Map Quality

[Ralle]

We are in the process of implementing a different way of finding quality maps.

This is the way we'd do it:
Somebody posts a quality review of a map and rates it.
We mark the post as a review and the rating submitted by the user will be part of a separate rating of the map which we will be filtering by.

All this sounds great but it made me think again.

Everyone has an opinion about some map and gives it a rating of how much he/she likes the map. So why not use this rating directly and filter by that?

I know some of you will be saying "oh ralle but what about them downraters?" and my answer will be that yes, there will always be downraters. But we can assume that most people rate what they think and not just to downrate so I actually think we should go that way.
We can of course always implement algorithms to detect excessive downrating and get rid of that. But we have to assume that most people are "good".

I won't make this decision by myself though. Here's a poll.

thoughts?

 

[Linaze]

Ratings themselves serve little purpose at all, if you ask me.
What user would look for maps with low rating? None, or a few users at most, from my experience, the only way people use the rating filter is to find maps of high quality, and I'd say the amount of downloads is a better way of tracking down good quality maps. It's also worth mentioning that moderator ratings depends on the moderator, I for example, gave, if I remember correctly, a 4/5 rating as highest, and I reviewed quite some maps, whilst other moderators gave (generally) higher ratings.

 

[Ralle]

But then it works as we want it to. We want people to be able to find quality maps based on user rating instead of by moderator rating.

Oh and we just need to highlight recent maps to give everyone a chance.

 

[Linaze]

User ratings say little nothing about the map's quality, partially because of so-called "down-raters", but also because many of the user "reviews" look something like this:
"Cool map 4/5, I love the sfx", except with poorer grammar.
And believe me when I say this: This will not save the map section.

 

[Ralle]

So Linaze, where will you cast your vote?

 

[Septimus]

Ok Ralle, here is my opinion about it.

Using a user rating to indicate the quality of the map are rather a poor idea. Most of the rating by user are always overkill, either it was way too low or too high with little or none input of what makes the map good/bad.

Ralle, your top priority should be focusing into deleting those 42 pages of pending map just like what we did at spells section after the release of patch 1.24

Here is what we need to do with the map sections.

1) Purge those 42 pages of pending map.

2) Delete all those approve map with invalid author name such as unknown. Those resources are approve before the existences of map moderation team and could possibly violate the rules. (Yeah!! I know you going to say they're already been approve long time ago. But if we are really seriously wanted to improve map section, then this is what we going to do.)

3) All approve map with rating between Director Cut to Recommend by mod/admin should be re-evaluate again to ensure the map quality are still at the deserving rating.

4) Implement an Q/A section that ask user a specific question about map rules before they could upload map (For first timer).

5) Map submission rules should explain to user the criteria type. For example, explain that an Tower Defense is a type of map where user would have to build tower to fend off an waves of attack.

This should be add cause some user are still easily mistaken an altered melee map as melee map (Vise versa and so on).

Rating by users are often based on how much entertaining the map is for them and often neglect the quality of the work. For example, some users could rate a cinematic map 1/5 just because they do not like the storyline while the terrain, camera work and others are simply marvelous.

That would make some good quality work hidden/out of view if the filter was done this way.

My vote is "Slow moderation with a longer and longer queue. It doesn't really work."

 

[dead-man-walking]

I must do this.

Using a user rating to indicate the quality of the map are rather a poor idea. Most of the rating by user are always overkill, either it was way too low or too high with little or none input of what makes the map good/bad.

Ralle, your top priority should be focusing into deleting those 42 pages of pending map just like what we did at spells section after the release of patch 1.24

Here is what we need to do with the map sections.

1) Purge those 42 pages of pending map.

2) Delete all those approve map with invalid author name such as unknown. Those resources are approve before the existences of map moderation team and could possibly violate the rules. (Yeah!! I know you going to say they're already been approve long time ago. But if we are really seriously wanted to improve map section, then this is what we going to do.)

3) All approve map with rating between Director Cut to Recommend by mod/admin should be re-evaluate again to ensure the map quality are still at the deserving rating.

4) Implement an Q/A section that ask user a specific question about map rules before they could upload map (For first timer).

