General moderation issue

[Uncle Fester]

Hi!

As the title already suggest, I'd have a little idea about what should be changed in future moderations: the "forced" changing of style!

"Forced" changing? Example: a moderator moves a model or icon to the Needs fix section with the reason "the handle of the polearm should use a different texture. The texture of the cloak doesn't realy fit the model".

This is why i'm calling it "forced" change. To put this in other words: either the model is made another way or it will be rejected. IMO, the style of a model shouldn't be a valid reason for rejection/needs fix. I think the style should be left to the modeler alone, as it falls under "freedom of arts/freedom of the artist". In my point of view it shouldn't be allowed that things like the following examples are rejected/moved to needs fix:

• an undead soldier has an Alliance cloak. He might have scavenged it from a famous human warrior he slew ones and now he wears it to show whome he managed to defeat.
• a wolf has a slightly shorter snout and slightly thinner head than most wolves. Wolves are different in the nature, hence they can't all have the same snout lenght.
• a human paladin has a red mohawk haircut (like Arthas having the hair of the Troll headhunter). For me, this is an original idea, and this aside, it brings a nice difference if some models have special or greatly different patterns.

I'm not referring to blurry/messy skinnings, awkward and unlogical animations and such. These aren't things that can be declared as free art and usefull model.

Last but not least:

I don't want to make the moderators' jobs harder than they are, but i think that there should be certain freedoms for the artists as well. As long as there is no clear definition of what is artistic freedom and what sloppy or bad work, many good models may be reected and a lot of good work lost. Imagination has no bounds and borders and it's key to creativity and creativity is the path to uniqueness in most cases.
Right now, as far as i know, the rule for ressource rejection says that valid reason must be stated, but the problem is that only the most crude reason are briefly described leaving a huge field entirely open. I think the rules should become in the point stated above more defined and preciser.




For everyone else who has an oppinion to this, I'd be happy to hear it. If this is going to be put into reality, I think it should be first discussed in every aspect and detail so that later modifications can be avoided. If you have any constructive criticism or idea to add to this, then please by all means, post it here.

 

[PROXY]

I have not seen moderators doing this much, if it really was something which could be explained so easy. Any exmaples?

 

[Ralle]

I agree that the technical implementation behind this seems to force the user to make a change. Most of the time the user can abject this, especially if it indeed is a style and not a quality issue.

 

[axleion]

while I'm agree with most of the point stated at post #1, I do feel there should be another point stated about 3rd example provided above.

a human paladin has a red mohawk haircut (like Arthas having the hair of the Troll headhunter). For me, this is an original idea, and this aside, it brings a nice difference if some models have special or greatly different patterns.

this is about consistency,
although a human paladin with mohawk hair is relatively original, if we see it through the normal usage of the model, human paladin is identical with order, medieval, light etc. thus mohawk hair on a paladin can be seen as unfitting feature on the model, and in my opinion, really should be changed.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I have not seen moderators doing this much, if it really was something which could be explained so easy. Any exmaples?

I intentionally didn't post any concrete examples for avoiding pointing with the finger on certain persons. I think this would only inflate a new issue.

I agree that the technical implementation behind this seems to force the user to make a change. Most of the time the user can abject this, especially if it indeed is a style and not a quality issue.

Yup, that's partly what my point is.

while I'm agree with most of the point stated at post #1, I do feel there should be another point stated about 3rd example provided above.
this is about consistency,
although a human paladin with mohawk hair is relatively original, if we see it through the normal usage of the model, human paladin is identical with order, medieval, light etc. thus mohawk hair on a paladin can be seen as unfitting feature on the model, and in my opinion, really should be changed.

This consistency is exactly what i mean with freedom of the artist. This aside, what speaks against a new, creative paladin with a stylish haircut? As said above, creativity shouldn't be limited by style factors.

 

[UgoUgo]

I am with uncle fester this time. Thought I was the only one who being 'forced'.

And seriously, if you keep sticking to the same concept, like the mentioned paladin, then we dont really need any much models to be uploaded anymore since we are basically recycling to the same thing.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I am with uncle fester this time. Thought I was the only one who being 'forced'.

And seriously, if you keep sticking to the same concept, like the mentioned paladin, then we dont really need any much models to be uploaded anymore since we are basically recycling to the same thing.

Yup, that's true as well. So far, the only models that don't fall under the style-correction are models which are completely self-imagined or don't rly occur at many other games or haven't been made so far. Thanks a lot for your understanding and support.

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

I'm somewhere in the middle with this topic. Guiding people's icon creations for a lenghty time and moderating them, I've seen just about everything.

