Hi, Infernal Tater.
While it may seem that way for many (most?) of the reviewers now, I recommended reviewers do away with a point system. As a trial map moderator, I used a point system then scrapped it. Those watching over me did not seem to have a problem with the point system but I did. Why I had a problem with it? Probably practicing and noticing that what I was doing wasn't right to me anymore.
I prefer reviewers to do things the way I see as the right way which usually is the majority way. That being no formula or point system, progressive interaction with the map maker instead of listing points, and the most important in my opinion, flexibility. When getting my points across about flexibility, I usually make up 'meh' examples like this.
"A map could be fun for ___ audience > The map is not fun in my opinion"
"A map could have bland terrain in your opinion, but for most others the gameplay completely overules this so it doesn't deserve a two"
Those probably aren't solid and convincing examples, but you get the point I was trying to get across to others who reviewed in the map section... by reading my... point.
I want to cut myself and the rest of the pack some slack from your humble rant. I think you've stated a plethora of perceived so called facts which are in my eyes, well, inaccuracies.
InfernalTater said:
Reviewers have gotten to the point where they are mechanically reviewing a map with a "system", a checklist, just giving it points for each category, and if it doesn't do everything they want, it gets a bad rating, even when the things they're rating it for aren't specifically relevant to the map they're reviewing. The actual gameplay of a map is often as little as 20% of the points in their review.
When, though? When have reviewers gotten to this point? If this is the case, then I say we need to know all the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" on this issue. This is my take below.
It's come to my conclusion that this has been going on more in the past than in the present. I know you've been here much longer than me, but I think it's plausable I've browsed and studied the map section's contents longer than you have. Woopah, my credibility.
Especially on rejected maps, the contents of old reviews are extremely self opinion centered.
It is up to the reviewer to rate the map. They know they are only voting for a specific action for the moderator to take. This means it's easy for reviewers to rate a map not on Hive's standards, which by nature are pretty damn murky, but by their own standards. I've dug up some old and deleted map reviewer threads, and most of the information there seems to not stress the things you're wishing reviewers did. What was in place of what I wished? Mostly point system discussions and insignificant, off-topic messages.
There have been arguments made that the best way is to just to compare pending maps to approved maps. Maps are always radically different from each other, and comparing not the maps, but key aspects of them seems to be a decently modest and fair way to judge, right? In all honesty, I don't know if I'd back that argument up, nor go against it.
There are just too many factors in judging a map and so far no full proof way to assess which factor determines how much of a map's overall quality and then converting it to a review.
In what way, are you suggesting, that reviewers review without a system? Honestly, everything is a system in my eyes, so I'd need some help distinguishing the two, if there even are two options.
InfernalTater said:
It all boils down to this: the goal most reviewers have has changed. Their reviews used to be for the map creator. Now they're to impress the community with formalities that don't actually help anyone. That's the initial cause. This cause then lead to elaborate, formula-based reviews. Formula-based reviewing ruins a review entirely. Every time I see a review with a full-page UI that's split into arbitrary categories (unless they put it inside of hidden tags and offer comment outside of it), I just scroll past the attention whore and move on to the next comment.
Oh, that's me except for the formula part. Here I speak for myself and myself only. While my reviews might have all the motherfucking glamour in the world, I do it for the help. Can a man not have the intention help and raise himself up at the same time at an equal extent? You know what makes me more happy than a rep on my review? A huge thanks and discussion about it from the author. Feels great.
InfernalTater said:
To any reviewers I may have offended: This doesn't mean you're a bad human being. You probably never realized you were doing it wrong. But you can always make the change, from flashy, overdone, elaborate, but formulaic and inaccurate, reviews, to reviewing things more fairly with the weight of each aspect being dependent on how crucial that element is to the map. Sure, it won't look as impressive since you won't be able to use the same premade UI for your review every time, and your review will be less likely to be chosen by moderators or +repped by users, but it will be more useful to the creator since you'll be really speaking to them about the map instead of just satisfying the formal requirements of a review. You can still use categories and review effectively, but you have to change your categories based on the map, and instead of allocating points to each category, simply list pros and cons under each category. The amount (and significance) of the pros and cons under each category should determine the weight of that category in determining your overall review. In this way maps that focus on a particular element don't "max out" their points in that category and have the rest of their effort go to waste.
"You probably never realized you were doing it wrong."
Woah there. Let's... not go there.
You suggest reviewers make the change, which already happens, without a huge indicator to say how. I get it, that's not what you're focus in this argument and doesn't matter if you don't know how, you just want it to be done and that's fair enough.
But if it can't be done, or isn't the right way to go because maybe that's already what's going on, there isn't a point in asking reviewers. Yes, it's your perception of how reviewers. But from what I see, these problems are at an all-time low and suggesting it to go lower would definitely be better than telling reviewers nowdays (you haven't specifically said that but I guess you're implying in a full on or half heart like manner) to do it more and better than to just say do it as if they aren't that way already.
To some it up, I think a bunch of the things you stated as issues have no correlation to fair an accurate. A point based system is flawed in my opinion, but everything else such as the visuals in reviews? That doesn't have to do with fair and balanced
news reviewing.
EDIT:
One little thing I didn't get to tie in and I'm lazy to find the right spot to do so, I put a high value on uniqueness and encourage others to do that as well.
EDIT2:
InfernalTater said:
Every KB's a dollar. Everyone gets an $8,192 budget to make their maps. Being worth the price is important for usefulness. As such, you should find the cheapest method of producing your resources, and if no cheap method is available for the purpose, then the quality must justify the price.
Isn't this just another insignificant point in evaluating quality of maps?
I'm joking here
Kino said:
I dont really mind it exists, Ive accepted that this is pretty much standard operating procedure on THW. I just wonder what certain users are thinking when they are trying further reduce map approvals in a year when uploads are at an all time low.
This needs a topic of its own. I am strongly against rising standards, or at least significant rising standards, and I've done little about it.
I'll create one today in site discussion.