• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 14
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,091
I always sign my name. Even for bumps. I like being formal. Why did you try to get us on this topic Steel_Stallion. Stay on the topic of the thread, and do not drag me into conversations when I have no interest in posting in relation to the topic. Stupid >.>

Cheers,
~Asomath
 
Level 35
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,366
Would it be possible to allow packs to upload .rar, or .zip files? Because I just attempted to upload my elven buildings into a single pack...But then I realized...I have to upload EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE! Including the textures required to make them work...and there are about five textures required for each building...And there there are the icons...
 
General frank is the only Pack moderator and he can't approved his own pack
"Fifth generation Space Orc rampage pack" LOL

Every resource section needs more than one moderator. I've been telling him to start looking. :p

I agree with donut3.5, the Hive isn't dying it's just going through some changes and eventually everything will get back on track.

Agreed.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
891
> Every resource section needs more than one moderator.

I would probably agree with this.

I'm really thinking that we need to shift resource moderation, starting with maps, to not having to manually moderate every single map. I've come up with a few ideas. I think we might try to setup a system where if a user has greater than X rep and/or greater than Y number of posts, the map is automatically approved. From there, we move to a find-and-report system where the users report any issues they discover to the moderators.

For people that have less than the required number of rep/posts, their map gets placed in a temporary queue and then told to contact a map moderator directly. This would be stated very clearly and in several places: "If you do not contact a map moderator, your map will be automatically rejected after X hours."
I think the number of hours might be 48. They would have this much time to let a map mod know, and then that map mod would have to mark that map so that it does not get deleted after the set time. The map would not have to necessarily be reviewed or approved at that time, but it would be the responsibility of the map moderator to take care of that map once they mark it. If they do not mark it, they should reply back to the person telling them to contact someone else, or the mod can ask another mod.
Anyway. Kind of getting away from myself here. That's a possibility.

In any case, I have to agree that there are way too many maps to try moderating them manually. That's just silly. We need a new system, but no one seems to want to go to a blank-check approval system. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a choice.

So, there are my thoughts on this.
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
> Every resource section needs more than one moderator.

I would probably agree with this.

I'm really thinking that we need to shift resource moderation, starting with maps, to not having to manually moderate every single map. I've come up with a few ideas. I think we might try to setup a system where if a user has greater than X rep and/or greater than Y number of posts, the map is automatically approved. From there, we move to a find-and-report system where the users report any issues they discover to the moderators.

For people that have less than the required number of rep/posts, their map gets placed in a temporary queue and then told to contact a map moderator directly. This would be stated very clearly and in several places: "If you do not contact a map moderator, your map will be automatically rejected after X hours."
I think the number of hours might be 48. They would have this much time to let a map mod know, and then that map mod would have to mark that map so that it does not get deleted after the set time. The map would not have to necessarily be reviewed or approved at that time, but it would be the responsibility of the map moderator to take care of that map once they mark it. If they do not mark it, they should reply back to the person telling them to contact someone else, or the mod can ask another mod.
Anyway. Kind of getting away from myself here. That's a possibility.

In any case, I have to agree that there are way too many maps to try moderating them manually. That's just silly. We need a new system, but no one seems to want to go to a blank-check approval system. Unfortunately, I don't think we have a choice.

So, there are my thoughts on this.
What's wrong with the wc3sear.ch system? No moderation upon submission, but you can still complain (well, wc3s didn't have Report Resource, but you could PM a mod), and mods still sifted through the maps to find violators and such.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
891
> What's wrong with the wc3sear.ch system? No moderation upon submission, but you can still complain (well, wc3s didn't have Report Resource, but you could PM a mod), and mods still sifted through the maps to find violators and such.

Well, I sort of feel that that system would be a sort of map free-for-all like EpicWar is. No offense to EpicWar, which gets a ton of maps and such, but that's all that site does. We tend to strive for a bit more quality here and so make the site a bit more respectable.
I was just trying to strike a medium between the no moderation system and the full moderation system.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
891
> Hence why you have people sifting through things that have been submitted.

Well, I think that's sort of what I was going for. I'm hoping that map moderators will still browse the maps themselves looking for bad things. Perhaps it wouldn't be as formal as what you suggest (I'm not exactly sure how the system worked, seeing as I was not here). I think that would be good to have in addition to what I proposed. Unless everyone thinks it would be better to go with another plan. I'm flexible.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
246
I agree with donut3.5, the Hive isn't dying it's just going through some changes and eventually everything will get back on track.

