Map Section – What would you improve?

Eccho · Feb 21, 2009

About the rating, is it really necessary to have all those categories we have now? I thought it was okay before. What I was thinking instead is to have three categories (like before?).

Approved - Ranged score from 3 to 5
Pending
Rejected - Ranged score from 1 to 2

The last category, the rejected one, should, if the map really is made of low quality, deleted immediatly. A score of 2 would be the same as "reviewed", but instead, reject it and move it to the development forum.

---
Regarding mini-mods and map mods I think we should have more of both of them. An idea perhaps could be to let the map moderators (or Rui) to organize it so that each map moderator has 2 or 3 mini-moderators, and the map moderator could give out "orders" in what maps shouls be tested, as flexible and variated as possible. Maybe a map mod only status could be implented to display to other moderators what maps which already are reviewed by another "mod team".

Well, if you preferr something else than what stated in the part above (when I think of it now it was more an attempt to brainstorm), I could suggest something else . I dont know whether you said it before or not, but if you decide to keep the mini-mods, you could make 3 voting scales:

1) Users/fans/dorks who downgrade. (May vote precisely as they wish)
2) Mini-mods rating (replacing approved/rejected as if 1-2 is rejected and 3-5 is approved)
3) Map moderator/Rui rating. (May or may not be needed, (0) would mean unrated but approved)

---
Regarding uploading maps, many users (at least in the past) uses this site just like epicwar. They create an account, write no posts and submit a map, and that's it. It would indeed be neat if there was a system which could prevent this, like, being active at the forums first before submitting anything, introducing yourself and your project (for instance, like a threshold for minimum posts before submitting?). Also, hopelessly many maps are either multi-uploaded, created by another user or a modified map of someone elses work. I suppose that will still happend, but at least, give them an warning/infraction so that they can learn from their mistakes. Or... change these to the "Resource Provider" user. Another idea on that matter would be to make an own category for these maps.

Shendoo2 · Feb 21, 2009

You could add a tab under rating where it shows what the person said and why he rated it that.

Zelda.Alex · Feb 22, 2009

Regarding the mini-mods review.
Firstly we divide the maps in 3 categories on basis of reviews by users:
1......Having low quality reviews or no reviews
2.....having medium quality reviews
3.....having reviews which are extensive(not complete) or complete

Now the map review by mods can be made easier by following these phases:
1.....In first phase the maps of 1st kind are reviewed leaving the other 2 for the time being. By this step all of the maps of hive will have a review--small or large & very low quality maps can be eliminated or moved to map development section. The other maps which are not really bad can be given some time to improve.
2......In the 2nd phase the maps of 2nd kind of maps can be reviewed. Then all the maps will have reviews -- either by users or by mods. Give the users some time but lesser than given to maps of 1st kind for improvement. this can be done a little faster than phase 1.
3.....In the 3rd phase do review of 3rd kind. these will not that much effort as most will be already much reviewed.
4......After all the maps are checked once the maps covered in 1st kind can be rechecked eliminating the maps which did not progress in the given time.

Now just following this cycle again map moderators can check all the maps in steps. They will not have the burden of maps being unreviwed much. Only the phase 1 and 2 are difficult. once covered the burden will be away.

EDIT:
Note that in the 1st cycle for the maps of 1st kind the reviews can be made brief. Also the rejection of maps (until extremely low quality) can be excluded from this phase. that way the complaints, if any, by map makers regarding lack of time for improvement can be eliminated. Also the map mods will be a bit relaxed knowing that they don't have to give in-depth reviews of the low quality maps in this phase (otherwise they will get bored by so mush low quality gameplay, of course). The reviews by the mods for the maps of 1st kind should just be able to take them a little near the status of maps of 2nd kind.
As the cycles progress so can the quality of reviews.
Also make sure that any single map gets reviewed by the same map moderator so that any other moderator doesn't face problem of understanding the gameplay of the map from beginning.
These cycles, if followed, can take away hectic moderating problem of the map-mods as these cycles just might ensure the low quality maps to be improved at an acceptable rate. It will also make sure that after any phase all maps will have reviews whose quality improves with time.

