I'm not sure you understand the way the LFG tool works. It's a queue system; this wouldn't increase your chances of getting a group at all, and it would actually mess with the queue system more than likely, by trying to place one of your alts in a group with another of your alts, etc. In essence it would slow down the process of finding a group for the character you want to play at the time.
I dont want a queue, i just want a database, and leave people free to chose what they want to do.
My solution would be to create a LFG interface external to the game experience (like diablo 2 for example). This LFG tool would be an instrument for Players, not for single Characters.
I agree. What is up with blizzard's obsession of putting us in queues?
I've never known anyone that enjoyed being in a queue, be it a game queue, a queue at the DMV, or a line to get into a Concert.
I dunno man, back when we used to have to stand in line to buy food in the USSR, that was AWESOME!
If I had to guess, I'd guess it's ease of setup and administration. A queue is really ridiculously easy to set up code-wise, is pretty much maintenance free, and can't really break in creative ways. A database is a LOT more overhead, too, both in terms of memory taken and time elapsed.
Not to mention that a database may result in some people NEVER getting groups, whereas a queue lowers their chance of being rejected.
Idiots: There is a pretty good Idiot Filter: Disable Auto-Join. I'd say 90% of my groups when not using Auto-Join in Beta were top notch. When I used Auto-Join the group rarely made it even to the first boss. This isn't foolproof, but certainly adds a Hoop lazy players won't go through.
Auto-Join as a built-in idiot filter? Hey, it sounds promising...
Actually the more I think about this, the more brilliant this feature becomes.
This is in response to a player advocating that people just join a makeshift /lookingforgroup channel:
The problem with people saying they are just going to use /lookingforgroup is pretty simple to see.
First off, it diminishes the use of the new tool and makes it harder for us to refine it in a way that makes it more useful for players.
Second off, it makes it hard on the people learning how to use it and enjoying it to be able to continue to do so.
By default you are the ones making the system not work because it only works if people use it.
These are the people that WANT to have a working LFG system, keep in mind, so much so that they work to create separate channels for one. Isn't it easy to see what a channel gets them that the tool does not?
This is in response to a player advocating that people just join a makeshift /lookingforgroup channel:
The problem with people saying they are just going to use /lookingforgroup is pretty simple to see.
First off, it diminishes the use of the new tool and makes it harder for us to refine it in a way that makes it more useful for players.
Second off, it makes it hard on the people learning how to use it and enjoying it to be able to continue to do so.
By default you are the ones making the system not work because it only works if people use it.
These are the people that WANT to have a working LFG system, keep in mind, so much so that they work to create separate channels for one. Isn't it easy to see what a channel gets them that the tool does not?
It usually isn't (easy to see, that is). Remember that in software development the roles of designer, who comes up with ideas on what to build, and the developer, who builds them, are usually seperated, and the analytical mindset that understands what a user-created LFG channel says about the LFG/LFM tool is concentrated in the developer camp. I and my compatriate developers get requests and assignments that make absolutely no sense all the time, but we are helpless to stop them as the designers are convinced of the potential of their ideas. Someone at Blizzard is simply convinced that the new LFG/LFM tool has bottomless potential and that if we would all just use it as they intended we would See The Light. It's going to have to sit unused/underused for a long, long time before they realize what's wrong with it.
removing the /who lfg from early retail was the worst UI change in WOW to date. Hopefully you can parse the data from the LFG ui and write your own mod that just has a list of people lfg and a list of groups that want people and then some basic ways to filter and sort by level/class/guild/etc
I didn't know about that "Call to Arms" mod. But it does look like it would have been a nice place for Blizzard to start for their own built-in LFG system. I suspect this issue is on the verge of getting even more attention. I know I haven't had any issues with this simply because I've been spending 30 hours a week in scheduled 40 man raids. But as soon as the expansion comes out, that all changes and I would guess I am not alone in that. With the increase of 5-10 man raids instances, and the cutback from 40 to 25 man raids, there are going to be a huge number of people looking for this functionality -- and when they can't get it, Blizzard is going to hear about it.
This is in response to a player advocating that people just join a makeshift /lookingforgroup channel:
The problem with people saying they are just going to use /lookingforgroup is pretty simple to see.
First off, it diminishes the use of the new tool and makes it harder for us to refine it in a way that makes it more useful for players.