Let's start with this: a resource can be visualy great, but if it has quite a low usefulness level, chances are it will be rejected or in need of fixing.
You see, as a former mod, I've always tried to check few things: level of usefulness, quality, originality, and how well it fits with ladder resources.
Sometimes, you can get only one thing wrong, and be sent to NF, and sometimes, get three of them wrong, and still get approved.
It's all about taking quite a few factors into moderation, where some of them doesn't sound quite reasonable (such as: new user -> a bit lower standards, or 'Should get 2.5/3, but the artist improved a lot = approved', or even 'Not original, sloppy execution, but great usefulness = approved). I'm not sure can I explain this to you, but try to think about it a little. enjoy would know what I'm talking about.

And one thing about users' artistic views: just about everything can be approved, IF it fits the wc3 world.
Sure, you may say that the cloack of Arthur model is fitting the story of a skeletal warrior, but there's one thing to bear in mind with these types of situations - if I don't know or haven't red the story, why wouldn't I wonder and be confused about missmatching parts?

Hope you understood what I was trying to explain, and that I have helped you to catch your questions

 

[Kimbo]

TLDR for below;
1. People need to stop rejecting/dissing on resources because of what other people have uploaded (complaining about redundancy).
2. I agree with Uncle Fester, but not completely. Styles which include complete inane artistic choices that effect community's usage and usefulness for the model I do not agree with.
3. People need to be nicer to the communities new resource people. The comments are VERY hostile and it's scaring away potential artists, modellers etc with great future skills (we all have to start somewhere).
______________________________________

THE LONG PART ....


Hi guys, sorry if its wrong for me to bring this up and slightly off topic, but I also have a moderation issue (although, it doesn't involve me in the situation).

What's with all the people rejecting models because "Sorry, there are too many models like this already, and they are better than this"...

This site is about DIVERSITY+QUANTITY+QUALITY. Not about quality>EVERYTHING :|...

I mean, I'v seen this happen afew times, it's a shame too ,cause the models aren't too bad. It's not only the mods saying it, but the users too. What right do people have to dictate the disapproval of a resource based on what a completely different person has done in the past? :/

Some may argue it is spam, but really? Please, if that's the case, we should really get rid off all the footman geomerges, all the sword models and gnoll models because they all look too similar or there are too many.
----------------
As for Uncle Festers original post. I agree, to some extent. However, having a gnoll ride a snap dragon:
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/models-530/gnoll-snapdragon-rider-241568/?prev=d%3Dlist%26r%3D20%26u%3Dmisha (sorry, no offense Misha, this is just an example, nothing personal with you and I understand it was a requested model)
is ...well, BIZZARE.. :|... I'm sure someone will find it useful, but to the extent of artistic freedom, it is TOTALLY out there, to the point I find it very distasteful.

I believe, if you are going to make something, make it as broadly useable as possible. If you are uploading a model/icon/skin to the hive, you are doing it for the people, the community, not 1-2 people or restricting its possibilities to be used in so many other possible ways.

If you want the model to have mismatching qualities from different universes, sure, fine...upload it...but personally.. I find it very distasteful, and somewhat self-defeating. :/

I don't think there is a black and white way to do things, I believe in all manner of hues and grays , however, a moderator usually only suggest (or should suggest) things that would help benefit a model and improve on its quality and its useage...FOR the community, once you agree to upload the model, I believe you are doing it for the community, not yourself, the hive isn't a personal file bank (although to some extend, a personal gallery, but I wouldn't go that far...its a place for community resources).

So, for little things and nitty picky things, yes, I am against that being a requirement for approval.

But a forsaken (or horde) model with an alliance cloak (while still somewhat hordish in other attire)... is just..abit silly. You are only limiting its usage for the community, if people want that model, then they can request it personally, or have both versions uploaded for variation? hmm...
----------------------------------
But yeah, there are afew things I don't like about the modding here (and ESPECIALLY how the users treat up-loaders work). More respect needs to be given to uploaders, especially first/new people. Scaring them off with a harsh review and saying "VOTE FOR REJECTION" "ITS A RECOLOUR LOL. IT SUCKS!" "LAME! 0/10".. If I wanted to share something I believed was my heart and soul, and I wanted to SHARE it with the world, for the community, to be a part of something...then reading comments like that..would hurt me deeply and would make me never come back.

As for mods, it wouldn't hurt to give some encouraging words to new comers or just in general when resources are put in pending or rejection. Because trust me...this community is becoming quite elitist and cruel to people who started off like me when I first came here/wc3.search.
----------------------------------

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

What Kim said +

Guys, it's all about two major things: is the resource useful, and does the resource follow wc3 common sense. After these fields are checked, THEN it comes to originality, creativity and other technical fields.