Regarding the problem of users just uploading maps.
having the prerequisite of a given number of posts can be helpful.

originally by Eccho
"I suppose that will still happend, but at least, give them an warning/infraction so that they can learn from their mistakes. Or... change these to the "Resource Provider" user.Another idea on that matter would be to make an own category for these maps."
-----Giving warning/infraction is good idea but the last 2 are not in my opinion. Why don't just tell them to go to THW's partner Epic War for just uploading the maps and not commenting?

originally by Eccho
"The last category, the rejected one, should, if the map really is made of low quality, deleted immediatly. A score of 2 would be the same as "reviewed", but instead, reject it and move it to the development forum."
----That does seem nice to me for the rejected status.

originally by Eccho
"
Well, if you preferr something else than what stated in the part above (when I think of it now it was more an attempt to brainstorm), I could suggest something else . I dont know whether you said it before or not, but if you decide to keep the mini-mods, you could make 3 voting scales:

1) Users/fans/dorks who downgrade. (May vote precisely as they wish)
2) Mini-mods rating (replacing approved/rejected as if 1-2 is rejected and 3-5 is approved)
3) Map moderator/Rui rating. (May or may not be needed, (0) would mean unrated but approved)"
------3 ratings are going to far.
regarding the rating 1. why should the rating be allowed as the users may wish without any reason? the word limit for explaining the rating is putting a barrier to the downgrading without reasoning as Rui has already said. And all users don't just downgrade the maps. many rate with proper reasoning. Just allowing the users to rate as they may wish will just make the proper rating by the users useless.

Rui
1..... is there any way by which the rating's comments can be seen? It has already been suggested but has it been implemented?
2.....have you thought about the existing downgrading or hyped rating of the maps? although further of these can now be stopped due to the explanation required how do you hope to check the existing of these? I suggest that as the mods start reviewing the maps they should be allowed to kill the ratings which they find too hyped or downgraded.

By Bounty hunter2
"I dislike that the list shows only approved maps. Why? People don't bother to see the pending ones thus the pending ones get little or no feedback. As simple as that."-----i agree. This problem can be checked a little by changing a little thing. when someone clicks the map button at top of the screen then instead of simply showing the approved maps give an option as to which of the 3 categories the user will like to be displayed. that may help.

Eccho · Feb 22, 2009

-----Giving warning/infraction is good idea but the last 2 are not in my opinion. Why don't just tell them to go to THW's partner Epic War for just uploading the maps and not commenting?

The last two suggestions was merely to prevent a user to claim the uploaded map as his own. And the category was designed for the Global Resource Provider. But yes I do agree. Those kind of maps should be rejected and left by a comment like you said.

------3 ratings are going to far.
regarding the rating 1. why should the rating be allowed as the users may wish without any reason? the word limit for explaining the rating is putting a barrier to the downgrading without reasoning as Rui has already said. And all users don't just downgrade the maps. many rate with proper reasoning. Just allowing the users to rate as they may wish will just make the proper rating by the users useless.

Since so many users may or may not rate properly the second voting bar could be implent for mini-mods. If you are saying that it's useless does mean that it is already useless, since we have #1 (user voting) and #3 (mod decision) now. The implemention of a third voting, as Mini-Mods could make it easier for the map moderator.
(Edit: The intention of letting #1 still being there is because you may want to know what the non-staff users think of it. However, people like to downgrate, but maybe that could be fixed by what I am suggesting next.)

Also, I do support what mentioned a few post above. Voting on a map should demand a brief review of the map. I dont think it is good enough either to just say "5/5 omg bbq, love it." Make a threshold of the required number of characters. The comment should also explain why you liked it so omg bbq much.

Firstly we divide the maps in 3 categories on basis of reviews by users:
1......Having low quality reviews or no reviews
2.....having medium quality reviews
3.....having reviews which are extensive(not complete) or complete
[...]

Then we would have to make sure that users do review them. Going by the voting is already inaccurate like we both said.