Second off, it makes it hard on the people learning how to use it and enjoying it to be able to continue to do so.
By default you are the ones making the system not work because it only works if people use it.
These are the people that WANT to have a working LFG system, keep in mind, so much so that they work to create separate channels for one. Isn't it easy to see what a channel gets them that the tool does not?
Maybe I'm not seeing it, but where is he wrong, exactly?
Players say that X is shit.
They then don't use X, instead using something that they consider superior.
Devs stop paying attention to X (OR) Devs realize that it's shit and make more improvements
Players say that X is shit.
They continue to struggle with X, making suggestions now and then.
Devs stop paying attention to X (Everybody's using it, it must work) (OR) They actually follow the suggestions and get stuff done.
Essentially, it's wrong because it's an argument that doesn't take into account the fact that both sides have the exact same results at probably about the same likelihoods, and Blue just says "Well, if people aren't struggling to deal with it, we're not going to put effort into it either."
Jesus don't want me in a sunbeam
Sunbeams are always made on me
Don't expect me to cry, for all the reasons I'm gonna die
Don't ever ask your kick of me.
I'm leveling up a horde warrior, and getting to the point where i have no quests that aren't dungeon/raid anymore (since lvl 56).
I tried the LFG once, for BRD, which ended up "ok", even though the warlocks didn't understand what aggro meant, it was, nevertheless, good practice for me on holding lots of mobs at once.
then i tried one for LBRS yesterday, which was most certainly NOT ok. people would pull whatever mob they wanted, etc.
after 2 wipes before even getting to omokk, my friend and i decided to bail.
I rejoined the LFG channel, and low-n-behold. the same group. it was pretty awkward leaving the group, without coming out and simply saying "hey, I'd tank this place for ya, but you all suck and i don't want to waste the time"..
i wish there's a option where you can see who's in the group they want you to join, before committing to it.
First of all, saying "makes it harder for us to refine [the system]" implies that they are, in fact, trying to refine it. Also, if you read the posts at http://blue.cardplace.com/newcache/us/55010518.htm , they're full of statements like:
Originally Posted by Nethaera
I'm saying that we will consider feedback and suggestions on making the tool better for players as a whole where we can and continue to refine the tool to be something that people want to use.
I'm not sure why, less than a week after the release of the patch, so many people are up in arms about "Blizz isn't doing anything about this." They've got a huge expansion to get out, where they're probably still doing crazy amounts of testing and corrections. It'd be naive to expect an already working system (albeit, in some people's opinions, poorly so) to be at the top of their "to-do" list when they're barely a month away from an extremely important release date. Software development is an optimization question, and it'd be silly to prioritize something that's at least somewhat functional over something that isn't working at all.
Not to mention that Nethaera is absolutely right in saying that those who won't use the LFG system render it even less usable. It's a vicious cycle (or is it circle? I always forget).
Besides which, in your second case, devs actually have suggestions to implement, whereas in your first case, they have to go on their own ideas, which got us into this arguable mess in the first place.
I havn't use this system much but I really don't see what is wrong with. Auto grouping is stupid... there is never a time in my life I would want to autojoin some random people without knowing anything about class/chat style/gear. They need to get rid of the auto group thing. It's stupid.
You know what the best darn idiot filtar is? WHISPERS. Talk to the person. Ask them what spec, gear they have. Most of the ZG/MC/AQ20 PuGs on our server require you to link the raid leader your gear. A person's guild name, that you can quickly get from a simple who, will tell you a lot about the potential member.
Blind invites... in FFXI this was like numero uno no no. Insta idiot filter.. if someone can't whisper me and ask me to join their group I assume they do not have the ability to communicate in a group and they're not someone I want to group with.
Also when I went into the part that was a list of people LFM I could mouse over and see a list of the names of the people in the group. That seemed pretty handy. Then once again apply the handy dandy idiot filter whisper to the group leader.. and viola! You can tell whether its the group for you or not.
Looking for that last random person to fill the group and are hoping for someone who wasn't necessarily looking for group at the moment. Use city general or a good old /who 60 priest.
I think the world wide LFG channel was the most horrid thing I have ever seen. When I was forced to use it I would end up wanting to stab my own eyes out long before I found a group.
