Solutions to Map Reviewing Issue

Originally Posted by Airandius

You have to consider that it's VERY hard and that it takes ALOT of time to moderate a map properly, Also I have given some solutions to reduce strain for moderators to increase the quality on the hive.
You can find those in the other tread called; Mod Suggestion

We have come with a good idea (in most peoples few) to remove the delete option and make people upload only finished maps, not alpha's or beta's that need testing.

~ Airandius

I think Ash of all people would know this, as he has been a map mod twice now, and resigned. He always gives a very detailed and good map review, whether or not the review is positive is dependent on the quality of the map.

But I do not think it is good to have the moderators review each and every map, because I can easily understand the eventually tiring of low quality maps that are submitted.

I am not exactly sure how Wc3sear.ch worked, but it seems like the prevailing idea here.

wc3search had no approval process, but had moderators to go back and sift through everything which looked like it needed sifting through.

It was pretty nice most of the time, but annoying sometimes... I once spent a day cleaning out broken linked maps from the older recesses of it. Not the funnest day of my life.

Originally Posted by FamousPKer49

I think Ash of all people would know this, as he has been a map mod twice now, and resigned. He always gives a very detailed and good map review, whether or not the review is positive is dependent on the quality of the map.

How does the fact that he's a great reviewer but an unreliable moderator matter at all? It's obvious to even the half-witted that reviewing takes time and effort, specifically for it to be meaningful. Regardless, though, due to the sheer influx of maps, it is impossible for mods to keep up -- Particularly when no one with the capacity to review well wants to be on the staff in the first place.

Just let this take it's course and we'll see where the hive stands after that. The obvious solution is to remove the easily accessible ability for a user to delete their maps and force them to go through a staff member. (Am I repeating myself or something?) If that's done, then the staff knows before the fact what people are trying to abuse the feature. This is why there is an admin dedicated specifically to the community, God forbid he actually has to do something.

Originally Posted by Rising_Dusk

The obvious solution is to remove the easily accessible ability for a user to delete their maps and force them to go through a staff member.

Yeah, well I oppose this decision. I will oppose this tooth and nail. This is removing a vital right of people's uploading capabilities and so help me, if they actually put this on the website I am outta here

We'd be no better than bloody Xgm if we pulled a stupid move like that

I agree with Ralle and Brad Dude about passing map moderation to the crowd.

The issues I see with that is:
- Biast Opinins for or against.
- Lack of motivation.

Everyone should be allowed to test and review each map. Moderators however should be able to scan through the posts and take into account there general trend in opinion of the more respected users (eg. users with above 50 repuation). At the bottom of each post, the volunteer should simply say whether the map should be passed or not at that point. If it is clear the general trend in opinion is for or against it then the moderator will simply finish the job quickly.
To reward users, for each map they choose to test, maybe add a new volunteer reputation system (like Vrep :P). For this, only moderators can give this type of reputation, and it is given only if you helped test the map, review it to a certain extent, and possibly come back and test a few updates.
I dunno if any of you guys would understand this system.
Vrep would probably be a bit more respectable then normal rep, mainly because normal rep can just be thrown about for any reason. (btw... vrep wouldnt replace normal rep :P and I dont think Vrep should show next to users posts... just in their profile so no one gets too confused ^^)

At the end of the day... this could simply be another shit idea ^^

EDIT:
Might be harsh... but instead of the above... maybe neg rep for a completley SHIT map that wastes mods time?
Because people might upload maps that they havent even tested themselves... also, maybe after a mpa is rejected a 2 day ban on posting anymore? Might be harsh... but could easily convince users to test there work first... and give them 2 days to improve there map rather then spam it back up...

Originally Posted by Grim_labour

Might be harsh... but instead of the above... maybe neg rep for a completley SHIT map that wastes mods time?
Because people might upload maps that they havent even tested themselves... also, maybe after a mpa is rejected a 2 day ban on posting anymore? Might be harsh... but could easily convince users to test there work first... and give them 2 days to improve there map rather then spam it back up...

No, that can't be done. That not only can completely demoralize people, but the definition of a "SHIT map" is mostly different with everyone.

As such, if a map reviewer reviews said map, it's decently made (in my opinion) bue because of the reviewer's constant success and knowledge of mapmaking, his standards go higher and he considers that map a "SHIT map" in which neg rep is dispensed.

So yeah, it could cause standards to skyrocket, which may sound like a good idea, but it could keep people who actually are here for good reasons to think this place is horribly elitist and leave.