Your suggestion seems to be a good idea. Though I am still alittle twisted since it involves 3 steps. I was alittle confused

. But is it really a fast (fastest) solution?

having the prerequisite of a given number of posts can be helpful.

Yes.

"I dislike that the list shows only approved maps. Why? People don't bother to see the pending ones thus the pending ones get little or no feedback. As simple as that."-----i agree. This problem can be checked a little by changing a little thing. when someone clicks the map button at top of the screen then instead of simply showing the approved maps give an option as to which of the 3 categories the user will like to be displayed. that may help.

Agree as well. It does look well organised and structured this was though, but it's hiding a secret inside. Remove the shell, it may look like it was before, but the purpose is more important... Oh, yeh, having a customised filter looking lika checkboxes would be great

Linaze · Feb 22, 2009

Well, one thing I have been thinking about is unfinished maps. I do not think people should be allowed to upload unfinished maps the the database, and then update it every time he/she does some work on it. In my opinion, you should post those maps in the Map Development forum, and when they are finished, you should upload them. Of course some updating should be okay, but if you're doing a campaign, for example, there is no point in posting the first chapter for feedback, as that would work just as well in the Map Development forum.

Eccho · Feb 22, 2009

I would say a late beta stage like Illidan Evil(x)'s Modern Warfare map is okay. After all when you work with something requiring an advanced level of coding, testing is necessary.
Early beta stages would be okay too, but I would say Alpha is not. It's better to post that in the dev forum.

VGsatomi said:
Aplha-stage maps: an alpha map is a map that is simply incomplete. it may be an RPG with no quests added in, or a map thats only terrain, or a map that has a lot of holes in it...in short, something that is unplayable....a mere work in progress. Starting soon, Alpha stage maps will not be welcome on wc3sear.ch.

Beta-stage maps: a beta stage map is a map that is fully complete, just not perfected due to lack of play testing by other people. The map is 100% playable, but just may have bugs and imbalances that the author did not forsee just due to not enouph 3rd party play time put in it. The differance between early and late beta stages: early stages are when the author KNOWS that there are bugs and imbalances, but just wants to see what pops up during play testing to know what they are. Late beta stages is when the bugs have been fixed, believe that the map is free of bugs, but is just making sure one last time.

Aeroblyctos · Feb 22, 2009

Linaze said:
Well, one thing I have been thinking about is unfinished maps. I do not think people should be allowed to upload unfinished maps the the database, and then update it every time he/she does some work on it.

I disagree.

99,9% of the maps are not finished. Every map always have something that needs to be fixed or balanced. Usually only the cinematics and mini-games are the ones that can be fully balanced without any bugs.

For example I'm not satisfied with any of my maps expect few cinematics which I won't update at all. There is always something that needs to fixed and balanced...

CMarket · Feb 22, 2009

Linaze was referring to alpha maps I believe. I agree that alpha shouldn't be allowed to be uploaded, but beta is allowed, as most maps are beta until they are perfect(which never happens) or until their creator decides not to work on them anymore.

Zelda.Alex · Feb 22, 2009

originally by Eccho
"Then we would have to make sure that users do review them."-----i don't get this. the reviews to which i was referring to were the one that are given by some users by themselves.

originally by Eccho
"Your suggestion seems to be a good idea. Though I am still alittle twisted since it involves 3 steps. I was alittle confused

. But is it really a fast (fastest) solution?"-----confused about what? tell that & i will try to explain my idea about these cycles of review to address your confusion.

originally by Eccho
"[....]but it's hiding a secret inside[.....]."-----sorry but can't seem to get what you are trying to hint.

originally by Linanze
"[.....] I do not think people should be allowed to upload unfinished maps the the database, and then update it every time he/she does some work on it.[....]"-----if you are referring to the alpha maps then i do agree. These should go to the map development section.

By Bounty hunter2
"I dislike that the list shows only approved maps. Why? People don't bother to see the pending ones thus the pending ones get little or no feedback. As simple as that."-----an addition to my earlier suggestion. If that suggestion is accepted then also change the "pending" status by "developing" status. although this isn't a big thing but i believe that the lack of attention for the pending maps can be easily checked by changing the sense the word gives to the user. Developing to me appears attractive then pending. Hope you understand.