5) Map submission rules should explain to user the criteria type. For example, explain that an Tower Defense is a type of map where user would have to build tower to fend off an waves of attack.

This should be add cause some user are still easily mistaken an altered melee map as melee map (Vise versa and so on).

Rating by users are often based on how much entertaining the map is for them and often neglect the quality of the work. For example, some users could rate a cinematic map 1/5 just because they do not like the storyline while the terrain, camera work and others are simply marvelous.

That would make some good quality work hidden/out of view if the filter was done this way.

My vote is "Slow moderation with a longer and longer queue. It doesn't really work."

1. Map Section Purging
Must be done. MUST.
2. Delete Approved Maps That Actually Violated The Rules
Seriously Ralle, Septimus got you on that point.
3. Re-Check Director's Cut and Highly Recommended, Approved Maps.
Agreed. There is a map named "Magic Forest" that is approved by VGSatomi with Director's Cut because of the Terrain long ago. The map is actually in German.
4.Implement a Q/A Section
Although it's a bit strange (Ask the Uploaders or Answer the Uploader's Questions), definitely usable.
5. Explain the Map Types on Maps Section
Should be done, although it can make Newbs feel Idiot.

For the last point, sometimes it also depends on Users. E.g., User A Downloaded a Cinematic by User B. A don't really like the story, but loves the Terrain and Camera Work. So, A gives B a review, saying that he don't really like the story but loves the Terrain and Other Works. So, he give it a 4/5 because of Terrain. Well, just an example.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

Your idea isn't that bad either... But if you asked me, I'd still prefer the old, usual way...

 

[ike_ike]

Rating by users are often based on how much entertaining the map is for them and often neglect the quality of the work.

Not particularly many people actually care about what goes on behind a map, as long as the thing works. It's really just elitism speaking there, methinks.

 

[Ralle]

Septimus, I agree this would be the best way of doing it. But it is too much work.

We also have to remember that when SC2 is launched many of us will focus on that instead and the amount of people suited for being moderators will decrease even more.

Therefore we need a simpler system. But the #2 poll answer is also a good one.

 

[Joe-black-5]

Shouldn't we remove all maps that does not work with the new Version of War3?

 

[Pharaoh_]

I voted for the second option, but that doesn't mean that anyone who considers something as a bug will downrate a map. It's obviously unfair, as it might be a matter of false triggering. Posts marked as "Reviews" need to come from users with actual power, not moderators, but at least people who have shown their skills in the past. We already have the "Become a mini-moderator, by defining the approval or not of this resource", so this will bring extra power to all the members.

It is good to actually have a democratic way of the maps' approval, but this will bring no balance in the map section. Maps is the resource that needs the greatest notice of all of the resources; I don't wonder why it takes such a long time for them to be tested. We need to implement an additional feature, such as "Moderator", that will bear the name of "Critic", a person who is given the jurisdiction to perform reviews in a specific way, with specific drifts. Just take the Blood Elf Engineer icon (his eyes represent a judging face) and have the new type of user, named "Critic". Have some thread, where people can apply for this position and take some people worthy of rating, not every user on the Hive.

Map Critic

 

[LordDz]

Shouldn't we remove all maps that does not work with the new Version of War3?

In that case, put them in a different category. Warcraft III version switcher always works otherwise.

 

[arphax214]

In that case, put them in a different category. Warcraft III version switcher always works otherwise.

i agree to this..people work hard on there map there should be other category for old maps...

 

[Teaspoon]

I'm not quite sure of this one, though the games that I like the most and the games that are most popular on B.net are often very -what should I say?- not-so-appreciated by critics but everyone else play them just for the fun of it. From what I've seen many map critics judge games like TD's bad because the terrain sucks and well, alot of it isn't good from the proffesional view. But still it's one of the most popular kinds of games. And the same for maps that are liked very much by critics, TKOK for instance, it's a very well-made game and it's really awesome. But still not so popular on B.net (atleast from what I've seen).
I hope you get the point.
I don't know what I'll vote for but for me, I often judge things from what the people have to say, not the proffesonals.

 

[Linaze]

It's too late to keep quality in the map section, since too much crap was approved. I will say it once more: wc3s system.

