Map Section – What would you improve?

[Archangel_Tidusx]

did anyone consider my post on the previous page?
Dividing the maps by players?
that'd give room for more map moderators as well.

 

[Linaze]

As much room as it'd give the map moderators, it wouldn't make their job easier.

 

[busterkomo]

As much room as it'd give the map moderators, it wouldn't make their job easier.

What moderators? Regardless of any modifications to the map section, it still needs moderators.


@ bounty hunter2

There are several flaws to your idea. It completely ignores any melee map ever made. The "fun factor" of a map is completely dependent on the views of the moderator.

* Your map should not contain unnecesary trigger work, if you have three triggers and you could fit it in one, that is highly not acceptable

If you have 20 trigger enhanced abilities, you could fit them all into 1 trigger with several if statements, but why would you?

* Your map should contain at least three or four different tilesets, varying tilesets is a important thing

Why? Maps can look beautiful using a single tileset.

* Your map has to have atleast 60% of the imagined "perfect scripting"

My idea of "perfect" scripting is clean written, efficient JASS. However, later in your post it seems like GUI is also acceptable:

* Your map may not contain fatal GUI leaks. Read about it here: Things That Leak

* Your map should contain at least 20 triggers, that work fine, considering the map type

You require as little triggers as possible, yet there is still a requirement of 20? A standard RTS map could turn out great without using any.

* Your map should not have more than a 20 second loading time for an average computer 4 years old

You require excessive object editor work (many custom abilties, units, buffs, etc...), yet the map should still load within 20 seconds. That is a ridiculously short time for a map with as much objects as you ask for.

* Your map should have a good, solid story

That is too dependant on the map type. A storyline for a map such as an AoS is not very important.

* Your map should have custom models/skins/icons/effects
* Your map should have a minimap image: Always
* Your map should not have more than 2MB for a multiplayer AoE, Defense, Arena type map
* Your map should not have more than 5MB for a multiplayer RPG, ORPG
* Your map should not have more then 20MB for a campaign
* Your map should not have more than 3MB for a singleplayer RPG
* Your map should not have more than 1.5MB for any regular singleplayer map

Contradictive enough?

 

[Shendoo2]

I didn't if anyone posted this but this is my idea of a Map System

A person uploads a map
V
Mini moderate approval/Disapprove (Or 2 players rate above a certain #) Rank - Psending
V
Actually Moderates Approval/Disapprove Rank - Rated (#)

i think it would work because it would lower the clutter of maps the actually map moderates have to deal with and then player comments actually count

 

[Archangel_Tidusx]

I think that the division of maps by players would split the work of the moderators. For example: there are a lot of 7-12 player maps than single player maps, so if the single player moderator finishes all of his/her work, he/she could help the other mods.
I think it would also make the browsing much easier. Keep the maps tab at the top, but once entered, make seperate links to seperate parts of the map sections; sort of like wc3campaigns.
Note: I know there is a player filter, but 9 times out of 10 it doesnt give the results I would want. There is an overflow of maps, as it appears, and i think it's way more work than a single moderator could handle.

Also, like bounty hunter suggested (and also with some modification), I think that maps with at least 5 votes and a rating of less than 2, should be in a different category than other maps. Maybe a different page entirely. Maps without at least 2 votes should not be included when filtering by rating.

I just think these would produce better results when searching and also lighten the load of the maps section.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

"This is a guideline for the ultimate newbs. I have seen a lot of maps that have one trigger, that is a game message: "Go and kill" or anything like that. So this should prevent them from submitting."-----agree on that. Just that thing should be unacceptable.

"Once again, this is just a part of the object editor work, of course you can have 1,2 or 3 malfunction hotkeys out of 100 but I saw a lot of maps that don't have hotkeys at all or are all messed up."-----I also meant that. All of the hotkeys messed up isn't a overlooking.

"Blizzards terrain are genneraly fine, but not that good as you speak of them. Asking to make it half as good shouldn't be a problem. Lack of terrain doesn't make a map bad, but you need to have atleast passable terrain."-----the thing is that i hadn't played the game's original maps for some time. Hive's maps kept me more interested. so i think that i might have messed up in telling about their terrain's standards.