Linaze · Feb 22, 2009

Alpha maps are unfinished maps.
Beta maps are finished maps that needs polishing.
So basically, a campaign with 6 / 7 chapters would not be approved due to lack of beta status. However, a map that just needs some testing and polishing would naturally be approved if it's good enough.

CMarket · Feb 22, 2009

Linaze said:
Alpha maps are unfinished maps.
Beta maps are finished maps that needs polishing.
So basically, a campaign with 6 / 7 chapters would not be approved due to lack of beta status. However, a map that just needs some testing and polishing would naturally be approved if it's good enough.

I agree.

Aeroblyctos · Feb 22, 2009

Linaze said:
Alpha maps are unfinished maps.
Beta maps are finished maps that needs polishing.
So basically, a campaign with 6 / 7 chapters would not be approved due to lack of beta status. However, a map that just needs some testing and polishing would naturally be approved if it's good enough.

Yeap.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 22, 2009

I think the current Alpha/Beta stage rule is fine. Anyway, here is another suggestion for map status:

When a map gets approved and reviewed only by a Map Moderator - Reviewed (0)

When a map gets approved and reviewed by the director - Reviewed (1)

When a map gets 3 T-Up from Mini moderators (Map mod checks this) - Reviewed (2)

When a map gets tested on one of our testing session and 3 of us T-Up it - Full Review (3)

0 - the lowest status, 3 the highest.

Eccho · Feb 22, 2009

Zelda.Alex said:
originally by Eccho
"Then we would have to make sure that users do review them."-----i don't get this. the reviews to which i was referring to were the one that are given by some users by themselves.

Yes, exactly, by all means, we would need to get rid of voting only and make sure they give some feedback more than "awesome 5/5".

originally by Eccho
"Your suggestion seems to be a good idea. Though I am still alittle twisted since it involves 3 steps. I was alittle confused. But is it really a fast (fastest) solution?"-----confused about what? tell that & i will try to explain my idea about these cycles of review to address your confusion.

The confusion is gone, I read your post again and it seems to be clear now. But I still wonder if this is the best solution. Sure, we need an organised system like yours, but the matter of speed is important as well. (but no, I can't come up with something else at the moment).

originally by Eccho
"[....]but it's hiding a secret inside[.....]."-----sorry but can't seem to get what you are trying to hint.

... that it is hiding all Pending maps making the section really look well, but in fact it is not if you look at the massive queue of the pending section now.

When a map gets approved and reviewed only by a Map Moderator - Reviewed (0)

0 - the lowest status, 3 the highest.

Why is that the lowest status? Map moderators are selected users who has the qualitites of doing a good job and has the required knowledge, otherwise they should not be chosen.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 22, 2009

Oh well you are right there, EDIT:

When a map gets 3 T-Up from Mini moderators (Map mod checks this) - Reviewed (0)

When a map gets approved and reviewed by Map Moderator - Reviewed (1)

When a map gets approved and reviewed only by a Director - Reviewed (2)

When a map gets tested on one of our testing session and 3 of us T-Up it - Full Review (3)

0 - the lowest status, 3 the highest.

CMarket · Feb 22, 2009

bounty hunter2 said:
Oh well you are right there, EDIT:

When a map gets 3 T-Up from Mini moderators (Map mod checks this) - Reviewed (0)

When a map gets approved and reviewed by Map Moderator - Reviewed (1)

When a map gets approved and reviewed only by a Director - Reviewed (2)

When a map gets tested on one of our testing session and 3 of us T-Up it - Full Review (3)

0 - the lowest status, 3 the highest.

Isn't Point 0 and 3 the same? The only difference is that point 3 is three mini mods at once and 0 is three mini mods at any time, right?

