Re: Pottermore v.10
 

I don't see any reason why that piece of artwork would be declined, unless they somehow felt it wasn't Harry Potter enough? I don't get that impression, though.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Maybe they think that leg is something else :hmm:

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Maybe they didn't realize Harry was dreaming about riding Hagrid's motorcycle?

Too bad they just sent a form letter and don't allow any discussion.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

I read over the terms and conditions, and I have no idea why that artwork would not be approved.

I really wish they would be more specific when they deny things. They take the time to look at it and send a message - it would only take a second or two more to include the reasoning.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Any word about the site will be open to everyone? Every now and then I check the site. Aside from the drawings there is no information on what is happening with the site. I still don't know why they couldn't open it to everyone last fall, true there were some problems but now a lot of people probably forgot about the site.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

I'm afraid it's much more than just a tweak here and a tweak there or it would have opened long ago.

There's occasional info posted at http://insider.pottermore.com/p/pott...e-updates.html

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

He's just sleeping and dreaming of flying motorbikes!!!! If they're seeing something sinister about it, then they've really gone overboard with their ultrafriendliness.

The problem I see with Pottermore being so "ultra family friendly", is that in future, will they be rejecting all violent depictions of scenes that are clearly stated in the books? Are drawings of Snape's death, Hermione being tortured, the graveyard scene in GOF, Molly calling Bella a ***** all banned from Pottermore? It is silly, since children would've imagined such scenes in their heads and these are CANON scenes.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

What if someone drew a scary looking picture of Voldemort on the back of Quirrell's head? Voldemort could look really super demonic the way he's described in the book. Jo said it was the scariest thing she ever written.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

I don't understand it, either. The books start getting pretty dark around GoF.

She wants a site where parents can drop off their kids, but not all of those books are for kids under ten.

Maybe she'll leave those sections off Pottermore, and only give more details to the lighter aspects? Seems a shame to water it down like that.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

There were a lot of day 1/2 accounts that had issues - people didn't get sent their welcome e-mails, or the welcome e-mails were delayed for weeks, so they went ahead and made a 2nd account on day 3 or 4. I'm assuming a large portion of the missing 314,000 belong to those lost accounts.

The multiple account creators come in two major groups: the eBay profiteers trying to make beta accounts to sell and the selfish fans who wanted the perfect username or a ton of accounts to brag that they had them. (There was one idiot on Mugglenet who was bragging about having made 26 accounts because he could, and several eBay auctions for Pottermore usernames were deleted in the first few days after the Magical Quill Contest.) Even considering that those were only a handful, I can believe they'd account for between 1,000 and 10,000 of the missing accounts.

There are people who either forgot their usernames, forgot they had an account, or are for some reason just now getting on - I still see the occasional Tumblr person posting about how they "just" got Sorted or "just saw" the new House material. There are probably more of those than the multiple-unused-accounts, but fewer than the day 1/2s that got lost.

Finally, you have to account for account deletion: while working on my random survey of Pottermore users, I found a ton of accounts that were abandoned on Chapter Seven. You have to assume that, while some people simply quit exploring over the fact they got the House they didn't want, others were angry enough to delete their accounts (probably doing this in August or early September, believing they'd make another in October.) Since a lot of accounts have been abandoned at the end of Chapter Seven, I can believe more have been deleted.

But I do think it was a mistake to set the hard-and-fast October opening and to put as much attention as they did on it - they could've gotten 1,000,000 people with announcements only to fansites and not an enormous press conference, rollout with accompanying articles in magazines and newspapers, etc. It was a mistake to do that before they realized exactly how much traffic they were going to have: a rollout like that should've been reserved for public opening, not Beta.

The vast majority of users do leave after they've finished the information - I'd bet the average point total of a Pottermore user is under 100. But even if there are 10,000 super-users (and there are probably fewer than that), the traffic seems to be too much.

Given Sony's financial difficulties, I wish another corporation would pick up the site. I still can't help but think that, while the official Sorting quiz is the one highlight that a book couldn't reproduce, a book-form encyclopedia would've been better. I've enjoyed Pottermore, but thus far it's disappointed most fans. (Granted, the people who wanted an MMORPG would never have been happy, but the rollout + extended beta + no updates + content lasting about a day for most people = unhappy fans in general.) Even just having greater levels of communication from Sony would help - the last informative update was January 26th, and that was only a notice of scheduled downtime having occurred.)

As for the drawing, again, there's a Pottermore communication issue. I don't think anyone could look at that drawing and believe it's inappropriate, but Pottermore rejects a lot of innocuous comments and drawings. And my guess is that, if/when Pottermore makes it to the later books, they will censor graphic/gory illustrations of everything from Pettigrew's severed hand to Molly's famous scene.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

There's one more category: banned users. I've seen screenshots of warnings people have gotten there. They offer about as much information as Arya got for her drawing being denied, but some seem to think it has to do with roleplaying of some sort.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

BronzeDragon and MerryLore,

I agree with both of your opinions and posts. I didn't consider banned accounts too...

I feel it is unfortunate that an individual would delete an account simply because of the house they were sorted into. At least as far as we know, there were no students who attended Hogwarts who left the school because of the house they were sorted into.

Also, with all the details and "tumblr" accounts full of synopses of how the house sorting goes, when Pottermore is finally open to the public, you'll have several people who wind up "choosing" their own house instead of letting the sorter find one for them.

As for the up-and-coming book content that is not family friendly, it will be interesting to see how they handle it all. Will they allow some as content specific? Or will they limit the amount of content that is shared on the site? It seemed that the content in the books themselves by JKR seemed to mature with the original target audience. The books may have been intended to be family friendly, but the series as a whole is not. Even some of the released information given by JKR herself since the books were completed could be construed as non-family-friendly by some...