 

[Septimus]

Using rating system to approve/reject resources is not a good idea since there is a lot of downrater who love to downrate resources belong to their enemy just to satisfied their revenge. I always get that and I still have fans who loves to downrate my resources without provide any valid reason.

It is recommend the current rating system for user to be.

1) Abolish
2) Only can be use by trustable member
3) If user vote a resources rating 1-2, they have to state their reason and their reason would appear at the map main post.

 

[Archangel_Tidusx]

Using rating system to approve/reject resources is not a good idea since there is a lot of downrater who love to downrate resources belong to their enemy just to satisfied their revenge. I always get that and I still have fans who loves to downrate my resources without provide any valid reason.

It is recommend the current rating system for user to be.

1) Abolish
2) Only can be use by trustable member
3) If user vote a resources rating 1-2, they have to state their reason and their reason would appear at the map main post.

I doubt that happens all too oftem, but I guess I kind of get your point.
The idea was to go by the overall rating. If one person rates it low, that's fine, but it 10 people rate it low, we have a problem.
1) There is good purpose to the rating system, aboloshing it would be silly.
2) Who is characterized as a trusted member?
3) I agree, there's no reason a person should be able to rate a map without giving a reason for rating. I do believe you have to comment before rating though.

 

[bounty hunter2]

To PurplePoot and generally everyone, I made the guidelines in the cause of preventing total newbs from submitting clear 1/5 maps. Pro mappers are not to follow them as they do know what to do. However it does not matter anymore, I'm out of ideas.

 

[HINDYhat]

Next time, it would be better for someone who actually knows anything WE scripting to talk about what's required for a script.

 

[bounty hunter2]

Next time, it would be better for someone who actually knows anything WE scripting to talk about what's required for a script.

Nice way of telling: "You completely failed". I do know scripting, atleast GUI, if by scripting you refer to JASS no I don't know JASS, but GUI I'm excellent at.

If you think you can do it better, go ahead give it a shot. It was just a short concept, sketch to be exact.

 

[Archangel_Tidusx]

Nice way of telling: "You completely failed". I do know scripting, atleast GUI, if by scripting you refer to JASS no I don't know JASS, but GUI I'm excellent at.

If you think you can do it better, go ahead give it a shot. It was just a short concept, sketch to be exact.

Off Topic, but I could use some GUI support lol.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/f98/gui-jass-117031/index3.html#post1011618

 

[PurplePoot]

GUI isn't scripting.

Anyhow, he's referring to the fact that you are writing guidelines for Jass when you don't know anything about it, and thus the guidelines are arbitrary and nonsensical.

 

[Septimus]

GUI isn't scripting.

Anyhow, he's referring to the fact that you are writing guidelines for Jass when you don't know anything about it, and thus the guidelines are arbitrary and nonsensical.

Yep, gui isn't scripting.
If a user know nothing about JASS, he can leave a review without writing anything about scripting and let those who know jass to evaluate it. I do not see anything wrong about that.

And regarding about rating, it should be given to user that can be trusted to give a appropriate review. Infact, I believe this kind of user are the only one who deserve to have the privilege to vote a map with rating 1 & 2 considering that they could give a reasonable review.

 

[Solecompany]

I dont know but more moderators would be fine beside I like it now too.

 

[Devine]

Minimods should be able to review/reject/approve a resource instantly although they can be "sewn" by map owners who disagree. So the only thing he has to do then is tell the head mod why the map sucked.
Although a full mod cannot be "sewd"
anyhoo .. This may cause a lot of problems but I'm quite sure a minimod wont reject the map a pro made just because he can't stand him ...
It's just that minimods can review but they can't change the pending status, knowutimean?

 

[Rui]

My idea for the reimplementation of the mini-moderators was to make the mini-moderator a user designated by the staff, able to comment and rate resources.

The Pros:

• No more spammy comments on the Map Section
• No over/downrates
• More organized comment areas.
• ^{{edit, new}} The voting system may not be necessary in this case.

The Cons:

• Fans are unable to report bugs_{(thanks to Zelda.Alex for mentioning)}
• There is no way to detect new potential mini-moderators, since they cannot comment
• Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

I want to know some opinions!