 

[Pyritie]

I voted for the second option, but that doesn't mean that anyone who considers something as a bug will downrate a map. It's obviously unfair, as it might be a matter of false triggering. Posts marked as "Reviews" need to come from users with actual power, not moderators, but at least people who have shown their skills in the past. We already have the "Become a mini-moderator, by defining the approval or not of this resource", so this will bring extra power to all the members.

I think this idea could go somewhere. Instead of just moderators having to pick reviews, current "reviewers" can as well. But of course not everyone can be a reviewer just by submitting a review. There could be a minimum number of "approved reviews" a user has to get before they become an official reviewer.

Reviewers can then rate the reviews, so if a reviewer starts giving really crappy reviews then they have their reviewer powers revoked.

Crowd moderation, basically.

It's too late to keep quality in the map section, since too much crap was approved. I will say it once more: wc3s system.

Not an option. We are not epicwar.

 

[Linaze]

Open your eyes, Pyritie, we are epicwar, only that some maps have pending and some approved under their names.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Open your eyes, Pyritie, we are epicwar, only that some maps have pending and some approved under their names.

I really think we apply more rules in the maps' approval than them.

 

[DragoonZombie]

Regarding those who rate a map only by their terrain or anything that has nothing to do with the gameplay: Instead of having a "global rating" that covers everything about a map, why not split the ratings up to more specific things. Like:
Terrain 0-5
Items 0-5
Units 0-5
Heroes 0-5
Balance 0-5
Beginner-friendly 0-5
Features 0-5
Originality 0-5
Fun-factor 0-5

I just came up with the above categories and can be changed anytime, so don't bother with critizing those. I just want you to get the idea.

You can also force the user to give a statement/comment about the map if he decides to rate. (Optional. I guess alot of spam, which is already there, might come from forcing a comment).
Together with forcing a comment you could add a comment rating and let user decide whether a comment was usefull or not. Of course everything is then based on the users.

I don't really know what's going on in the map section or any other forums outside of the WEHZ/Trigger&Scripts, but if the community is really that full of faggots/assholes and spammers then forget it. Don't even try to sort by quality.
Oh wait, I think I drifted away from the topic "Quality". My image of quality is a fully functional map that gives the player alot of choices aswell as having a lot of fun playing it.

For example I love playing Custom Hero Survival where you have to solo survive rounds of enemys with a hero you like aswell as the skills you like.
But even though I have a lot of fun playing it, the codings are awful aswell as the terrain. Same goes for tooltips ingame and information/help generally.
So is this map in terms of quality crap?

 

[Teaspoon]

Regarding those who rate a map only by their terrain or anything that has nothing to do with the gameplay: Instead of having a "global rating" that covers everything about a map, why not split the ratings up to more specific things. Like:
Terrain 0-5
Items 0-5
Units 0-5
Heroes 0-5
Balance 0-5
Beginner-friendly 0-5
Features 0-5
Originality 0-5
Fun-factor 0-5

I just came up with the above categories and can be changed anytime, so don't bother with critizing those. I just want you to get the idea.

You can also force the user to give a statement/comment about the map if he decides to rate. (Optional. I guess alot of spam, which is already there, might come from forcing a comment).
Together with forcing a comment you could add a comment rating and let user decide whether a comment was usefull or not. Of course everything is then based on the users.

I don't really know what's going on in the map section or any other forums outside of the WEHZ/Trigger&Scripts, but if the community is really that full of faggots/assholes and spammers then forget it. Don't even try to sort by quality.
Oh wait, I think I drifted away from the topic "Quality". My image of quality is a fully functional map that gives the player alot of choices aswell as having a lot of fun playing it.

For example I love playing Custom Hero Survival where you have to solo survive rounds of enemys with a hero you like aswell as the skills you like.
But even though I have a lot of fun playing it, the codings are awful aswell as the terrain. Same goes for tooltips ingame and information/help generally.
So is this map in terms of quality crap?

I like it...

 

[Linaze]

I don't.
Fun Factor > All

 

[Teaspoon]

I don't.
Fun Factor > All

Yeah the fun-factor should be a bigger part of the map, otherwise I like it.