Of course, you can't please everyone... without disappointing everyone...

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

I think JKR was trying to follow canon when she made the Sorting Hat quiz, but I believe the Sorting Hat was aware of subtleties, such as the house the student prefers and identifies with, which ones they dislike, which ones their family and friends were sorted into, etc. In Pottermore, we even read about 2 hatstalls.

Readers also identify with particular houses, but nothing in the quiz on Pottermore takes a person's preferences into account, unless they actually do get a hatstall. I think JKR was afraid most people would gravitate towards Gryffindor at the expense of the other 3, and she believed her welcome letter would explain why the house they were sorted into was a good fit for them, and they'd accept it.

I personally see no issue with someone re-signing up with Pottermore to get the house they want, as long as they delete the old account. From what i can see from the house points scoring system, the overall score is weighted based on how many students are in that house. It would not matter if a huge house vs. a small house competes. It's only fair, though, that those who create a new account delete the old one, so as not to put the other house at a disadvantage.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Oh, yeah - I do remember a whole to-do about RPers being banned a few months back. But at least some of the people who were banned were doing explicit RP of Muggle-hunting, torture, and definitively non-family-friendly things. From what I saw about the whole kerfuffle on other sites, I thought there were only a handful who got bans. (I don't really understand the need to RP on Pottermore, of all places - the character limits and moderation time seem like it would be one of the most inconvenient places for RP.)

Captain_Mills, remember Draco saying that if he got Hufflepuff, he was packing up and going back home? Apparently some people decided they'd actually make good on those words. :p

As far as Sorting goes, it's definitely possible to "pick" your House, but only with access to lots of data and possibly refreshing for an odd question set. But I think that takes most of the fun out of it, and that everyone should take the quiz honestly at least once. If seeing a certain-color background and earning points for a particular House makes someone happy, though, I agree with MerryLore - the people who would make another account and cheat aren't hurting anyone else as long as they delete the old account, and I can't imagine that there would be that many of them. Heck, with all the reshuffling, they might well cancel each other out in terms of shifting House numbers.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Too bad Draco doesn't like my house. :( I think he's hot. LOL.

Anyway, I recall when signing up for Pottermore or seeing it somewhere or another on Pottermore that Pottermore has the right to delete inactive accounts after 6 months of inactivity.

So does anyone else think that soon we might start seeing a drop in the amount of accounts on Pottermore?

August was 6 months ago....so soon it will be 6 months since some of those accounts were last logged into.

Anyway, I wish Hufflepuff was more popular. There probably are more abandoned Hufflepuff accounts than any other house(and maybe Pottermore will eventually delete those...but there are probably some people who just sign in for new info). I don't mind if we never win the house cup but I don't like to be ENDLESSLY last FOREVER. Like my house being doomed to last place no matter how many house points I earn. That might actually tempt even more people to just leave Hufflepuff and make a new account. I'm going to stick with mine though(unless at some point in time it permanently glitches up for some reason and I'm forced to make a new account - I was wondering if I'd end up having to do that when my potion was frozen for over 3 months but thankfully that was fixed).

EDIT:

Some people got banned on Pottermore? What kind of warning message did they get? I just want to know how easily they ban people at the site so I can avoid it ever happening to me. I mean it sounds like the place is ultra family friendly to the extreme which is why I'm wondering if it's possible to accidentally do something that isn't even that extreme and still get banned....so I want to be careful.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

From what I've seen, the only banning came from role playing, and other members reported them.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

What kind of role-playing? How would that get someone banned?

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

From what I understand, it was people role-playing Death Eaters and RPing explicit violence in the Great Hall area of the site. Since Pottermore is supposed to be a family-friendly site, RPing Muggle-hunting, torture, murder, and possibly rape in an explicit fashion earned bans for a handful of players.

There was a Ravenclaw forum that had screen-shotted some of the more disturbing examples, but I can't find it via Google now, and most of the Facebook and Tumblr posts are gone. (This occurred a long while ago and resulted in 3 bans, maybe a handful more, but the RPers were all very angry about being banned without prior warning and there was a large brouhaha between the people who would prefer the RPers move elsewhere and the RPers.) Personally, I'd rather see the RPers going to an RP site regardless of what they're RPing - Pottermore wasn't intended for RP anyway and the moderation issues it raises means that Sony has to spend more time modding than worrying about fixing the glitches and adding content.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Aren't all comments approved by a moderator before they show up publicly though?

I rarely post comments on the site anywhere but I recall that whenever I did, they wouldn't show up immediately and would be looked at by a moderator before showing up publicly.

I do agree though they should have been warned first before being outright banned. A percentage would have stopped and not done it again after a warning.

Also is Pottermore doing maintenance again? The site is down for me although I don't see maintenance mentioned on the Pottermore Insider or Pottermore Twitter.

Re: Pottermore v.10
 

Not all, some show up in a few minutes. They don't come up immediately, but I don't think they're all moderated. Only occasionally does it say that the comment is under moderation. I think there are some key words that prevent the comment from showing up.

Which kind of makes me wonder how comments role-playing violent crime were able to come up. :hmm:

I don't know. Pottermore is very clear about being family-friendly and cheerleading for the DEs and role-playing violent crimes is very family unfriendly. It's not appropriate on a site kids will be viewing. I'd like to say it's not appropriate anywhere, but each to their own. I can see why the Pottermore administration would want to dissociate themselves from that. I can see why they wouldn't want to take the risk of it starting up again before they get to it. I think it would make for bad publicity for Pottermore if they didn't take action on something like this and it wouldn't be good for business.

It's up again.