 

[bounty hunter2]

The Cons I think overweight the Pros. You won't be able to get any more mini mods and bug reporting. Pressure? I don't think people will find it a problem.

Solution?

Make a mini mod review field and a user review field, or a bug report box like a voting box. Mini mods can see the bug report box/user review box and thus see if someone is potential enough.

Edit: One more possible con: It is always nice to see if someone likes your map and he says this looked nice, I think this didn't look nice, you should improve this, and it doesn't necessary have to be bug mentioning.

Edit2: Maybe make it that users can comment on only approved maps?

 

[Palaslayer]

i think some really good mods like hanky are overoccupated with submissions as well as with contests and i dont knwo but they might appreciate some help...

 

[Kwah]

There is no way to detect new potential mini-moderators, since they cannot comment

. . . *facepalm*. Do I even need to comment?

This would make the system entirely useless.

Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

We have a hard enough time getting the map moderators to "Do there jobs".

 

[bounty hunter2]

@hawk900

You know there aren't any map mods right now so this is kinda a solution instead of them I think. I dunno anyway.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Fans are unable to report bugs

I would like to hear more about this con. Can you Rui define?

 

[Archangel_Tidusx]

What is agreed upon at this point? Made any progress?

 

[bounty hunter2]

I would like to hear more about this con.

Normal users cannot vote or and comment maps I think, just the mini mods so users cannnot post bugs.

I think.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Normal users cannot vote or and comment maps I think, just the mini mods so users cannnot post bugs.

I think.

Well, I don't like that...

Hmm...

Then I should either start to whine hosted project again or make a thread about the project I'm making to "Map Development"(but I was planning to do that when Beta). Hmm! Hmm!

Or then one of my choice is to move completely to my own website. Hmm! Hmm!

 

[CMarket]

Then I should either start to whine hosted project again

God no! As much as it was fun seeing Poot own you across all four corners of the Mozilla Firefox application window it would be wise to not open that Pandora's box again.

Anyway, I agree with Bounty and hawk. If you remove regular users's voice from the map section they will submit their comment anyway in the Map Development forum, to the appropriate project thread.

The voting system should remain, for better or for worse, the way it is. Most people don't even care about their resources rating. Besides, the rating doesn't really affect anything, does it? Sure, you might be pron to check out a map with 50 5/5 votes, and you'll probably avoid maps with 50 1/5 votes, but other than those extremes a rating doesn't really affect ones judgment, at least, that's what I believe.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

God no! As much as it was fun seeing Poot own you across all four corners of the Mozilla Firefox application window it would be wise to not open that Pandora's box again.

You think I just gave up that easily, hmm? I know when to retreat and strike again! I will eventually start to whine sooner or later. But because if this is going to happen, I'll have to start to whine sooner... I don't know yet. But at least when the beta is out I will once again open the drama. I just love drama, don't you?

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

* Fans are unable to report bugs(thanks to Zelda.Alex for mentioning)
* There is no way to detect new potential mini-moderators, since they cannot comment
* Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

Seriously is this a joke ?
I am quite stunned that you fail to understand that users and the mainstream of projects, and that maps in project development section have high chances of being ignored by the simple fact they are not completed yet. I talk by self experience, after having my project in development section, I decided to submit it. Difference: users go to submitted maps to find a map they like to play and if they like it, they become fans and they help. Some members of my team (such as Anachron) started out as members with a simple post "Hey I like your map". I know i wouldn't have his help in development section.
Removing this voice (the fans voice) will inevitably decrease the user activity in THW and will decrease the amount of submitted projects - even the good ones.
Another side effect, besides losing users in THW, will be the increased amount of hosted projects, people will want help and creators will want popularity, so they will eventually spam the hosted project section which has now become useless due irrational decisions I won't considerate.
There will also be a cut on the new staff, when mods resign, you will have no one to choose from. If it is already difficult for mods to find successors or helpers (remembers me Hanky) you will make this task impossible.

I agree mini-mods should be back, however having them back does NOT imply to have these cons, users and mini-mods can get along fine.

 

[Rui]

(...)
Make a mini mod review field and a user review field, or a bug report box like a voting box. Mini mods can see the bug report box/user review box and thus see if someone is potential enough.
(...).