 

[Linaze]

I've seen no map mod use a "score-system", what does that say? They suck.

 

[Joe-black-5]

Moderation + Score-systems = fail in my opinion

 

[Pyritie]

I really don't like score systems people do

 

[En_Fuego]

Score systems are okay. I just don't like how difficult they may be to balance.

For example, some maps might have an overly-extensive use for heroes while another map may not have any heroes at all. Same thing goes for items.

As for the fun factor, how can you determne a balance between how much the fun factor is worth and the rest of the points? I think Septimus used to use something like this when "grading" maps and it never really felt fair. I mean, you'd lose points for not implementing AI/single player compatibility...would this be the same?

Also, Linaze, thanks for the quote.

 

[Rui]

Like I have said numerous times, the map reviewers should be chosen by the Map Moderators. There are users who write better comments than others. In my opinion, those should be privileged.

Also, people, for the last time, we are not turning our Map Section into a wc3s system.
The maps which lack descriptions are there because they were imported and we keep them in respect for wc3sear.ch's content.
Our current map moderation system requires a certain (and inexistent) number of professional map reviewers to work and we are aware that it isn't working. We could either do something about it or do nothing about it and let the maps pile up (therefore, a wc3s system). Conscious that doing nothing and giving up usually achieves nothing, we chose the first option.
Plus, if no one has yet noticed, we do have a Reviewed status now. Those maps are in agreement with all the rules and the majority of them have, on top of that, been reviewed by more than a single individual. This is not bureaucracy. It is, to answer Teaspoon's statement, giving certain maps the due respect they deserve. We are not highlighting DotA just because it the most played map on Battle.Net. The Kingdom of Kaliron, on the other hand, pushes Warcraft III to a level I have never seen before and is constantly using the engine to its limits; that is, to use Warcraft III at its full potential. I consider that more valuable than creating an unorganized object data made of masses of buildings and «races» whose balance relation is nonexistent, the type of object data you'll find in most Tower Defense maps. Do not think I'm distinguishing them because of the map type, because I am not. If I find a TD that has been, at least, properly balanced, I will be sure to give it its due rating.

 

[DragoonZombie]

The Kingdom of Kaliron, on the other hand, pushes Warcraft III to a level I have never seen before and is constantly using the engine to its limits; that is, to use Warcraft III at its full potential. I consider that more valuable than creating an unorganized object data made of masses of buildings and «races» whose balance relation is nonexistent, the type of object data you'll find in most Tower Defense maps. Do not think I'm distinguishing them because of the map type, because I am not. If I find a TD that has been, at least, properly balanced, I will be sure to give it its due rating.

That is like completely different from what I think. I for one don't really like TKoK. I agree on you that it indeed uses the full potential of wc3, but does this really make this a good map? A quality map? Your definition of quality and mine differs, so IMO it is not good to let only specific users review a map.
But what you can do is seperate comments and reviews. So that you have the option to either post a comment or a review. Then users could mark a review as either helpful or not helpful and depending on that it will be displayed on top or bottom of the review list. Reviews with lots of 'not helpful' clicks can then be checked by mods or as you want users with 'Map Reviewer' rank to see whether it is spam and if it is delete it. Or just make it automatically after a certain amount of 'not helpful' clicks.

But there is one thing you have to differentiate. That is critics/improvements and reviews. I think you cannot review a beta/alpha status map. The moment you review a beta map and that is being updated to a release version your review will most likely not match anymore. So to prevent that you could implement a simple checkbox that says [Beta] and if it is checked (in upload process) it will disable the option to post reviews. Of course you will be able to check/uncheck the beta status when you decide to update/edit your map.

 

[syltman]

That is like completely different from what I think. I for one don't really like TKoK. I agree on you that it indeed uses the full potential of wc3, but does this really make this a good map? A quality map? Your definition of quality and mine differs, so IMO it is not good to let only specific users review a map.
But what you can do is seperate comments and reviews. So that you have the option to either post a comment or a review. Then users could mark a review as either helpful or not helpful and depending on that it will be displayed on top or bottom of the review list. Reviews with lots of 'not helpful' clicks can then be checked by mods or as you want users with 'Map Reviewer' rank to see whether it is spam and if it is delete it. Or just make it automatically after a certain amount of 'not helpful' clicks.