/facepalm

But ontopic. Do you really want the low-rep mapmakers to spam map moderators with more request than they already do (asking for another review of their map, "coz it improved")?

As for leaving the maps for free vote, you could make that into something reasonable. The current war3incgamers once had a system of vote-weight. Something like that could eliminate the problem of users voting 5 for even the shittiest maps, and the problem of downvoters, who rate maps 1 just for shits and jiggles. You could also increase vote weight for respected users, if you fancy.

And when a mapmaker feels like he wants some review, then he could either PM a moderator, or use some button to "report" the map for reviewing (upon using it, the map would appear on some hidden map moderation forum). If something's wrong with the map, people could report it. I think they rarely ever do, but you could make it more transparent, by writing something like "if you think the map violates any rules, report it" in the area I smeared. I don't think the button alone is appealing enough for an average user.

hivemp3.png


And you'd have to redo this message, it doesn't refer resource reporting at all:

Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.
 
Level 14
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,465
The whole point of the rating system is to give your opinion in a form of a grade. If I find a map that's made in 10 minutes but amuses me for hours I will rate it with a 4 or 5. Everything is subjective. If I find a RPG or cinematic with amazing story I but mediocre terrain I will also rate it with a high grade, and someone who fancys terrain more then a story line won't.

The downgrade problem has been addressed and now nobody can vote who doesn't have at least one resources submitted and hasn't commented on the map page.
 
Level 15
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
1,403
There's really not much choice except to get several map mods that are willing to buckle down and work, or do it the Wc3sear.ch way. There's just too many maps being submitted, doing it the Wc3sear.ch way seems to be the only answer, since good map mods that are willing to commit so much time to reviewing maps are so few and far between.

~Death
 
Level 36
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
6,677
Anyways, it's not like a terrible map will do any harm.

So far as I know, it's not possible to infect a map with a virus (unless it's more than just a w3m/w3x file...).

Also, I think that moderators should still have to approve the maps, but they shouldn't have to test them out for hours. Especially those ugly RPGs where you can't play single-player.

If a map says "omg sexy pr0n game" it's obvious that that shouldn't be approved.
 
Level 35
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,366
Perhaps we could moderate maps in this fashion.

A map forum is created, or the map project forum is used to store projects that are actively being built and moderated for high quality standards.

If the map becomes popular, and meets the HIVE's high quality standards and the users and mods are happy with the project, it is then given a place amongst the maps of the map section.

The map section will be the trophy case for high quality maps, and it will be easier to moderate as well.

The maps in the project forum will either thrive, or die. Just like hosted projects, only miniaturized.

It will kill alot of the crap maps, and it will lessen the load on moderators in the map section. They just watch over the map threads in the project forum like shepherds over a flock, the sick sheep will die off, the strong ones taken to the greener pasture of the map section.

This is just a suggestion, and requires some perfecting, but its an idea none the less.

I also believe that wc3c works in a similar fashion, though our standards may be lower than theirs to allow more maps.

------------

Essentially:

Maps are no longer uploaded in the section by users:

Maps are instead built by users in the map forum:

If the map is good, and has run the gauntlet so to speak, and survived, it will be given a spot in the map section by a moderator.
 
Level 15
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
1,403
That idea doesn't sound too bad Elenai.

It still requires time and patience, but not nearly as much as the current system. But it does seem similar to the wc3c way of doing things.

But this thread seems to have drifted away from its topic. Time to get back on topic.

~Death
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
All moderators have different standards on what a good quality map is. Right now, moderators individually rate and change the status of the maps they review, but with Elenai's system I guess things could run a little more democratically (forming a jury, for example). Things would run much slower, though.

I wish we could spare Ralle for a while, though.

Anyway, the sub-forum links are back! The lights are on once more^^
 
Elenai, the problem with that is it still requires moderators to go and look through the thread to see if it's worth moving. The whole point of what we're trying to get is less work for them.

Although yeah, this would be less work, but it'd still require moderators to go bumbling through threads, looking for worthwhile maps.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,964
Anyways, it's not like a terrible map will do any harm.
Yes it will, they come in by the dozens and add more work load to a moderator. And most of these terrible maps ARE the maps that are stacking up because I'm pretty sure moderators sometimes tend to avoid maps they think look...

Special?

Quite simply, raise the standards of map approval and organize a major map database clean up. Probably the former a better idea than the latter... although both would be good
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top