Zelda.Alex · Feb 22, 2009

originally by Eccho
"Yes, exactly, by all means, we would need to get rid of voting only and make sure they give some feedback more than "awesome 5/5"."------truly it is a big problem with the comments area of the maps. How about these posts be shifted to the creator's visitor messages?

originally by Eccho
"[....]Sure, we need an organised system like yours, but the matter of speed is important as wel[.....]"----i agree that my suggestion cannot solve the speed of the reviews although giving a system. I had been thinking over this for some time & am sure to modify the suggestion if i come up with a solution to that. As we both agree THW is in need of a systematic solution to the map review problem.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 22, 2009

CMarket said:
Isn't Point 0 and 3 the same? The only difference is that point 3 is three mini mods at once and 0 is three mini mods at any time, right?

Yes but when we go online then that is really thural testing, and when a mini mod tested alone he could have done it in lacking way.

CMarket · Feb 22, 2009

But what if a map is single player, a campaign or a cinematic? Why should multiplayer games get a better reviewed status than a single player one? Oh, and the Director's Review should be above all else anyway. I believe you should just remove the 3rd point as it is more or less the same as the 0 point, only a little better.

Linaze · Feb 22, 2009

I agree with CMarket, the third point seems a tad bit unnecessary.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 22, 2009

Well you are right but I still think that the most reviews and feedback is received when we test the map on a testing session.

Rui · Feb 22, 2009

Guys

... submitting alpha stage maps is already against our Map Submission Rules! Remember that the thread also covered that part? :hohum:

Just before we continue, I'll let you know that this is also for the sake of a democratic resource approval. I can just play a map on my own and judge it, but by doing that I'm not caring for everybody else's opinion, and I don't really like that.

For the mini-moderator system, my idea was to have a value for each resource, which increases with each time the magical button is pressed.

I just hope I have made it clear for everyone, and please do NOT start using trigger tags... this was just a demonstration.

I have already sent out a private message to Ralle for us to talk about the Map Section. Hopefully we'll be able to talk sometime soon.

HINDYhat · Feb 22, 2009

JASS:

function Evaluate takes player you returns string
    //local string name = GetPlayerName(you)
    //if (name == "Rui") or (name == "Ralle") or (name == "Dr Super Good") then
    return "fail"
endfunction

FamousPker49 · Feb 22, 2009

Wow that is the nicest bit of code I have ever seen.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 22, 2009

And so the job of the moderator is to only approve?

Rui · Feb 23, 2009

As I said, I don't really like auto-systems, so yeah. We could always have a specific search system to find maps with a certain number of reviews.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 23, 2009

I like the idea of the review number, however I think that a review from the director or the moderator should count a bit more.

Rui · Feb 23, 2009

Perhaps.
Anyway, we'll just have to sit for a while.

Again, I thank everyone for your participation on the debate.

Shanghai · Feb 23, 2009

ok my opinion every body should have right to have their maps on the map section if not its to pathetic. If not its very bad. Because people have diffrent styles and like diffrent things. What u say? Rui are u map moderator?

Linaze · Feb 23, 2009

The map rules cannot be made in such a way that exceptions can be made depending on a persons style. Some criteria just needs to be met and that's just so.
And yes, Rui is a map moderator, you could say.

CMarket · Feb 23, 2009

Shanghai said:
ok my opinion every body should have right to have their maps on the map section if not its to pathetic. If not its very bad. Because people have diffrent styles and like diffrent things. What u say? Rui are u map moderator?

This is just stupid. The Hive isn't Epicwars, if you want a site that has every map ever made, no matter how bad it is you should go there. As Linaze said some criteria needs to be met.

bounty hunter2 · Feb 23, 2009

Indeed there is no questioning about it. A criteria must be met.

Rui · Feb 23, 2009

I've talked to Ralle about the minimum characters required. He also dislikes these "no-brain" messages ("nice map 5/5"). We agreed on 100 minimum characters. He went to eat afterwards, so we haven't talked about the mini-moderator system yet.
Inserting a post length is a not available as an option for a single forum in vBulletin, so he'll have to hack it.

The thing I'm mostly willing to discuss are the statuses, though. Ralle's on Chat at the moment, I'm just awaiting his return. If we can't finish our conversation, I guess I'll just tell him everything through a private message.