Creating a mini-moderator review field is basically... the voting system. Making it mini-moderator-exclusive is an idea.

(...)
Edit2: Maybe make it that users can comment on only approved maps?

I don't really like the idea. It doesn't sound all that bad, but I just don't like it. Again, it puts some pressure on the mini-moderators. The users also make up a large wave of feedback, so I'd prefer not to using this idea, even if we only experiment with it.

---

There is no way to detect new potential mini-moderators, since they cannot comment

. . . *facepalm*. Do I even need to comment?

This would make the system entirely useless.
(...)

Not entirely. I forgot to say, we can still track potential people on the Map Development forum, but it is harder.

---

* Fans are unable to report bugs(thanks to Zelda.Alex for mentioning)
* There is no way to detect new potential mini-moderators, since they cannot comment
* Possible pressure on the mini-moderators, and perhaps lack of diversity.

Seriously is this a joke ?
I am quite stunned that you fail to understand that users and the mainstream of projects, and that maps in project development section have high chances of being ignored by the simple fact they are not completed yet. I talk by self experience, after having my project in development section, I decided to submit it. Difference: users go to submitted maps to find a map they like to play and if they like it, they become fans and they help. Some members of my team (such as Anachron) started out as members with a simple post "Hey I like your map". I know i wouldn't have his help in development section.
Removing this voice (the fans voice) will inevitably decrease the user activity in THW and will decrease the amount of submitted projects - even the good ones.
(...)
There will also be a cut on the new staff, when mods resign, you will have no one to choose from. If it is already difficult for mods to find successors or helpers (remembers me Hanky) you will make this task impossible.

I agree mini-mods should be back, however having them back does NOT imply to have these cons, users and mini-mods can get along fine.

Be reminded that it was only a suggestion, more of a collection of the conclusions we have reached during this debate.

I agree with what you said, and the activity decrease would be bad indeed. Thanks for your contribution!

---

Looks like limiting the comments to only mini-moderators is not a good option. I'd stick to reserving the mini-moderators both the voting system and the rating system.
What do you say?

 

[bounty hunter2]

That sounds better indeed, as comments should be open to public, if you even don't want to experiment with my suggestion than this is the only thing left to do.

 

[Rui]

If nobody has anything else to say, I'll send Ralle a private message about this.

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

If nobody has anything else to say, I'll send Ralle a private message about this.

As an adept of constructive criticism, I do have something to say, as I refuse to make a critic without a suggestion.

My suggestion is that mini-mods and fans can all be friends.
The mini-mod could start by selecting a map. If the map is ok, the mini-mod will make a quick review and ask for the big-mod to accept his review, however, if the map is terrible, the mini-mod could mark the map and ask for the big-mod to move it to project development section.
This way fan comments will keep existing, however the amount of mini-mods required would be quite large (since they would do the most of the moding) and the big-mods would act like supervisors, having a more relaxed life.
Big-mods could as well approved maps or grave them if they wanted to.

Pros:
- Eases the work of big mods.
- Fans can still make a post.
- If a project is not good enough, it will be moved to the development section, thus giving the creator a chance to update it and make it better. This would also have the side effect of making the development section more active due the initial increase of threads.
- It is easy to detect potential mini-mods for other areas than map moderation (because making a good project calls many people, icon makers, model makers, coders, ect).

Cons:
- It would require more mini-mods than mods.
- Mini-mods would have more pressure to make reviews.
- The development section may be spammed because of crappy low level projects.
- This process requires lots of communication, it may be slower.

To avoid a few cons, the mod could give the map's creator a choice -> you either accept us to move the map to development section so you keep working on it, or we delete the map right away.

 

[bounty hunter2]

I will respond to you Flame_Phoenix:

- I think Rui's idea is to have several Mini Mods and him being the only one that can actually approve/reject

- Move a map to the project development? It would take some time, you could rather write a note to the user that he should make a topic there and work on the map before re submitting, that gives the user to chose by himself and it won't be more work for the mod himself

- I think that Mini Mods should be given the power to reject the really low maps, but not to approve, as 3 T-Ups would be needed for a approval

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

- I think Rui's idea is to have several Mini Mods and him being the only one that can actually approve/reject

Rui should be above that. As a director he shouldn't be concerned about a particular section (such as maps), that is the work for map mods, he should be concerned about more important things for the community. There is a reason why God created mods.