Note: I didn't read most of the post, only those at the end.

I think a map should be reviewed in quality, while a map being fun should certainly be a big bonus it is not what makes a map. For instance a map could be fun but impossible to learn due to lack of documentation. I think that making the quality maps receiving a better rating will encourage people to increase the quality of their maps and it generally improves our database as a whole since people wont publish bad stuff.

Beta/alpha/incomplete maps should not be allowed at all, what we get then is a bunch of incomplete junk in our database.
Adding to what I just said, I find it harsh that incomplete maps actually gets approved and reviewed faster then other maps, like for instance the Diablo 3 borderlands map.

I think we should only allow complete maps with an above average quality to be approved. But I think that the current system could work if we stick to it this way.

Then also perhaps minimods should be able to report stuff for having to little documentation/info, too bad quality, etc. so you got more specific stuff then just if this map deserves to be approved or not. That way it's easier for mods to see if a map deserves to be approved without having to try it.

 

[Riptokus]

Here's how -I- would like reviews to count.

I want to sort map reviews by more than it's score.
A map with 10 votes that give it an average of 4.49 is 100% better than a map with 1 rating that gives it a 5.
As such, I want to put parameters into my sorting. I want to be able to sort maps by rating, but with a download and number of ratings limited.
It's something I like to have the power over too, not something that can get an arbitrary limit. I'd also occasionally like to sort that list by other parameters.
Right now, all we can sort by is the categories, and not use any of the other figures which are supposed to help us choose to play the map.

Next we go into reviews.

I have found a serious problem in our maps and the quality of them. It all stems from one source. Noobs that post their maps in finished resources without any development time in Map Development. These people use finished resources to develop their maps. Some are blatiently flaunting the rules, calling their maps alpha maps. Others are pretending they are within the rules by calling unplayable maps beta maps.

As such, I say remove this statement from completion, to remove the confusion:

This does not limit beta maps that are near completion, but does limit alpha and other under construction maps that are not significantly playable.

If it just stands at this:

All maps must be close enough to completion to allow for a good experience by the player.

Beta maps that meet the standards of uploading fit into this category, so we haven't changed our high standard any higher/lower, but removed the justification for a lot of people arguing with me that their map meets the standard.

Also, we need to add a statement in there like this:
Reviews in the map section are for the benefit of people who are trying to decide if they want to download the map or not, and not for the map creator or development of the map. If you feel your map needs further development, please use the Map Development forum.

Finally, let's place pending on the LAST PAGE of searches unless someone deliberately asks for pending maps. Pending maps are often the criminals in making our reputation look bad.

Also, in uploading, make a question "Did this map have a map development page in the Hive Workshop forum" and ask for a link to the page. If it didn't have this, one recommendation for rejection, no matter whose, can instantly reject it. This mechanism would do wonders for preventing a lot of people using the maps section for developing the maps.

There shouldn't be a pending purge, instead you should get a small team together who are willing to run a quality check on all the current maps, and they recommend the maps for approval/rejection. Their word would be taken as law for any rejections. This would reduce the pending to something manageable enough for our map moderators to examine them.

Finally, an approved map should not be sacred. Things do get by screening all the time. A map should be "Report"-able, with a drop-down on exactly what the violation is, and a comment box to explain it in detail. Approved maps should always have the benefit of the doubt, but with that kind of system, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for a moderator to be able to identify if the report was valid, and probably less than 3 seconds ("Report: Presentation. Comment: The mapmaker is a jerk!")

Of course a tracking system can be made for that to see people who falsely report or are wrong a lot. Also the map comments are a good indicator if it's someone who is just grinding an axe or something that is legitimate.

We should also double the amount of map mods we have.

 

[dead-man-walking]

We should also double the amount of map mods we have.