{EDIT} Ralle has put the Pending maps displaying with the rest of them now. =)

Hakeem · Feb 26, 2009

Rui said:
Mini-Moderator system

Events

User - A user submits a review

Conditions

(Reviewing User) is a Mini-Moderator

Actions

Resource - Set (Reviewed resource) number of mini-moderator reviews to ((resource's number of mini-moderator reviews + 1))

If (All Conditions are True) then do (Then Actions) else do (Else Actions)

If - Conditions

(Reviewed resource)'s number of mini-moderator reviews equal to 3

Then - Actions

Resource - Set (Reviewed resource)'s status to Approved (or something like that)

Else - Actions

That's all fine and dandy, but I'd like to question one specific part:

Conditions
- (Reviewing User) is a Mini-Moderator

We allow people to create accounts without restriction, we all them to post without restriction, we allow them to submit resources without restriction, we allow them to do a lot of things without restriction. We do not allow them to delete or edit posts by, moderate resources from, infract, -rep, ban, edit profiles of, other users. Each action has a reason for being either blocked from being done by default, or being allowed by default.

Events
- User - A user submits a review

This is something that users can do without harm. (Or, at least, without more harm than a post could do.

)

Septimus · Mar 4, 2009

Why not make it this way?

A user need to make a post with min of 1,000 word if they wanted to vote the resources a rating 1 (Unacceptable) or rating 2 (Lacking)?

If a resources was indeed poorly develop, I am sure writing a post worth a thousand word wasn't going to be that hard.

This way, we can know who is a obvious downrater and who is a constructive critism user.

Joe-black-5 · Mar 4, 2009

why not making it a 500 word and for all ratings because giving a 5 with no reason is not good also :/

Linaze · Mar 4, 2009

500 words for being able to vote at all.

Rui · Mar 4, 2009

Like I said, Ralle and I agreed on 100. I have my doubts as well, but that's the value he suggested.

Hakeem said:
(...) Each action has a reason for being either blocked from being done by default, or being allowed by default.

I don't understand exactly what you meant with all that, but that system does not allow the user to moderate the resource directly.

On another hand, bounty hunter2 has officially been promoted to a map resource moderator!

Septimus · Mar 4, 2009

100 isn't enough to give enough reason of why a resources deserve a rating. 500 or 1,000 is the best to go.

Joe-black-5 · Mar 4, 2009

150-250 :/ so everyone can agree

Aeroblyctos · Mar 4, 2009

Septimus said:
100 isn't enough to give enough reason of why a resources deserve a rating. 500 or 1,000 is the best to go.

And what about if people want to give a bug list instead of writing a review of a map?

Joe-black-5 · Mar 4, 2009

well these words are the requirements for rating only (i guess)

CMarket · Mar 4, 2009

Septimus said:
100 isn't enough to give enough reason of why a resources deserve a rating. 500 or 1,000 is the best to go.

100 is plenty. You are not writing a review on your comment, you are just giving a sentence or two on why the rating is deserved, nothing more.

Joe-black-5 · Mar 4, 2009

We can start with a 100 and if something go wrong we can always increase that number

Rui · Mar 4, 2009

My initial suggestion was 300, but because of the bug-reporting thing, I considered it a little too high.
The problem here is that more than 100 characters is a too high amount for an ordinary comment, and a too low number for a review. Since we're not expecting newcomes to start reviewing maps like professionals, we'll just stick to 100 and increase the number if that isn't enough, like Joe-black-5 suggests.

bounty hunter2 · Mar 4, 2009

I find 100, slight more just fine. Your initial suggestions is a bit high, if someone just wants to mention he liked the map and a couple of words, 300 is high.

Btw,

Beware of your new map moderator ^^

Linaze · Mar 4, 2009

Awesome. But you got no title.

bounty hunter2 · Mar 4, 2009

I'm fully equiped now ^^

Linaze · Mar 4, 2009

You got baaaalls of steel!
--
Hopefully you will be able to help Rui save the map section.
Go go go!

Rui · Mar 8, 2009

Our number of pending maps has lowered considerably. If a few weeks ago we had 1000 pending maps, today we have less than 800. All thanks to bounty hunter2, who has been doing an excellent job!