- Move a map to the project development? It would take some time, you could rather write a note to the user that he should make a topic there and work on the map before re submitting, that gives the user to chose by himself and it won't be more work for the mod himself

Writing notes or giving the creator the power of choice will only make the process even slower. What if the creator doesn't answer because he doesn't care? His crap map will be for ever in submissions because mini-mods are waiting an answer. Besides this increases the idea of lost maps, maps that should have been removed or moved, but they weren't and people just forgot about them. Spell section currently has that problem, and I don't think that replicating it into maps section would be a good idea.

- I think that Mini Mods should be given the power to reject the really low maps, but not to approve, as 3 T-Ups would be needed for a approval

We should specify:
1 T-Up map: the mini mod can remove it immediately without asking permission
2 T-UP map: the map should be moved to project development section because it has a chance of being approved, it just needs more work. The mini-mod should talk to the mod to see if it is worth doing so, or should move it right away
3 T-Up map: Seems good for approval, after a discussion with the mod with the parameters indicated in my lats post.
4 and 5 T-UP: The mod should check if the rating is correct and fair.

 

[CMarket]

We should specify:
1 T-Up map: the mini mod can remove it immediately without asking permission
2 T-UP map: the map should be moved to project development section because it has a chance of being approved, it just needs more work. The mini-mod should talk to the mod to see if it is worth doing so, or should move it right away
3 T-Up map: Seems good for approval, after a discussion with the mod with the parameters indicated in my lats post.
4 and 5 T-UP: The mod should check if the rating is correct and fair.

This is just a dumb idea. With all the downgraders out there good maps usually have at least several votes with a rating of 1/5, 2/5 with no apparent reason. You can't judge how a map is good based on the communities vote and if you allow only mini mods to vote than you have the problem of stressing the mini mods. Either that or people downgrade for the most stupidest reasons, like lets say that somebody downgrades a map because it's a cinematic and not another type of map... sound familiar?

 

[bounty hunter2]

There is a really low chance that you will get above 3 active Mini Mods, and to get 4 or more T-Ups is really hard, almost impossible. And why would anyone reject a map that has a T-Up, you mean reject a map that has a T-Down?

Anyway, a user gets a automated PM that he should get him map in the Map Development Forum and that his map was deleted. The map wouldn't be left standing there it would be rejected imidiatly.

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

if you allow only mini mods to vote than you have the problem of stressing the mini mods.

Seriously, did you even read my cons? Just do it...

sound familiar?

Downgrade in your opinion, not in mine. Just live with it, I refuse to give cinematics same grade as I do to maps because a good map is obviously harder to do than a good cinematic.

reject a map that has a T-Down?

I consider T-Ups like starts, a map with 1 star should not be allowed imo because it must e bad.

Anyway, a user gets a automated PM that he should get him map in the Map Development Forum and that his map was deleted. The map wouldn't be left standing there it would be rejected imidiatly.

I like the idea, but when should a mini.mod (or a mod) delete a map immediatly ? 1 star? 2 stars ?

 

[bounty hunter2]

Sorry I completely misunderstood you with the T-Up, I didn't think the rating (1-5), I thought the amount of Mini Mods that voted for the map to be approved or rejected, you know the Thumb Down/Up image you can see - Mini Mods cast your vote. You shouldn't so much concentrate on the grading, rather the amount of Mini Mod Thumbs down or up.

The rating can fool most of the times, since like Cmarket said there are a lot of random voters.

When should it be deleted? When 2 Mini Mods vote for rejection, then, or if it is really low quality a mini mod can delete it based on his own vote only.

 

[CMarket]

I don't want to go off topic, but I would just like to say that

you tried to justify yourself. Unfortunately, you're trying to justify yourself judging a movie with the standards you'd subject a game to. You're pretty much saying "Y'know, Psycho isn't that good a thriller, I mean, who cares about all the direction and stuff, it didn't have wicked sweet special effects and stuff like that"

In summery, You fail. You are a miserable failure of a reviewer trying to justify yourself judging an apple with the same specifications you'd judge an orange - Mecheon

To get back on topic I believe that there is no ideal solution. On one hand you have overstressed members of the staff and on the other random ratings. What I believe you should do is create sort of "honorary members" that are pretty much like normal members but can vote for map rejection/approval. This power would be given to all members that have been on the hive for at least 2 months and have never downgraded/got infractions and so on. This way you sort of have a lot of voters, but still not newbies(or multiaccounts) and not spammers, trolls...