Originally Posted by Steel_Stallion

A "SHIT" map should be rejected immediately, but we should then have a global definition of what a "SHIT" map is.

What ever happened to that rule where you can't steal maps? What the fuck is Life of a peasant Megaman X?

Its attack of the fucking clones, that's what it is. THOSE maps deserve to be rejected on sight, because they are pretty obvious from the name and mini map preview.

The problem is, it is very hard to determine whether the map is created by the person or been stolen.

Some stolen map have gone through at least 90% changes, making it hard to be acknowledge whether it is genuine or stolen.

While some LOAP map is really created by the person, is just the name of the map similiar.

Originally Posted by PurplePoot

wc3search had no approval process, but had moderators to go back and sift through everything which looked like it needed sifting through.

It was pretty nice most of the time, but annoying sometimes... I once spent a day cleaning out broken linked maps from the older recesses of it. Not the funnest day of my life.

Tell me about it...I went though ALL 5000+ OF THEM making sure every link worked and removing that ones that were broken....took me several days.

back to topic...

Given the volume and rapid map intake rate of this site, a system that gives users a chance to report rule-breaking maps rather then mods searching though every last one of them would certainly be the most logical choice in my opinion. It did work very well at wc3search, and I think it would be just as effective here. As it stand snow the mods are way too overburdened.
-VGsatomi

The way you report posts on the boards does also work in maps, and you can report the map itself with the same button.

I don't think it would be too hard to moderate all the pending maps. I am considering to moderate a page every day. I would write a review, a SHORT one. Rather a few comments on why I acted like I did. If somebody wanna review a resource, they can write a post.

Originally Posted by Ralle

The way you report posts on the boards does also work in maps, and you can report the map itself with the same button.

I don't think it would be too hard to moderate all the pending maps. I am considering to moderate a page every day. I would write a review, a SHORT one. Rather a few comments on why I acted like I did. If somebody wanna review a resource, they can write a post.

Uuuh, I don't mean to argue with you ralle, but I think there are, like 22 pages of pending maps backlog? That's gotta be pretty tough to catch up with?
Didn't someone earlier on in this thread mention tempoary mods? Maybe ask 4/5 or so well respected users whether they would be willing to take the title of a temp?
This would basically mean, they've agreed to spend lots of their time testing the maps accepting/rejecting them and once the backlog has been shrunk to a certain extent remove the map mod power?

Originally Posted by Steel_Stallion

Actually, most are very easy to determine. Rejection could also be based on the maps poor quality because it is exactly the same as the others with some imported models and a flame strike that does 999999999 dmg.

FFS

Low quality map is quite easy to determine, but stolen map isn't.

Originally Posted by Septimus

Low quality map is quite easy to determine, but stolen map isn't.

Just thought I'd jump in and say a few words to this.

LoaP maps are quite clearly recognized as 'stolen' -- if you'd want to call it that, I prefer badly edited, myself -- because they have exactly the same piece of terrain around the centre, or bottom, usually, of the map.

However, that doesn't mean that the map is edited without consent. For all we know, the original LoaP map could, very well, be open source.

Originally Posted by Ash

Just thought I'd jump in and say a few words to this.

LoaP maps are quite clearly recognized as 'stolen' -- if you'd want to call it that, I prefer badly edited, myself -- because they have exactly the same piece of terrain around the centre, or bottom, usually, of the map.

However, that doesn't mean that the map is edited without consent. For all we know, the original LoaP map could, very well, be open source.

That is why it is hard to determine it cause of this reason.

1) Could be open sources
2) The original author might have give permission to 1 person only.
3) The original author cannot be contact to determine permission have been granted to the user or not.

Well, not all LOAP is stolen. Sometimes I compare their trigger and some have a completely opposite triggering style.

Oh, and don't forget the Naruto maps, those always turn out awful.

How about this then...
New Map Uploading Rules should be drawn up.
1) Map Terrain should be made from SCRATCH - Unless:
I) You have screenshotted evidence that you have permission to use the terrain
II) The true and original creator of the terrain is unknown and the general community would consider the map to be open-source.

2) The Map must be completley finished... If not it should be posted in the map development section on the forums.

3) A Full Map description should be available so normal users see what they're downloading (This might be a rule already.. but there are still maps with no description :/)

These are just my opinions... I think these would help to improve the odd map but something else would be much better...