And if I may dare to say, originality brings the least points, because it's really, really hard to make something not seen, and at the same time, to not pop out of 'common sense' category.

I mean, like, sure it is that Jaina riding a furbolg is unpassed when it comes to originality, but come again? It's not possible to explain this in two seconds, and that's the point.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I'm somewhere in the middle with this topic. Guiding people's icon creations for a lenghty time and moderating them, I've seen just about everything.

Let's start with this: a resource can be visualy great, but if it has quite a low usefulness level, chances are it will be rejected or in need of fixing.
You see, as a former mod, I've always tried to check few things: level of usefulness, quality, originality, and how well it fits with ladder resources.
Sometimes, you can get only one thing wrong, and be sent to NF, and sometimes, get three of them wrong, and still get approved.
It's all about taking quite a few factors into moderation, where some of them doesn't sound quite reasonable (such as: new user -> a bit lower standards, or 'Should get 2.5/3, but the artist improved a lot = approved', or even 'Not original, sloppy execution, but great usefulness = approved). I'm not sure can I explain this to you, but try to think about it a little. enjoy would know what I'm talking about.

And one thing about users' artistic views: just about everything can be approved, IF it fits the wc3 world.
Sure, you may say that the cloack of Arthur model is fitting the story of a skeletal warrior, but there's one thing to bear in mind with these types of situations - if I don't know or haven't red the story, why wouldn't I wonder and be confused about missmatching parts?

Hope you understood what I was trying to explain, and that I have helped you to catch your questions

Yes, i did understand it. Well i must actually say thank you for pointing this so well out. I tried it too explain it too this way, but (obviously) failed in it: there are unfitting and uncommon models, but in this case i think it would be fair to compare them with quality and filesize prior giving the judgement. If the model is "unlogical" (like the undead i used as example), i think it would be fair to first check out the overall quality and filesize and then decide whether its good enough to keep or should be send to the trash. I've seen many times slightly biased moderations coz of this. As for the story you mentioned about this undead, this is what i use the ressource's discription first. This also brings up the other problem: many people (both simple members and mods) often don't even bother to read these discriptions.
I was mainly referring to the model section, but the icon section is truly affected as well. Thanks for bringing it in too.
You explained it well and in a very understandable way, which i quite appreciate.

TLDR for below;
1. People need to stop rejecting/dissing on resources because of what other people have uploaded (complaining about redundancy).
2. I agree with Uncle Fester, but not completely. Styles which include complete inane artistic choices that effect community's usage and usefulness for the model I do not agree with.
3. People need to be nicer to the communities new resource people. The comments are VERY hostile and it's scaring away potential artists, modellers etc with great future skills (we all have to start somewhere).
______________________________________

THE LONG PART ....


Hi guys, sorry if its wrong for me to bring this up and slightly off topic, but I also have a moderation issue (although, it doesn't involve me in the situation).

What's with all the people rejecting models because "Sorry, there are too many models like this already, and they are better than this"...

This site is about DIVERSITY+QUANTITY+QUALITY. Not about quality>EVERYTHING :|...

I mean, I'v seen this happen afew times, it's a shame too ,cause the models aren't too bad. It's not only the mods saying it, but the users too. What right do people have to dictate the disapproval of a resource based on what a completely different person has done in the past? :/

Some may argue it is spam, but really? Please, if that's the case, we should really get rid off all the footman geomerges, all the sword models and gnoll models because they all look too similar or there are too many.
----------------
As for Uncle Festers original post. I agree, to some extent. However, having a gnoll ride a snap dragon:
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/models-530/gnoll-snapdragon-rider-241568/?prev=d%3Dlist%26r%3D20%26u%3Dmisha (sorry, no offense Misha, this is just an example, nothing personal with you and I understand it was a requested model)
is ...well, BIZZARE.. :|... I'm sure someone will find it useful, but to the extent of artistic freedom, it is TOTALLY out there, to the point I find it very distasteful.

I believe, if you are going to make something, make it as broadly useable as possible. If you are uploading a model/icon/skin to the hive, you are doing it for the people, the community, not 1-2 people or restricting its possibilities to be used in so many other possible ways.

If you want the model to have mismatching qualities from different universes, sure, fine...upload it...but personally.. I find it very distasteful, and somewhat self-defeating. :/

I don't think there is a black and white way to do things, I believe in all manner of hues and grays , however, a moderator usually only suggest (or should suggest) things that would help benefit a model and improve on its quality and its useage...FOR the community, once you agree to upload the model, I believe you are doing it for the community, not yourself, the hive isn't a personal file bank (although to some extend, a personal gallery, but I wouldn't go that far...its a place for community resources).

So, for little things and nitty picky things, yes, I am against that being a requirement for approval.