Might be a bad idea though, but it might just work.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

originally by CMarket
"To get back on topic I believe that there is no ideal solution. On one hand you have overstressed members of the staff and on the other random ratings. What I believe you should do is create sort of "honorary members" that are pretty much like normal members but can vote for map rejection/approval. This power would be given to all members that have been on the hive for at least 2 months and have never downgraded/got infractions and so on. This way you sort of have a lot of voters, but still not newbies(or multiaccounts) and not spammers, trolls...

Might be a bad idea though, but it might just work."

I agree CMarket that is a bad idea. You forgot one thing. There are users who have been on hive for some time but aren't active much.


Originally by Rui
"I'd stick to reserving the mini-moderators both the voting system and the rating system.
What do you say?"
Regarding the voting for approval i think that should be given to mini-mods.
Regarding the rating system i have a suggestion.
Keep the present system but make a little change. Display the rating of mini-mods instead of users in map section. i mean that if someone wants to see the rating on the screen where the maps are listed they see the mini-mods' rating instead of users.
OR
you can have 2 rating to be displayed in the the screen where maps are displayed. one of the mini-mods and other of the regular users.


Regarding the mini-mods pressure due to the reviews.
It can be eased a little by just asking for a review of the map by the users. I mean that allow the map to be non-reviewed for some time (say 1month). Then the mini-mods can take a quick look on the map by the world edit or playing ,whichever he wishes, and on the basis of the posts given by the users he can give a quick review of the map till he can find out time for a full review.
the review will allow the users to find out the mods view of the map. if the review is good then the map may attract more players. but if it gets a little bad then it may help the map makers to improve till he gets the full review.

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

I don't want to go off topic, but I would just like to say that

1st - you did go off topic
2nd - if you find all people that downgrade your movies are idiots, than too bad, grow up and show up, you can either accept facts or go to hell, I really don't care

To get back on topic I believe that there is no ideal solution.

Then why the hell are you posting?
Make us favor and make decent posts for once.
Besides I think that special members already exist. That position is is reserved for people that did a lot of work for the community in the past such as Daelin or PurplePoot.
And for God sake, stop saying stuff I already said 100 times, just read the damn posts for God sake, this is becoming a flame war.

 

[CMarket]

Actually you are the only one who is flaming, but I guess that suits your name, right? After all you are Flame Phoenix. I was just proclaiming that people, failures at reviewing mind you, who rate apples using the criteria of rating oranges exist, as Mecheon pointed out, and believe you me he knows what he's talking about. You probably ignored the fact that he posted that originally.

Since you're the one who first started arguing semantics I'll meet you half way. There are 90 posts in this thread, above mine. Even if you posted every single one of those posts you couldn't reach the number 100. Furthermore, where exactly have you said that most users of the Hive should be able to vote normally, but only to deny this right to previous felons or new members?
But whatever, I don't want to argue with a stubborn jerk like yourself, especially not in this thread.

Anyway, Zelda.Alex, your suggestions is alright, but I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting in the final paragraph? Are you saying that a user should ask a mini mod for a quick review and then the mini mod can ignore that map for a while until he gets time for a full review? It seems sort of unnecessary imo, having one and a half review instead of just one, if I understood it correctly that is.

 

[Flame_Phoenix]

Actually you are the only one who is flaming, but I guess that suits your name, right? After all you are Flame Phoenix. I was just proclaiming that people, failures at reviewing mind you, who rate apples using the criteria of rating oranges exist, as Mecheon pointed out, and believe you me he knows what he's talking about. You probably ignored the fact that he posted that originally.

Since you're the one who first started arguing semantics I'll meet you half way. There are 90 posts in this thread, above mine. Even if you posted every single one of those posts you couldn't reach the number 100. Furthermore, where exactly have you said that most users of the Hive should be able to vote normally, but only to deny this right to previous felons or new members?
But whatever, I don't want to argue with a stubborn jerk like yourself, especially not in this thread.

