algorithm that could parse a dataset of bibliographic information into minecraft (for example) – what would that research “world” look like?