Map Section – What would you improve?

[Eccho]

Awesome. That looks really promising

 

[bounty hunter2]

^_^

Anyway I've had this idea in my had for some time, I thought hell why won't I mention it:

So, let's say I go moderate a map, and then I have two choices:

* Moderate automaticly
X Moderate by yourself

* What is this? Let's say a lot of fields and values appear before you:

1. Does the map contain any critical bugs? Y N /// Write them down if you want.
2. Is the map breaking the rules? Y N /// Write what part is doing that if you want.
3. Does the map contain bugs: On the scale of 1 to 10? /// Write them if you want.
4. In the scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the terrain? /// Write suggestions if you want
5. In the scale of 1 to 10 how did you like the originality of the map? /// Write down something if you want.
6. In the scale of 1 to 10 how well was the Object Editor Work Done? /// Write down if you want.
7. In the scale of 1 to 10 how fun was the map to play? /// Write down if you want.
8. In the scale of 1 to 10 how was the GUI/JASS done? /// Write down if you want.

Anyway this are just some quick thought random example fields. Let's say in theory we would have 10 fields.

Now I don't have to check all of them. I can check only:
1. Does the map contain any critical bugs? Y N /// Your map crashed after 2 minutes of playing.

And then in the moderator comment section this would appear: This map is rejected. It contains critical bugs. (Your map crashed after 2 minutes of playing.) Your rating is 1.0, aproximatly 1 (Unaceptable).

A script would do all this. Why is this written: Your rating is 1.0, aproximatly 1 (Unaceptable).?

How would that be done? When I tick one field the rating would increase to 1.0 and then in each field I tick it would increase even more, let's say I tick terrain 10: Then the rating would go up for another 0.5. Then when I'm done with ticking, the script would say this to me:

Your summed up rating is 2.7 (3).

Let's say this is my comment:

1. Does the map contain any critical bugs? No (+1)
2. Is the map breaking the rules? No (+0.5)
3. Does the map contain bugs: On the scale of 1 to 10? (10 being the most bugged) (Scale: 6) (It has some bugs you know the guy explodes randomly the this guy runs and why is that?) (+0.2)
4. In the scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the terrain? (Scale: 6) (10 being the most beautiful) (It was to flat!) (+0.6)

And then this would pop up automaticly:

The map doesn't contain critical bugs. The map isn't breaking the rules. The map contains some bugs (It has some bugs you know the guy explodes randomly the this guy runs and why is that?) The terrain is rated 6 on the scale to 10 (It was to flat!) Your rating is 2.3 aproximatly 2 and this map is Approved.

Now this were all random things and numbers and everything, the idea is what counts, this would help mostly in rejecting maps. However moderators could chose would they want to review normally or with the automatic system.

Opinions?

 

[Zelda.Alex]

bounty hunter2

firstly nice work that Rui mentioned.

second the idea for automatic rating looks nice if used for rejecting maps.

 

[Septimus]

Rating 1 = Post require not less than 500 words.
Rating 2 = Post require not less than 300 words.
Rating 3 = Post require not less than 150 words.
Rating 4 = Post require not less than 100 words.
Rating 5 = Post require not less than 100 words.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

Septimus Rating 5 should need more, i think.

 

[Anachron]

Ok my opinion:

Map State:
Rejected - Pending - Waiting - Approved.
Rejected maps are.. rejected...
While pending maps do wait for anyone to look at them.
Waiting maps wait for the map makers to put more work in them.
Approved maps are approved maps.. What else..

Review State:
None - Checked - Reviewed
None is for basicly each map which will be submitted.
Checked for the maps who have been checked shortly by an mod.
Reviewed maps have documentation about the play by mod.

Thats what I can think of.

 

[CMarket]

Rating 1 = Post require not less than 500 words.
Rating 2 = Post require not less than 300 words.
Rating 3 = Post require not less than 150 words.
Rating 4 = Post require not less than 100 words.
Rating 5 = Post require not less than 100 words.

Eh, no.

100 characters is enough for all.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

bounty hunter2
Regarding the system you suggested. I reread it and these things came in my mind.

1.....Are you thinking of using that for rejecting maps only or for approving maps too? You had used "Your summed up rating is 2.7 (3). "---so i was bit confused.
2.....I think that it should be used only for rejecting maps including the critical bugs.
3....."2. Is the map breaking the rules? No (+0.5)"----I think that breaking rules should be used for negative. obeying it shouldn't give + points. otherwise bad maps may just be able to get rating better than 2.

Also Rui said many maps were Reviewed but when i see in the map section there are only 7-8 maps which are shown as Reviewed. Why? Going to place the newly reviewed maps in there soon?

 

[Septimus]

Eh, no.

100 characters is enough for all.

If a map was poorly develop, I am sure a user can wrote down a constructive review that could exceed 500/300 words

 

[Joe-black-5]

no 100 is enough and more i think :/ even for a poorly developed map

 

[CMarket]

If a map was poorly develop, I am sure a user can wrote down a constructive review that could exceed 500/300 words

A constructive review should and will be written as a reply on the whole map, not as a grade comment. Read what Rui said next time.

 

[Septimus]

A constructive review should and will be written as a reply on the whole map, not as a grade comment. Read what Rui said next time.

Rui just said the min number of word require for vote, isn't it?