But a forsaken (or horde) model with an alliance cloak (while still somewhat hordish in other attire)... is just..abit silly. You are only limiting its usage for the community, if people want that model, then they can request it personally, or have both versions uploaded for variation? hmm...
----------------------------------
But yeah, there are afew things I don't like about the modding here (and ESPECIALLY how the users treat up-loaders work). More respect needs to be given to uploaders, especially first/new people. Scaring them off with a harsh review and saying "VOTE FOR REJECTION" "ITS A RECOLOUR LOL. IT SUCKS!" "LAME! 0/10".. If I wanted to share something I believed was my heart and soul, and I wanted to SHARE it with the world, for the community, to be a part of something...then reading comments like that..would hurt me deeply and would make me never come back.

As for mods, it wouldn't hurt to give some encouraging words to new comers or just in general when resources are put in pending or rejection. Because trust me...this community is becoming quite elitist and cruel to people who started off like me when I first came here/wc3.search.
----------------------------------

Thanks for the detailed essay. Yes, your point is good as well. The hostility from normal users (not mods and such) to new guys is something exceedingly bad indeed. I understand that some guidelines and prohibitions must be maintained, as you said it. But in the case of these sepcial models (as said above), there should be made a comparison between usefulness, crativity, quality and filesize. Only usefullness doesn't rly limit a model for me. I mean it might be useless for some time, but then suddenly be well used in a special map. One can never know. But if this model has already been limited from before, we can never know how useful it realy is/was. IMO, it can't and shouldn't be only decided from one person how usefull a model is or was. In my way of thinking, everything that is being used in one way or another is usefull. The only thing varying here is the level of useufullness.

Your post was excellent and also pointed some other issues out, that also (unfortunately) stay silent in most cases (like the welcoming new members and the encouraging words from the moderators).

What Kim said +

Guys, it's all about two major things: is the resource useful, and does the resource follow wc3 common sense. After these fields are checked, THEN it comes to originality, creativity and other technical fields.

And if I may dare to say, originality brings the least points, because it's really, really hard to make something not seen, and at the same time, to not pop out of 'common sense' category.

I mean, like, sure it is that Jaina riding a furbolg is unpassed when it comes to originality, but come again? It's not possible to explain this in two seconds, and that's the point.

Exactly, except that i thing it should be first checked if a model is working properly and then the originality, common sense and such for avoiding a biased or preoccupied moderation.

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

Glad you got Kim's and my points.

It's most certain that all skins, models and icons actually are checked ingame (it's our obligation), if for nothing else, then to easier see how it looks like and how it fits with ladder resources (icons), how global lightning and certain animations apply (skins), or how the resource performs and fits (model).
This is where our reviews come from, at least 70% of them.

Any other questions you had in mind?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Glad you got Kim's and my points.

It's most certain that all skins, models and icons actually are checked ingame (it's our obligation), if for nothing else, then to easier see how it looks like and how it fits with ladder resources (icons), how global lightning and certain animations apply (skins), or how the resource performs and fits (model).
This is where our reviews come from, at least 70% of them.

Any other questions you had in mind?

Yes, i still have the question open how can my suggestion be impleted into the moderations, so that future moderations aren't that biased anymore (like "this model is completely useless, so let's make trash out of it") and allow some more freedom to the artist....

 

[HappyCockroach]

this topic brings up an interesting issue.

i agree it would be good if moderators avoided aesthetical judgement in many situations and maybe posted technical judgement as a moderator and then made a post about aesthetic judgement and suggestions as users.

but im not totally sure.. because sometimes "change that handle texture" is to maintain, for instance, a color scheme without conflicts in a model. that is based in principles (that may be arguably subjective...) - so i just dont know what to think. if the handle's color tone is slightly off with the rest, it isn't an intention, but rather a minor flaw, imo. but if you have a black knight with a golden sword, the intention might be evident, and criticizing that is entering subjective fields. the golden sword is part of the idea. the paladin with mohawk, it is a rebel paladin, a swashbuckler, w/e, it isn't a mistake but an intention... overall, technical and conceptual/aesthetical are sometimes hard to separate..

_{in that off-topic direction, i totally agree with kimberly on people having to stop to say "we've seen a lot of those before, so rejected". people should be free to upload whatever they want. the "we need to save memory" issue is far less important than "as a community we should respect people's art and give it constructive criticism and make that person feel good about having done that and feel free to share more stuff"}

and as a sidenote, i think above all, moderators and users should be nice when criticizing others' art, be that critic technical or aesthetical. i've seen a lot of disrespect and just lack of conscience that 'this is a piece of art and a lot of effort was probably put into it', etc, in the resource section.