I am admired, first you are retard enough to escape an example of irony and second, you start flaming me as well. Seriously, you may have more rep points, but you are still a newb and I really don't have time nor patience to start a flame war.
So be at will, I remove myself from this thread, I am sure people will find out sooner or later the idiot you are.

 

[Rui]

I wouldn't like to have the Map Section associated with the Map Development forum. Upon submission, perhaps we could ask the user if he wants the feedback on his Map Development forum thread or the resource's comment area (providing the thread's URL if yes), but still... it's kinda complicated, since... what would happen then? The comment area would be closed for users?

I really dislike the resource comment areas. Having to skip pages just makes it awful and painful to read the comments, and obviously those comments can't be moderated, so the idea would be to move those comments to where they will be read by the staff. The comment area should, in my opinion, be reserved exclusively for comments of people who can criticize the map and not simply post a spammy message and rate 5/5.

 

[bounty hunter2]

Rui, so we got seven pages of lets call it a "discussion", I was wondering where have we gotten so far? Could you sum up some ideas you find well enough and post them, and have you contacted Ralle about the mini-mod reinstalment matter?

Thanks in advance, bounty hunter2

 

[Zelda.Alex]

Regarding my last post's last paragraph.
I meant that the map can be allowed to remain non-reviewed by the mini-mods for some time (say 1 month). In this time the users who play this map can give their comments on the map. After the specified time period is over the mini-mod can take a look over the comments. if the comments include some quality post regarding the map's bugs and other things then mini-mod can use these and a quick look over the map by the world editor to give a brief review concerning the basic requirements of the map or any other thing he may find suitable.( if there is not any quality post then he will just have to go the usual way to review the map ,of course and give full review). after the quick review the mini-mod can leave the map's in-depth review for some time till he can find enough time for a full review. that will save the mod some time.
I do not mean that the map's approval has to be based on the basis of user's comments. Many a times the comments are hyped. Those posts should not be considered as the part of mini-mods concern regarding the brief review. Only the posts which appear to the mini-mod as real testing or critique or like those should be considered.

Suggestion regarding the rating of the maps by users.
1......As already has been suggested give a minimum word limit as the explanation of the rating. But i wanted to add something to this. Those explanations for the ratings should be made viewable by all the users. That way if someone just spams then it can be reported. Also give the mods power to take out any single rating they find having any insufficient or improper explanation.
2.......Change the rating system x/5 by x/10. That can help users to give better ratings. Sometimes mods give rating x/10 but then replace them with an nearly equivalent rating x/5. This can help.
3........This concerns a change in the User Profile which can help better ratings by the users. Make the rating given by a user to the resources be viewable in the user profile. That way the people who give rating either too low or too high for inappropriate reasons can be identified and their rating be taken away from the resources. It can also help users to review their rating. If the point 1 is implemented then make the comments be also viewable on user profile.

 

[Rui]

Rui, so we got seven pages of lets call it a "discussion", I was wondering where have we gotten so far? Could you sum up some ideas you find well enough and post them, and have you contacted Ralle about the mini-mod reinstalment matter?

Thanks in advance, bounty hunter2

Well, we haven't yet reached a consent to what option is the best for the mini-moderators.
I haven't yet contacted Ralle, since Flame_Phoenix replied.

Regarding my last post's last paragraph.
I meant that the map can be allowed to remain non-reviewed by the mini-mods for some time (say 1 month). In this time the users who play this map can give their comments on the map. After the specified time period is over the mini-mod can take a look over the comments. if the comments include some quality post regarding the map's bugs and other things then mini-mod can use these and a quick look over the map by the world editor to give a brief review concerning the basic requirements of the map or any other thing he may find suitable.( if there is not any quality post then he will just have to go the usual way to review the map ,of course and give full review). after the quick review the mini-mod can leave the map's in-depth review for some time till he can find enough time for a full review. that will save the mod some time.
I do not mean that the map's approval has to be based on the basis of user's comments. Many a times the comments are hyped. Those posts should not be considered as the part of mini-mods concern regarding the brief review. Only the posts which appear to the mini-mod as real testing or critique or like those should be considered.