Seriously? We need to Triple the amount. We only have one Full-Time Map Moderator right now.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Didn't read through all the posts, but out of the tree options, I think qualified reviews should determine the rating of which maps are sorted after. These reviews would have to be thorough and proper. 'twould probably be a good idea to promote people to be map reviewers (they wouldn't moderate maps, ie approve/reject etc, but would rate the already approved maps) whom would provide a detailed review of every aspect of the map for users to read before they download, a lot like how movies and games are reviewed.

General user ratings are always messed up. Some people rate 5 just 'cause they can, others vote 1 because they can, and a select few actually tries to make a serious rating.

 

[Ralle]

OK I have decided that I want to continue on the plan i was having. I was unsure, you helped me. I am going with the 2nd option. I will implement it when I get better and have more time.

Sorry to those of you I told that it would be done on a certain day two hours later. I became unsure and made this thread instead that day.

 

[Fanny.Shaver]

Will you have enough people to mark map reviews as a reviews?

Seriously? We need to Triple the amount. We only have one Full-Time Map Moderator right now.

I applied for map mod some time ago. I had enough determination to test maps etc, Ralle rejected me due to my name on this forum.

 

[Rui]

Like I have said numerous times, the map reviewers should be chosen by the Map Moderators. There are users who write better comments than others. In my opinion, those should be privileged.

Also, people, for the last time, we are not turning our Map Section into a wc3s system.
The maps which lack descriptions are there because they were imported and we keep them in respect for wc3sear.ch's content.
Our current map moderation system requires a certain (and inexistent) number of professional map reviewers to work and we are aware that it isn't working. We could either do something about it or do nothing about it and let the maps pile up (therefore, a wc3s system). Conscious that doing nothing and giving up usually achieves nothing, we chose the first option.
Plus, if no one has yet noticed, we do have a Reviewed status now. Those maps are in agreement with all the rules and the majority of them have, on top of that, been reviewed by more than a single individual. This is not bureaucracy. It is, to answer Teaspoon's statement, giving certain maps the due respect they deserve. We are not highlighting DotA just because it the most played map on Battle.Net. The Kingdom of Kaliron, on the other hand, pushes Warcraft III to a level I have never seen before and is constantly using the engine to its limits; that is, to use Warcraft III at its full potential. I consider that more valuable than creating an unorganized object data made of masses of buildings and «races» whose balance relation is nonexistent, the type of object data you'll find in most Tower Defense maps. Do not think I'm distinguishing them because of the map type, because I am not. If I find a TD that has been, at least, properly balanced, I will be sure to give it its due rating.

That is like completely different from what I think. I for one don't really like TKoK. I agree on you that it indeed uses the full potential of wc3, but does this really make this a good map? A quality map? Your definition of quality and mine differs, so IMO it is not good to let only specific users review a map.

Like I said, the maps on Reviewed status have been reviewed by more than a single person.
I'm trying not to go off-topic here, but I gave TKoK its rating because on top of using the engine to its full potential, it is fun to play and has a relatively decent storyline – on a few RPGs, the story is completely despicable. This is enough for me.
To finalize, however, the majority of the people who think criteria differs are usually wrong. I'm not saying you are – you didn't mention what was yours –, but I think that, in the end, criteria tends to be quite similar.

But what you can do is seperate comments and reviews. So that you have the option to either post a comment or a review. Then users could mark a review as either helpful or not helpful and depending on that it will be displayed on top or bottom of the review list. Reviews with lots of 'not helpful' clicks can then be checked by mods or as you want users with 'Map Reviewer' rank to see whether it is spam and if it is delete it. Or just make it automatically after a certain amount of 'not helpful' clicks.

This is a good idea, but I do not think vBulletin has a system that allows something like this. I don't know if you were around at the time, but in the past we have used a resource section that was separate from vBulletin and, if I'm not wrong, Ralle did not appreciate of the lack of functionality between it and vB. In my opinion, it looks better now, even though choosing to use vB costed us the possible option to differentiate comments, which is what you're asking.

But there is one thing you have to differentiate. That is critics/improvements and reviews. I think you cannot review a beta/alpha status map. The moment you review a beta map and that is being updated to a release version your review will most likely not match anymore. So to prevent that you could implement a simple checkbox that says [Beta] and if it is checked (in upload process) it will disable the option to post reviews. Of course you will be able to check/uncheck the beta status when you decide to update/edit your map.