 

[Kyrbi0]

This is a really interesting & pertinent issue, depending a lot on the line between "subjective" and "objective", as well as "creativity" and the theme of the website in general. Subscribing & hope to post later.

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

About User's Posts, and Mod Reviews

Let me show you this in an example.
Please take a look at this icon, and imagine what would you comment in your head.
Now read on.

Post #1 - This is ugly. It's not visible what's on the icon.
Post #2 - I'd really like to some more live colors on this, because it has potential
Post #3 - From the first glimpse at the icon, it looks like a wood, dretched in blood aura.
The figure of the man, raising his hands needs a lot more of definition, and you should reconsider of working out a new position for the figure: it looks like it's casting the flames, victim version would, probably, cover the face or try to block/duck.
I'm not sure if brown-ish smudges on the edges are two more figures, or background visible through flame invasion - those parts need harsher shadows or definition of humanoid body figures.
The color is bland. Even thought Warcraft artists mainly use two colors for shape icons (like Flame Strike or Reincarnation), the flames must have color variations to make it look burning (red -> orange -> yellow -> white), or you will end up with a splash of something that heavily looks like blood.
Post #4 - I like this "painterly" style, but the shapes still needs some work i think.
"Play" a bit more with those colors and hues!


As you can see, the user posts really vary, alot.
Post #1 would, in most cases (99%), be from new users, who have recently discovered Hive, and do not know the strengths and advantages of constructive criticism. These types of post are solved on their own - the users become more aware of what their posts cause, and what they should, either by "growing up", either by an experienced hiver showing them that it's really one of the most awful things you could possibly do on the Hive.
Post #4 is a post from an experienced user in the section, listing all the possible suggestions that could use some more work. And even though the words may not be kind, it's really about a user who posts like this: some fill it with smile, some are a little harsh and sharp.
And posts #2 and #3 are posts from regular user, who either doesn't have too much experience in that section, or doesn't have time or will to write down a review.

*Side note: my apologizes to the author of the icon for taking it for an example, and apologizes to the user's who's posts I've used.

Now, most moderators post a single line, like "Useful", "Could use some more shadows, but approved", "Needs more definition, rejected", "The color is too bright, sent to Need Fix".
This is also quite different from mod to mod. Some write short lines, and rely on user's comments with suggestions, some write longer reviews.
It's time, will and an amount of unmoderated resources that define the type of reviews users get. This just can't be discussed, mostly because mods are, in most cases, regular people who have their families, obligations and work.
You should appreciate that they are donating their knowledge and time to this site, to get only personal satisfaction in return (not saying you're not appreciating).

 

[RED BARON]

Let me show you this in an example.
Please take a look at this icon, and imagine what would you comment in your head.
Now read on.

Well in case of that very example if I was to comment, I would likely give some suggestions as to what it looked like, which would allow the artist to give some indication of his intentions, making it easier to give critique. But honestly the first thought that entered my mind when I looked at it, might lead me to comment in regards to some changes in the artistic vision of it. Meaning suggestions as to make it remind me slightly less of another object, which I am certain it is not meant to look like or remind people of.

But else I concur with Wulf.

 

[chobibo]

Let me show you this in an example.
Please take a look at this icon, and imagine what would you comment in your head.
Now read on.

.M.C.A. or

: Getter Beam!

I just realized I was poster #2.

 

[Kyrbi0]

About User's Posts, and Mod Reviews

Let me show you this in an example.
Please take a look at this icon, and imagine what would you comment in your head.
Now read on.

Post #1 - This is ugly. It's not visible what's on the icon.
Post #2 - I'd really like to some more live colors on this, because it has potential
Post #3 - From the first glimpse at the icon, it looks like a wood, dretched in blood aura.
The figure of the man, raising his hands needs a lot more of definition, and you should reconsider of working out a new position for the figure: it looks like it's casting the flames, victim version would, probably, cover the face or try to block/duck.
I'm not sure if brown-ish smudges on the edges are two more figures, or background visible through flame invasion - those parts need harsher shadows or definition of humanoid body figures.
The color is bland. Even thought Warcraft artists mainly use two colors for shape icons (like Flame Strike or Reincarnation), the flames must have color variations to make it look burning (red -> orange -> yellow -> white), or you will end up with a splash of something that heavily looks like blood.
Post #4 - I like this "painterly" style, but the shapes still needs some work i think.
"Play" a bit more with those colors and hues!