Things the system needs to improve on.... You should be able to say LFG any and you should be able to sign up for as many things as you want. Also they need to add PVP, the BGs and ROAM to the list.
I'm not sure on the text limit on the comment, as I haven't tried it but it needs to be at least a small paragraph so people can throw alts into their and spec/gear information. This I think in time will also provide an idiot filter, as it did in FFXI. People putting a well thought out comment on what they can do tells me they exactly what they are looking for and what they could do for my group.
I think the LFG system will work itself out people just need to get used to change and go with the flow for a bit.
Blue suggests that using a separate channel -- and all other attempts to bypass an LFG tool -- are the underlying reasons it doesn't work well at the moment. That is to say, that the tool will work BETTER as more people use it. This is necessarily true, of course. More people looking for group means more people will GET groups.
But it misses the point entirely.
The point of an LFG tool is NOT to match people when population is high and there are lots of people looking for groups. At that point, an LFG tool is TOTALLY SUPERFLUOUS. I won't even use LFG because I can get Guild groups for Hellfire Ramparts. A simple chat channel -- or just waiting outside the instance! -- would work just as quickly as an LFG tool.
That's why I put no weight on these reports from Beta. YES, groups are being easily formed through LFG. SO WHAT? There are like ten bajillion people on it, mostly over-geared, who want to run generally the same instances. No kidding the LFG tool works -- it would take pure genius to prevent groups from being formed under those conditions.
An LFG tool is meant for situations when population is LOW and there are FEW people looking for groups. That is, for aggregating as many players as possible in low-group, low-population situations and putting them together. For finding a random Paladin for my 2pm Gnomer run, not for my 8pm Guild UBRS run.
So to say 'LFG will work fine when the expansion comes out and everyone needs groups' is to miss the function of an LFG tool entirely! Blizzard should be testing it for low-population situations, and its efficency at pairing groups together for Gnomer or Razorfen Kraul, not Scholomance. And all the evidence indicates that LFG is at its WORST when working under these low population constraints -- for all the reasons mentioned above.
If there is a vicious cycle where less people using LFG makes it less usable, then that's a design flaw, not a player problem.
Compare it to Call to Arms, after all. CTA had to be manually installed by a player. Why, then, be the first person to install CTA? Because it had functions that made it very handy at finding groups and improving group functionality EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE USED IT. It linked together disparate chat channels into a good interface. If anyone typed LFG Zul'Farrak in Tanaris - General, and a CTA user found it, every user could see it. Thats the kind of design that encourages use even in low population situations -- and it was just using existing Blizz UI capabilities! What excuse does this ground-up tool have?
On the plus side, the new Meeting Stones are pure bliss for lowbie Instancing situations
I tried the LFG once, for BRD, which ended up "ok", even though the warlocks didn't understand what aggro meant, it was, nevertheless, good practice for me on holding lots of mobs at once.
then i tried one for LBRS yesterday, which was most certainly NOT ok. people would pull whatever mob they wanted, etc.
after 2 wipes before even getting to omokk, my friend and i decided to bail.
I rejoined the LFG channel, and low-n-behold. the same group. it was pretty awkward leaving the group, without coming out and simply saying "hey, I'd tank this place for ya, but you all suck and i don't want to waste the time"..
i wish there's a option where you can see who's in the group they want you to join, before committing to it.
During the beta, I had absolutely no issues with the LFG tool and auto-join mode. Every group it put me in (that actually filled up) went on to successfully complete the instance. I think there is a disparity between the playerbases of beta and live though which may have made the LFG tool result in more satisfied players than would be the case in live and less negative feedback to the devs.
That said, I like the LFG tool. I think people just need to take the initiative and actually create groups instead of relying on the tool to assign 4 more people that are deemed "acceptable." The party leader has control over who to add using the LFG tool, and that combined with the description text that seems to be going underused and PMs is enough to form a successful group.
Remember what we have now is a lot better than what we had before. Though it seems that some will disagree with this, it is a lot easier to tweak an existing framework than to create something new. The global LFG channel was all it could be. Now with a new interface, Blizzard can make incremental changes based on feedback resulting in a tool that the majority of the subscribers are happy with. Lets just hope it doesn't take as long as the meeting stone changes.
I continued to mess around with /lfg and /lfm tools over the weekend. I got a great Scholo group for my rogue, essentially by accident (I didn't realize that as I was browsing /lfm the last thing I looked at I would stay queued for).