Suggestion regarding the rating of the maps by users.
1......As already has been suggested give a minimum word limit as the explanation of the rating. But i wanted to add something to this. Those explanations for the ratings should be made viewable by all the users. That way if someone just spams then it can be reported. Also give the mods power to take out any single rating they find having any insufficient or improper explanation.
2.......Change the rating system x/5 by x/10. That can help users to give better ratings. Sometimes mods give rating x/10 but then replace them with an nearly equivalent rating x/5. This can help.
3........This concerns a change in the User Profile which can help better ratings by the users. Make the rating given by a user to the resources be viewable in the user profile. That way the people who give rating either too low or too high for inappropriate reasons can be identified and their rating be taken away from the resources. It can also help users to review their rating. If the point 1 is implemented then make the comments be also viewable on user profile.

Most of the times, maps are reviewed way too fast, and that is also a problem. But if that doesn't happen, we could as well have all maps approved by default, and have another group of "reviewed/certified" maps, though I'm not sure if I want that.
The idea of having a system where mini-moderators submit their reviews, and maps get a "Reviewed/Certified" status after 3 or 4 of those reviews, does sound nice. The Map Moderators would serve only to reject maps that violate the rules right away, and maybe to also mark those maps with 3/4 reviews as Reviewed, so as to avoid auto-systems.

Responding to your 3 suggestions...
The minimum amount of characters for a review is one of the best suggestions made in this thread. The rating change... well, I talked to Ralle about it and he doesn't seem to want the 1-to-10 ratings to come back. Finally, there is no need to make those ratings viewable in the user profile, since people need to comment in order to rate, and ever since that system was implemented, the downrates stopped completely (or so it seems).

 

[bounty hunter2]

But again your biggest problem would remain to find active mini moderators, it is hard to find two, three or four? Sounds almost impossible. Anyway here is my view of the situation with a variation of a bit of everything:

When maps are submitted all gain the same status: Approved until Reviewed

Now when the map is really bad it would get the: Rejected status, Moderators and Mini Moderators could reject.

When a map is fine but needs some fixes or is close to approval, it should gain: Rejected until Updated, giving the author two weeks to fix.

When atleast 2 Mini Mods review a map and it is over 2/5, the map gets: Reviewed status. The map moderator sets it to this status.

When a Moderator reviews a map, and it is positive it gets: Reviewed status.

It's not much of a idea and it has been suggested before but I am a subscriber of it.

EDIT:

I dislike that the list shows only approved maps. Why? People don't bother to see the pending ones thus the pending ones get little or no feedback. As simple as that.

 

[Rui]

On another matter, Ralle has changed the resource section to display only approved resources. Personally, I believe we should, by default, display Approved and Pending, and also allow users to check the Rejected^{(until updated)} maps.
These constant changes make it hard for me to decide anything, since I never really know what's going on.

Another big problem is that many maps were approved under the well-known circumstances, and we need to separate those maps from the certified ones. The current Reviewed status sounds OK for the purpose.
I'd like to have the Reviewed maps promoted over the Approved ones, but if that meant sending the Approved maps back to Pending, we'd have a large problem. Thinking of it, it's similar to changing to a wc3s system without the "Pending" message over submitted maps.

Hey bounty, I believe we can put the maps we reviewed with Eccho and redmarine in the Reviewed status, at least until we decide anything else. I'll try to find them.


{EDIT:} I'm going to tell Ralle to remove those ugly boxes for the moderator comment when on the resource displaying list. They look terrible.

 

[bounty hunter2]

I agree that Reviewed status should exist and should be above the Approved status. Well sending the Approved back to pending sounds like real hell. How about this:

People who got their map approved long time ago and are still active, should contact us and say they want their map to be reviewed, and the rest of the maps would get that in time. This is concerning only the allready approved maps by the old system.

Well I don't have a link I think, I know we tested:
- Diablo III
- The modern warfare one with nice vehicle entering
- The Plague 2: Island Infection V2.0 - The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site This one without you
- Samurai Builders 1.9 - The Hive Workshop - A Warcraft III Modding Site Aswell

I don't remember anything else, neither do I have links.