As you can see, the user posts really vary, alot.
Posts #1 and #3 would, in most cases (99%), be from new users, who have recently discovered Hive, and do not know the strengths and advantages of constructive criticism. These types of post are solved on their own - the users become more aware of what their posts cause, and what they should, either by "growing up", either by an experienced hiver showing them that it's really one of the most awful things you could possibly do on the Hive.
Post #4 is a post from an experienced user in the section, listing all the possible suggestions that could use some more work. And even though the words may not be kind, it's really about a user who posts like this: some fill it with smile, some are a little harsh and sharp.
And post #3 is a post from regular user, who either doesn't have too much experience in that section, or doesn't have time or will to write down a review.

*Side note: my apologizes to the author of the icon for taking it for an example, and apologizes to the user's who's posts I've used.

Now, most moderators post a single line, like "Useful", "Could use some more shadows, but approved", "Needs more definition, rejected", "The color is too bright, sent to Need Fix".
This is also quite different from mod to mod. Some write short lines, and rely on user's comments with suggestions, some write longer reviews.
It's time, will and an amount of unmoderated resources that define the type of reviews users get. This just can't be discussed, mostly because mods are, in most cases, regular people who have their families, obligations and work.
You should appreciate that they are donating their knowledge and time to this site, to get only personal satisfaction in return (not saying you're not appreciating).

Ms. Lucent, I think you mis-labelled your explanation; I'm not sure, but you mention "Poster #3 probably is new or doesn't have time for a review", yet your "Post #3" example is the longest post of them all, and most helpful (IMO)?

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

Imagine was the key word
Every user would have it's own opinion about what could be fixed, and ways to do it, especially with artists. That's where the mods come with the most efficient/quickest solution for the "problems".

@Kyrbi0, true, thanks, corrected it.

@HappyCockroach, Just wanted to point out that icons' only tech is how well the resource fits with ladder resources, which belongs to aesthetics. Pretty much same situation with skins, with the only tech being how it wraps around the model. Only models suffer from 50-50% divided on aesthetics and technical details.
Therefore, it's not needed to make a mod review and a post, when all can be fitted in the mod review. Besides, there are other users who post their suggestions: it's up to the uploader of the resource to decide what would s/he do to improve the resource.

Apart from that, there is also one interesting thing: it seems that only models suffer from this issue - for the reasons I've stated above. Therefore, if the mod has commented about aesthetics, it clearly means that tech is done well enough. But I do agree with your fact that tech and aesthetics are quite hard to separate, as one makes half of the other one, and vice verse.

 

[HappyCockroach]

About User's Posts, and Mod Reviews

Now, most moderators post a single line, like "Useful", "Could use some more shadows, but approved", "Needs more definition, rejected", "The color is too bright, sent to Need Fix".

About User's Posts, and Mod Reviews

that has always happened with the icon section. it is the most resource-spammed section and it's hard to the mods to make an in-depth rating/explanation. and i think it's quite bad. throwing ratings quick and without much reasoning.

this might deviate the topic

actually, lately i've been thinking that giving ratings to resources isn't a good thing.

a rating is just a number. it is a shallow abstraction of what people think of the resource. it is "encrypted" in a meaningless number and then unencrypted to the author, as frustration whenever he thinks he has done better than what the rating shows. ratings from users at least are dynamic and a result of many different opinions. i think it was a good thing when we had only 'vote to approve' and 'vote to disapprove', it was happening for a while here

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

If it's for users only, maybe, maybe I'd agree. But moderation does need rating.

 

[fladdermasken]

Post #3 is a post from an experienced user in the section, listing all the possible suggestions that could use some more work.

Most people would actually be repelled by a shambled mass of paragraphs.

When you enumerate all the flaws you can and suture them all into one big post, it's really more of a road block than anything. If we call it constructive criticism, it should reflect what actually provokes improvement; not what has the potential to.

Small steps, one speed bump at a time.

 

[RED BARON]

this might deviate the topic"]actually, lately i've been thinking that giving ratings to resources isn't a good thing.

Hmm while some people might consider that, its not the experience I have had with it. For me the most important part is comments, be it moderator or users. The rating is not really of importance and the only difference it ever makes to me is when I am just browsing around, a very high rating might make me curious enough to check out the model (with the re-integration and update of the 3D viewer that is not even the case for models, since I can just quickly check out any model).

That said I believe that those that would feel rejected by the rating system would also be those that truly cared for it. Meaning that they consider it a motivating factor.

For me it can be removed with no issue, but those in your example might care. Also having a rating system is required none the less for the mod.

 

[HappyCockroach]

If it's for users only, maybe, maybe I'd agree. But moderation does need rating.