I think the interface needs to be re-engineered slightly and it would be a lot more successful serving both the high-end and median player:
-Turning off the auto-add/auto-join by default is a good start.
-Dropping the level caps (or adding a "Show instances around your level" checkbox, checked by default) would be good.
-Changing the set of 3 drop-downs in /lfg for instances to be a list of checkboxes (potentially filtered by the above "Show instances" checkbox).
The /lfg Instance panel should look like this (I realize now I omitted Dire Maul, sorry, you'll get the idea):
Instance
Upper Blackrock Spire [x]
Undead Stratholme [x]
Scarlet Stratholme [x]
Scholomance [x]
Lower Blackrock Spire [x]
Blackrock Depths [x]
Comment: ________________________
Show Instances Around Your Level [x]
-Allow some "advanced mode" of this /lfg interface that includes your other characters -- say I have 3 characters all level 60 Warrior/Rogue/Mage on this server, currently logged in on my warrior. This is my biggest gripe about the current system, that I cannot LFG one char while playing another, and it was the best/2nd-best feature of the old global LFG (the reach/volume of a global channel being #1/#1A). If this kind of interface is "scary" for the median user, then make it be simple mode by default with a checkbox that can be cleared in the interface options screen to enable advanced (a la simple chat).
-Minor tuning: move UBRS back into dungeons out of raid. Yes, technically this is a raid. No one considers it a raid in practice.
-Allow passive LFG in some manner for 20-man content, hopefully independent of 5-man LFG. (I really don't want to have to sit around LFG ZG/AQ20 on the off chance that someone is forming one, and ignore all 5-man groups that are forming)
-Add a LFG for PVP premades (PVP should be another tab, probably, and World PVP should be an option here along with AB/WSG)
-Add a LFG category for the various faction farming at the high end, perhaps only visible at level 50+, or by selecting the advanced mode.
-A method to allow you to flag only yourself as LFG, not the group that you are currently in. (I group with guildmates all the time to grind Twilight Texts/raid mats while LFG for something else, everyone understands that this is just a way to do something productive instead of standing in IF. Sometimes we're not even in the same place, just grouped for the sake of chatting, and not in /g)
That would be my start on the next version of this tool, if it's here to stay.
What I would prefer is that they bring back global LFG and auto-create a new tab for it in everyone's default UI that is only subscribed to this channel. This probably handles 90% of the complaints about the old LFG system, and anyone wise enough to reconfigure their chat UI is probably capable of figuring out how they would like to handle LFG on their own...
Compare it to Call to Arms, after all. CTA had to be manually installed by a player. Why, then, be the first person to install CTA? Because it had functions that made it very handy at finding groups and improving group functionality EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE USED IT. It linked together disparate chat channels into a good interface. If anyone typed LFG Zul'Farrak in Tanaris - General, and a CTA user found it, every user could see it. Thats the kind of design that encourages use even in low population situations -- and it was just using existing Blizz UI capabilities! What excuse does this ground-up tool have?
This effect is what made CTA so useful. Only ~5% of the server population needed to have it installed to connect almost all the local LFG channels into one browseable entity. I don't believe I ever used the group-formation parts of CTA, not even one time. It was the relay-chat that it delivered that made it so powerful, pre-global-LFG. Post-global-LFG, the regex-filtering for LFM/LFG was the best part, it elevates the S/N ratio by about an order of magnitude on the global LFG channel.
Compare it to Call to Arms, after all. CTA had to be manually installed by a player. Why, then, be the first person to install CTA? Because it had functions that made it very handy at finding groups and improving group functionality EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE USED IT. It linked together disparate chat channels into a good interface. If anyone typed LFG Zul'Farrak in Tanaris - General, and a CTA user found it, every user could see it. Thats the kind of design that encourages use even in low population situations -- and it was just using existing Blizz UI capabilities! What excuse does this ground-up tool have?
This effect is what made CTA so useful. Only ~5% of the server population needed to have it installed to connect almost all the local LFG channels into one browseable entity. I don't believe I ever used the group-formation parts of CTA, not even one time. It was the relay-chat that it delivered that made it so powerful, pre-global-LFG. Post-global-LFG, the regex-filtering for LFM/LFG was the best part, it elevates the S/N ratio by about an order of magnitude on the global LFG channel.