When I review maps, I always choose those from the moderation queue. These maps are the oldest of the pending list. I always try to give the newest maps time to receive the first waves of critique before analyzing them myself.
By the way, I always mention the version of the map on my reviews.

Here's how -I- would like reviews to count.

I want to sort map reviews by more than it's score.
A map with 10 votes that give it an average of 4.49 is 100% better than a map with 1 rating that gives it a 5.
As such, I want to put parameters into my sorting. I want to be able to sort maps by rating, but with a download and number of ratings limited.
[...]

This is a good idea. I hope Ralle implements it.

Next we go into reviews.

I have found a serious problem in our maps and the quality of them. It all stems from one source. Noobs that post their maps in finished resources without any development time in Map Development. These people use finished resources to develop their maps. Some are blatiently flaunting the rules, calling their maps alpha maps. Others are pretending they are within the rules by calling unplayable maps beta maps.

As such, I say remove this statement from completion, to remove the confusion:

This does not limit beta maps that are near completion, but does limit alpha and other under construction maps that are not significantly playable.

If it just stands at this:

ll maps must be close enough to completion to allow for a good experience by the player.

Beta maps that meet the standards of uploading fit into this category, so we haven't changed our high standard any higher/lower, but removed the justification for a lot of people arguing with me that their map meets the standard.

I agree, I suppose, even though this is not a democracy; on such a system, the accused may argue that the law says this and this is susceptible of being misinterpreted and is therefore forgiven. But on a «friendly dictatorship», like the Hive, moderators can make their interpretation of the rules without being questioned; and, if by any chance someone contacts the administration, the moderator will simply explain it to them and the topic is closed.

Also, we need to add a statement in there like this:
Reviews in the map section are for the benefit of people who are trying to decide if they want to download the map or not, and not for the map creator or development of the map. If you feel your map needs further development, please use the Map Development forum.

Agreed.

Finally, let's place pending on the LAST PAGE of searches unless someone deliberately asks for pending maps. Pending maps are often the criminals in making our reputation look bad.

I can't see why.
Anyway, click on Approved Maps if you do not want maps with Pending status to be displayed.

Also, in uploading, make a question "Did this map have a map development page in the Hive Workshop forum" and ask for a link to the page. If it didn't have this, one recommendation for rejection, no matter whose, can instantly reject it. This mechanism would do wonders for preventing a lot of people using the maps section for developing the maps.
[...]

This would be useful. Good idea.

[...]
Finally, an approved map should not be sacred. Things do get by screening all the time. A map should be "Report"-able, with a drop-down on exactly what the violation is, and a comment box to explain it in detail. Approved maps should always have the benefit of the doubt, but with that kind of system, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for a moderator to be able to identify if the report was valid, and probably less than 3 seconds ("Report: Presentation. Comment: The mapmaker is a jerk!")

Of course a tracking system can be made for that to see people who falsely report or are wrong a lot. Also the map comments are a good indicator if it's someone who is just grinding an axe or something that is legitimate.
[...]

The mini-moderator system would leave a comment on the moderation panel that the moderators could easily examine. Nevertheless, the maps do have a Report button that you can use. But I wouldn't make it reject anything automatically, much because of the type of people you mentioned on the second paragraph (of the text I'm quoting).

Didn't read through all the posts, but out of the tree options, I think qualified reviews should determine the rating of which maps are sorted after. These reviews would have to be thorough and proper. 'twould probably be a good idea to promote people to be map reviewers (they wouldn't moderate maps, ie approve/reject etc, but would rate the already approved maps) whom would provide a detailed review of every aspect of the map for users to read before they download, a lot like how movies and games are reviewed.

General user ratings are always messed up. Some people rate 5 just 'cause they can, others vote 1 because they can, and a select few actually tries to make a serious rating.

In the past, I have suggested that ratings be given solely by map reviewers. But for the obvious lack of people to do this, it never went forth.
Your idea is good, though, I'd like these reviews to be displayed after the map description. Lately, I've been trying to mention moderator reviews on the moderator comment field, inclusively.