Also having a rating system is required none the less for the mod.

what i said is just the opposite. we don't need a rating system. (people don't use it for practical reasons) and polarizing a decision (and its responsibility) to rank a resource's quality from 1 to 5 in the hands of a single person is what i think is worse. the "technical expertise" argument you might come up with comes right on-topic. is it technical expertise or a specific aesthetic view and judgement?

maybe we could approach it more like "resources are there, for all tastes and needs. they need to work well, though". moderator needs to be sure it works. and if the community which will use the resource gives the rating (be it for aesthetic or technical parameter), it sounds more legitimate to me..

Hmm while some people might consider that, its not the experience I have had with it. For me the most important part is comments, be it moderator or users. The rating is not really of importance and the only difference it ever makes to me is when I am just browsing around, a very high rating might make me curious enough to check out the model (with the re-integration and update of the 3D viewer that is not even the case for models, since I can just quickly check out any model).

That said I believe that those that would feel rejected by the rating system would also be those that truly cared for it. Meaning that they consider it a motivating factor.

For me it can be removed with no issue, but those in your example might care. Also having a rating system is required none the less for the mod.

you raise a pretty valid point. and i agree with you absolutely. but, personally i guess i dont feel like that. ratings might be frustrating or motivating. for me it even depends on my mood that day and a lot of other stuff. but if they didn't exist, the comments, which are much more meaningful, would have total scope.

could be this way. could be something more inventive. in our case we already have a database full of ratings. but not having them would be better imo. maybe the director's cut is a cool one, because its kinda of a big achievement. but i think distincting every other model with numbers properly would've required consistency, clear parameters and a level of organization that doesn't seem to me we have.

 

[chobibo]

maybe we could approach it more like "resources are there, for all tastes and needs. they need to work well, though". moderator needs to be sure it works. and if the community which will use the resource gives the rating (be it for aesthetic or technical parameter), it sounds more legitimate to me..

I agree with this, because not all maps are following warcraft's theme.

 

[RED BARON]

but i think distincting every other model with numbers properly would've required consistency, clear parameters and a level of organization that doesn't seem to me we have.

Yes, the validity of the rating is a problem - given the various scales people use to rate. In fact I might consider the rating system needed solely due to things like directors cut - giving a reward to the truly exceptional stuff. So perhaps instead of having a rating system that contains every accepted, it should be a rating system for the truly good stuff (to retain the important part of the rating system).

An example:
Your model/Icon/whatever becomes accepted; no rating given - but of course judgment clear from comments by moderator and user.

The Mod marks it as truly outstanding (or something - just lower than directors cut); the resource is then rated (by mod) in regards to awesomeness. So just having one point on that scale is already an accomplishment.

Granted that system does still leave some behind, but those will have no direct comparison between others that have not been accepted as outstanding.

Doing it like that would create something to strive for, but also not down-rate resources or enhance the arbitrary rating of now.

Hope that made some sort of coherent sense.

 

[Uncle Fester]

@ Apheraz: thx for the good example. It's a very well fitting one to this issue. And yes, moderation should somewhat have a rating, but i think it should have some guidelines. Yet now it is the same as the user rating system, and the current problem in moderation is that every mod rates differently (as you said as well). I just think moderator rating should be done from more than just one moderator (only the rating, not the moderation). I think more votes from different experienced ppl is better rather than only the rating of one single person. A single-person raiting is often influenced by many facts.

@ Happy Cockroach: and Red Baron: I don't quite agree with Happy, i think we do need a rating system for both users and mods, but as Red Baron said, the users should only be allowed to rate the exceptional stuff. As Happy pointed correctly out, the rating system currently is mainly being misused for downrating other ppl's work and (IMO) indirectly trading reputation.
The new users along with many of those who claim they have a project running but never uploaded any ressource often downrate models or put negative comments. Another thing that came to my attention is that IMO a few ppl downrate models and post negative comments together with ideas of how it could or should be improved in order to indirectly get the modeler/artist to change his/her ressource according to their taste and personal preferences (in other words they try to manipulate him/her for changing the corresponding ressource into the way they want it to be/look like). As Happy said: "resources are there, for all tastes and needs. they need to work well, though", this is often not the point of posts, comments and ratings and, sometimes not even in moderations.

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

I remember suggesting that, like, a year ago, while I was on staff, and after a good conversation, the whole suggestion seemed like quite a lot of additional work, even with two mods per resource section. The pending lists are already stretched out, this would double (and more) the amount of work, and therefore, slow down even more the process of moderation.

I remember what Blacky said on that topic, and I still fully support that; it were the facts I stated, and a little invisible, so-called, agreement about having two mods (like we were); and if one mods, the other one comments, for two views on a single resource, which is more practical, faster, and doesn't stack up more on "to do" list.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I remember suggesting that, like, a year ago, while I was on staff, and after a good conversation, the whole suggestion seemed like quite a lot of additional work, even with two mods per resource section. The pending lists are already stretched out, this would double (and more) the amount of work, and therefore, slow down even more the process of moderation.

