Correcting Sub-Standard/Normal Model Sections

[Jaina Proudless]

Hello, I am very happy that the sub-standard section of the models was opened up to the public and no longer hidden away from us.

However, with it available everyone can now see the sad state of it as it features many good models which really don't deserve to be lumped in with un-edited wow rips and rejected stolen models. These kind of models, I believe, were set to "awaiting update" by a moderator to encourage the model maker to fix a small issue like a ribbon.

Meanwhile the standard model section has a lot of very old models that clearly belong in the sub-standard section and were probably only approved because there were like 30 models in total on the hive and standards were low all those years ago.

The way things are as I see it right now
Model section - 75% Good models 25% Bad models (like this and this)
Sub-standard section - 75% Bad models 25% Good models (like this and this)

I am hoping that all the old models that are of a very poor quality can be placed in the sub-standard section while all the "awaiting update" gems be vindicated to the model section.

 

[Footman16]

Hey I'd just like to say that I really like the new resource sections a lot and the Hive 2.0 in my opinion at least has so far been better than Hive 1.0 in terms of improving upon Hive 1.0's features (bugs etc put to the side).

However, I think there could be some re-shuffling done between the approved models and the "substandard/too simple" sections with some from the substandard section being in my opinion worthy of being in the main section and some of the main section's models should be in the substandard. I'm not talking about the highly subjective here, there are a few models in both sections which definitely would be swapped about from their respective positions in either section.

 

[fladdermasken]

However, I think there could be some re-shuffling done between the approved models and the "substandard/too simple" sections with some from the substandard section being in my opinion worthy of being in the main section and some of the main section's models should be in the substandard. I'm not talking about the highly subjective here, there are a few models in both sections which definitely would be swapped about from their respective positions in either section.

Only way to do this is to go through it manually and re-evaluate everything. Which is not something we can do while simultaneously moderating the incoming resources. The better way to do it is to report resources you think should be re-evaluated and we'll take it from there. A brick road is laid out one brick at a time.

 

[Footman16]

The only way to do this is to go through it manually and re-evaluate everything. Which is not something we can do while simultaneously moderating the incoming resources. The better way to do it is to report a resource you think should be re-evaluated and we'll take it from there. A brick road is paved one brick at a time.

Fair enough, if I'm bored one day I'll go through a section and pick out the ones which I think need re-evaluated with as little room for objectivity as possible i.e. I'll keep to ones that most people would agree with.

 

[Jaina Proudless]

I made a thread about this issue but nobody replied. If you like I can manually go through every model (I already did that) and send you my findings... or post it somewhere appropriate I don't know. In general it's quite easy knowing which models go where. The "awaiting update" gems that got screwed by a shabby feature need to be vindicated and the really bad geomerges from the hive's early days need to be sent to substandard-land.

 

[fladdermasken]

I made a thread about this issue but nobody replied.

I'm sorry. I saw it back when you posted, but then I forgot to reply to it. Merged the posts with your thread, because it's technically a site discussion question and not Hive 2 feedback.

If you like I can manually go through every model (I already did that) and send you my findings... or post it somewhere appropriate I don't know.

Sure, that would be cool. You can either report them, post them in this thread, or post a thread in Staff Contact. Your call.

I can't guarantee it will be done immediately, though. Clearing the pending section will probably have a higher priority. But if we have the info it will be sorted out eventually.

 

[Shar Dundred]

You mean like going through every side of the ENTIRE model section to move a few of them around?
That's quite some effort for the mods and reviewers there for only little in return, if you ask me.
Also, I don't think we should remove the approval from resources that have been approved in the past just because someone considers them "Substandard by today's standards".
The approval of a resource should only be reverted if said resource had become broken somehow.

Edit: Ok, I was too slow (or Flad too fast ;p)

 

[Footman16]

You mean like going through every side of the ENTIRE model section to move a few of them around?
That's quite some effort for the mods and reviewers there for only little actual yield, if you ask me.
Also, I don't think we should remove the approval from resources that have been approved in the past just because someone considers them "Substandard by today's standards".
The approval of a resource should only be reverted if said resource had become broken somehow.

Well I mean the case in point would be (no offence to the author) the Koto Thrall model which looks like it's approved yet is merely a Kodo beast with Thrall swapped in for the rider, in my opinion that model is far too simple to be in the approved model's list compared to others. Also by moving a model by no means makes it "substandard" that category is also dueled with the "Too simple" so a model can be simple and moved there without being substandard.

 

[Shar Dundred]

Okay, I somehow missed the part that you've already been going through the model section, so you can completely ignore my post, actually.
I thought you wanted the model reviewers and mods do that and that would be quite some additional effort for them.

 

[Ralle]

Nobody says it must be done in a day. We can do it over some months when we're caught up with the models as they are.

 

[Jaina Proudless]

Alright I will post my findings here. I am quite a "model-liberal" thought and I think by my standards not too many models will be judged to be moved into the sub-standard section.

By the way going through the model section doesn't take that long. Only a couple hours at most... and that's if you're a slowpoke too.

 

[Emm-A-]

I went through all the models and icons as well when I was ill for a few days

I think, that maybe models proven to be stolen, should marked clearly as stolen. I dont think, it helps anyone to delete stuff, but a "probably stolen" mark at the top of the model description or something, would be appropriate, I think ...
Well, I guess, its too much effort in the end, is it?

 

[Ralle]

I think, that maybe models proven to be stolen, should marked clearly as stolen. I dont think, it helps anyone to delete stuff, but a "probably stolen" mark at the top of the model description or something, would be appropriate, I think ...

They should be deleted.

If you guys can compile a list of those particularly, we'd like to delete them. Perhaps use the report feature?

 

[Emm-A-]

well, I remember that most anime models and some of rao dao zao were stolen. I will report some if I got the time