I'll admit, I haven't used CTA, but apart from not having the "3 instances or less" limitation, what made it more useful than having an LFM tool, if what it did was just filter out the LFM/LFG people in the global LFG?
a very simple toggle option (that can obviously be easily abused, but that's besides the point) can go a long way:
[_] main Warcraft character
[_] have already played up to 60
sure, it doesn't mean a whole lot in itself, but there's a lot to be said about someone who's at least been around the block a few times.
even at lvl 55, i was able to tank BRD better than a lvl 59 warrior simply due to a better general understanding of the game, and being very familiar w/ BRD.
I think it'd be a very helpful "oh, by the way" type of dealios.
I'll admit, I haven't used CTA, but apart from not having the "3 instances or less" limitation, what made it more useful than having an LFM tool, if what it did was just filter out the LFM/LFG people in the global LFG?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. CTA was very powerful pre-global-LFG, since it was "peer-to-peer" in that all CTA users propagated their channel monitoring results to all others. After the global LFG it was just a spam filter (a really good one), but a lot less critical. It did still pick up the occasional post to say, Searing Gorge/Burning Steppes/BRM general that was really an LFM/LFG request, and propagate it to all the users.
My general aversion to the LFM/LFG tools is that seems so hard to capture all the nuances of the way a text LFG / LFM request can be phrased in a combo box dialog. The comment field sometimes is enough, but often would not be.
Now, if the LFM data was somehow opened up so that addons could be used to make better LFM or LFG tools, that would be a decent result. (For example, the ability to advertise for other characters besides the one you are logged in as?)
a very simple toggle option (that can obviously be easily abused, but that's besides the point) can go a long way:
[_] main Warcraft character
[_] have already played up to 60
sure, it doesn't mean a whole lot in itself, but there's a lot to be said about someone who's at least been around the block a few times.
even at lvl 55, i was able to tank BRD better than a lvl 59 warrior simply due to a better general understanding of the game, and being very familiar w/ BRD.
I think it'd be a very helpful "oh, by the way" type of dealios.
This is very situational. Even within my guild the main-rogues-who-rolled-tank-alts sometimes tank worse than up-and-coming main-warriors that I've PUG'd with. This mostly depends on their playstyle though ("I rolled a warrior to DPS since I heard rage scales better than energy ...") -- the non-tanking warrior comes in all shapes and sizes I have found.
Whether a player has another 60 or not doesn't tell me much about their ability with the specific class they are playing at the moment, either. It also doesn't tell me if they know the instance inside and out (I have 3 60's and my recollection of RFK, RFD, SFK and BFD would be horrible, I think I've been to each of them once at the most in my entire WoW playtime, whereas my knowledge of BRD is almost encyclopedic at this point). Basically, time put in is not directly correlated to class skill (see also, PvP rankings).
I recently encountered a husband-wife pair while leveling up my rogue -- they had basically never done an instance until level ~40-45, and almost never done anything but duo (mage/paladin). The mage had never seen a rogue sap before, for example, and didn't understand that it had to happen before the sheep (this was in Zul'Farrak). Now, they were both adults and very teachable, happy to learn, actually, since they understood their experience was limited thus far. Some days I'd rather have that dynamic while grouping, and some days I'd rather be in a Scholo group with 4 other 60 alts and just rip thru the place with nary a stop for explanation.
I'll chip in with my experience so far, used it one time and got a decent group for Strath. It was 6:30am server time last Friday and I don't remember the last time I got in an instance group at that time. Therefore thumbs up on my part.
I will say that sure there are some things that can be improved upon. But lets not forget the fact this is a TOOL. TOOLS are supposed to help a person accomplish a job easier. Not do the job for them. This is an MMORPG afterall that requires interaction. God forbid we have to find a group with some human interaction, jeez............