I remember what Blacky said on that topic, and I still fully support that; it were the facts I stated, and a little invisible, so-called, agreement about having two mods (like we were); and if one mods, the other one comments, for two views on a single resource, which is more practical, faster, and doesn't stack up more on "to do" list.

I think the latter paragraph of your post is better. 2 mods per section is a few mods to less. Even now, it partly takes weeks or even months until a ressource is moderated. 2 mods, one moding other one for additional comments and ratings sounds quite good to me, although i guess 3 or more mods should be responsible for the rating. More oppinions are better in this case (IMO) .

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

It's not that much about number of mod comments (you get them by users as well) and number of mods overall; it's more about time and work it would consume.

 

[Adiktuz]

I personally agree with Uncle Fester...

Though approving all models/icons that use the artist's personal idea that is out of the wc3 norm might cause a problem if too many of them goes in since the site of course has a limited storage...

 

[Apheraz Lucent]

...and the point in here isn't about having tons of models to select from, but instead having a spoonfull of quality resources.

The interest in modding warcraft is reduced, but the standards Hive is keeping are not going to be drawn down by the current situation.
On the other hand, I'd recommend you to read through earlier posts, as the technical details about similarities of artist's own style and originality, have already been talked about.

If you have some more questions after you've red the thread, give us a shout

 

[Uncle Fester]

It's not that much about number of mod comments (you get them by users as well) and number of mods overall; it's more about time and work it would consume.

Yup.

I personally agree with Uncle Fester...

Though approving all models/icons that use the artist's personal idea that is out of the wc3 norm might cause a problem if too many of them goes in since the site of course has a limited storage...

Ty I wasn't meaning to take every model, but rather not to keep the moderation of special things so tight and partly, preoccupied. Ofc, the models must have certain standards, but my point is i don't see a reason for rejection coz the model is very exotic/unusual (if it fullfills the necessary standards; i.e. good quality, causes no game crashes and such).

...and the point in here isn't about having tons of models to select from, but instead having a spoonfull of quality resources.

The interest in modding warcraft is reduced, but the standards Hive is keeping are not going to be drawn down by the current situation.
On the other hand, I'd recommend you to read through earlier posts, as the technical details about similarities of artist's own style and originality, have already been talked about.

If you have some more questions after you've red the thread, give us a shout

I know, and it's not my aim to reverse this.

Sadly, it is. But still our community is big enough and luckily, it's still going.
They might have been discussed, but IMO, there hasn't been done much to it.

 

[I3lackDeath]

...and the point in here isn't about having tons of models to select from, but instead having a spoonfull of quality resources.

This is your personal interpretation.
The bottom line is usefulness, as stated by the administration.
Whether or not resource sections are a compilation of quality and/or individuality and/or artistry is up for each individual to decide.

Personally, I don't see any problems whatsoever.
This place features all necessary and universal instruments:
approval, rejection, appeal.
Pick whatever suits your own situation.

You can't please everyone, and it's a waste of time to try.

 

[Vinz]

As for mods, it wouldn't hurt to give some encouraging words to new comers or just in general when resources are put in pending or rejection. Because trust me...this community is becoming quite elitist and cruel to people who started off like me when I first came here/wc3.search.

Yup, people should really try to motivate each other. :O

 

[GhostThruster]

i reckon mod ratings shud be removed too. they're too subjective, potentially inflammatory, and very divisive. resource classifications should be
- Rejected - technically/aesthetically broken, or does not abide by rules
- Pending - unmoderated insofar, or awaiting an update (basically combining Pending and Needs Fix)
- Approved - technically/aesthetically approvable, and abides by rules
if a moderator really likes a resource, he can always rate it like any other user.

 

[Uncle Fester]

i reckon mod ratings shud be removed too. they're too subjective, potentially inflammatory, and very divisive. resource classifications should be
- Rejected - technically/aesthetically broken, or does not abide by rules
- Pending - unmoderated insofar, or awaiting an update (basically combining Pending and Needs Fix)
- Approved - technically/aesthetically approvable, and abides by rules
if a moderator really likes a resource, he can always rate it like any other user.

That's a good idea too, although i think there should be a mod rating rather than a user rating (except for DC models). User rating is usually more potentially inflammatory or even discouraging.

 

[GhostThruster]

ive never seen a debate over a user's rating. i have, however, seen plenty of mini-disputes over moderator ratings and even contest judgings. simply put, an 'official' individual rating is more flammable than an unofficial collective one.

even still, the main issue is subjectivity. the user's feelings shud be a tertiary priority for ratings. mod ratings only wud be superbad