I recently encountered a husband-wife pair while leveling up my rogue -- they had basically never done an instance until level ~40-45, and almost never done anything but duo (mage/paladin). The mage had never seen a rogue sap before, for example, and didn't understand that it had to happen before the sheep (this was in Zul'Farrak). Now, they were both adults and very teachable, happy to learn, actually, since they understood their experience was limited thus far. Some days I'd rather have that dynamic while grouping, and some days I'd rather be in a Scholo group with 4 other 60 alts and just rip thru the place with nary a stop for explanation.
this brings up a dream of mine, which i know has a snowball's chance in hell of even being considered. a toggle age field.
i swear if i had that, i could have avoided the "1, 2, 3 not-it, you tank, i dps lol" stuff.
i think the underlying message here though, is that everyone has some idea of how they'd like their LFG tool to work, and blizz certainly has the capacity to make any/all of those changes. no matter what they choose to do though, it's highly unlikely they'll have a system that pleases everyone.
in that sense, i'll take the good with the bad, and roll with the punches. those pug groups happened much faster than it would have under any of the old systems, and if i'm at a point where i'm resorting to using LFG for an instance, i'm willing to risk the chances of a bad pug.
Blue suggests that using a separate channel -- and all other attempts to bypass an LFG tool -- are the underlying reasons it doesn't work well at the moment. That is to say, that the tool will work BETTER as more people use it. This is necessarily true, of course. More people looking for group means more people will GET groups.
No, they said that it was a contributing factor, not that it was the underlying reason. The LFG tool has a critical mass, one that is apparently met quite handily on the beta server, but has yet to be achieved on the regular realms. I think one of the main reasons for this is that the majority of people on regular realms are not leveling. They are not being exposed to new players. They don't trust anyone on the server they don't already know. They have very little reason to do most 5 man instances, so when they do them, they want a "perfect" group. They are not gaining XP, and they will likely shard 90% of the drops or they'll be defaulted to someone because everyone has better gear.
This is not the optimal setup for random group making, and not an optimal environment for any LFG tool to function.
Honestly, meeting stones worked a lot better than people let on. The few times I actually used them leveling up alts, I generally got into some decent groups that usually beat the boss of the dungeon. The main failing of meeting stones was that people didn't use them. The LFG tool is like a super meeting stone that you can queue from anywhere and browse people in queue to hand pick. When people aren't all busy raiding with their guilds (and people generally aren't going to do pug raids using the LFG tool anyway, they're going to /who guilds they know and look for people they know and their friends) or pvping (which doesn't even have an entry in the LFG tool) then they might actually attempt to use the LFG tool, and we can see if it really works.
Edit: By the way, since the patch I have never felt the need to open the LFG tool. Not because it's a bad tool, but because of exactly the reasons I mentioned before. Through my friends and my guildies' friends, I haven't had to pug an instance in a very long time. I'm sure that this is the same for a very large number of max level players, especially with half the population pvping for the easy-to-get HWL/GM gear. As for the comment about not being able to "access" players who will think "sure, why not?", the LFG tool hasn't removed the "/who 58-60 priest" function, and very very few people I knew idled in the LFG channel with it visible 100% of the time, so a global chat channel wasn't snaring them either.
People are forgetting that you can't even ENTER dungeons if your level is below a certain level relative to the dungeon. Complaining "waaah my alt can't LFG with a PUG when he's drastically underleveled" is extremely disingenuous. When you've got an undergeared/leveled alt that you need run through an instance, do you go with a pickup or a guild group? 99.9% of you just mentally responded "guild group".
What irks me in this discussion is the point some are making that the new LFG system fails because people don't use it / are not willing to give it a try.
That is looking at it entirely backwards. Why aren't people not using it? That is what devs need to ask themselves, not "how can we force the players to use it?". If the system was powerful and flexible enough people would jump on it. It very obviously isn't as has been detailed by many posters in this thread already with numerous examples. Most people had no problem with using the general LFG chat, which is why it worked reasonably well (apart from the spam which you could filter out).
I have given the system a try a few times on beta and I am not impressed. Far too restrictive for my taste. If I can get any replacement for it including a selfcreated LFG chat which people join I will prefer that to the current state of the Blizz LFG system.
That is looking at it entirely backwards. Why aren't people not using it?
People are creatures of habit and fear change. Some people gave it a go (like people in the post) and formed a list of constructive complaints. But there is still a larger group of wow players that are used to LFG the old way and not used to using/trying a new tool and won't use it. Thus making the system worse for the person that is willing to give it a shot.
Also... I was doing a lot of pug 5 mans on my alt before the patch but now I'm doing so much pvp with my main that I don't have time to LFG... that might also be a reason that the LFG list is small.
12/07/06, 4:58 PM