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Septimus it's good for you to say because you have your "basic review thing". And that thing will take at least 100 or 200 words already. Plus the review itself. Heh.

 

[Septimus]

I do not think it was a bad idea to require 300 words for a post if you want to rate it 1.

After all, 1 is also mean unacceptable. If it was indeed unacceptable, there is surely a lot of reason for it.

 

[bounty hunter2]

What if the reason is that the map doesn't work. It crashes. It just fails :/

My comment would be:

After I had started playing the map it crashed. 1/5

 

[Septimus]

You can choose not to vote and report it to mod right away.

P/S : You are the mod XD

 

[bounty hunter2]

I was speaking as a random commenter.

 

[PurplePoot]

100 words is nothing. 500 is pretty easy for a flawed map if you feel like taking the time to write a full review.

100 words

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi dolor urna, elementum at, congue at, viverra eget, augue. Nullam varius purus. Suspendisse eleifend odio eget magna. Integer nunc. Quisque feugiat auctor neque. Nam et nunc. Praesent sed ligula. Nullam sodales tincidunt orci. Vivamus vitae leo. Pellentesque vel augue sit amet velit eleifend lacinia. Morbi rutrum mauris eget magna. Suspendisse potenti. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Mauris in arcu ut orci posuere placerat. Donec molestie pretium lectus. Ut rhoncus, erat et luctus fermentum, sapien purus ultrices sem, quis ultricies elit purus in orci.

 

[Septimus]

100 words is nothing. 500 is pretty easy for a flawed map if you feel like taking the time to write a full review.

Ahhhh... at last there is somebody who agree with me about it.

 

[Linaze]

I agree too, I guess. 100 word isn't that much at all really. Somewhere around 350 sounds good to me.

 

[CMarket]

I don't really see what the problem is. It's 100 words minimum, right? Well anybody can go above that. What if a map crashes in the first minute of the game? What are you going to write?

"The map crashed in the first minute of the game. 1/5 Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ." - Btw, this is only about 100 words.

 

[Hakeem]

A lower limit on size is pointless. When someone has a valid reply that falls short, they tend to pad it with random stuff. Usually of the variety that mocks the limit itself.

There are valid times to make it short. That there are times when it is invalid does not constitute a lower limit. It constitutes removal of the ability from the user who failed to provide a valid message.

 

[PurplePoot]

Then why not have a "reviews" section (ie minimoderators) with 300 or so minimum, and a general comments section where no one cares?

 

[Vicboy]

I recommend a dictatorship-like system in the map section, with tight rules and good staffmembers.

Honestly, once I heard you say dictatorship-like system... I started thinking WC3Campaigns.

 

[Septimus]

I don't really see what the problem is. It's 100 words minimum, right? Well anybody can go above that. What if a map crashes in the first minute of the game? What are you going to write?

If it crash, just report it to the staff. If you really want to vote, a constructive critism would not hurt at all. After all, I do believe a proper rating must be given under a valid, supportive and strong reason.

 

[SanKakU]

What if the reason is that the map doesn't work. It crashes. It just fails :/

My comment would be:

After I had started playing the map it crashed. 1/5

And Then Septimus points out that doing such a thing isn't fair.

Right...it's not fair to vote on a map that is underdeveloped. So it makes sense to just reject but not vote on a map that obviously isn't close to finished.

 

[Septimus]

Naturally, it isn't that hard to achieve 300/500 words if a map was really badly develop. I usually doesn't have any trouble to write a constructive review that exceed 300-500 words whenever the map condition was at rating 1/2.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

Originally by Rui
My initial suggestion was 300, but because of the bug-reporting thing, I considered it a little too high.
The problem here is that more than 100 characters is a too high amount for an ordinary comment, and a too low number for a review. Since we're not expecting newcomes to start reviewing maps like professionals, we'll just stick to 100 and increase the number if that isn't enough, like Joe-black-5 suggests.

That simply means THW first try with 100 words & increase limit if it seems less.

Septimus i agree it isn't really much but consider new comers too. No one just starts with writing a very nice review. Did you? (No offense)

The thing that CMarket said do hold.

I don't really see what the problem is. It's 100 words minimum, right? Well anybody can go above that. What if a map crashes in the first minute of the game? What are you going to write?

So my opinion is that, for the time being, 100 can be used considering new comers.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

I would like to see the difference between 100, 300 and 500 words review.

Can someone copy here 100, 300 and 500 words review?

 

[Septimus]

Septimus i agree it isn't really much but consider new comers too. No one just starts with writing a very nice review. Did you? (No offense)

You can bet I do. I even read the rules of map submission before I submit any resources (When I was still a new comer).

 

[CMarket]

He didn't ask if you do he asked if you did. Besides, even if you did, that's like 1 in 1 thousand. Rarely someone will read the rules and even more rarely will they know how to write a good constructive review on a first try.

 

[Rui]

I am sorry if I typed it wrong on one of my posts, but I was talking about 100 characters, alphabet letters, not words.

A lower limit on size is pointless. When someone has a valid reply that falls short, they tend to pad it with random stuff. Usually of the variety that mocks the limit itself.

There are valid times to make it short. That there are times when it is invalid does not constitute a lower limit. It constitutes removal of the ability from the user who failed to provide a valid message.

I don't mind if a bug report comment fills up the rest of the required characters with random stuff (even though I think a bug report will have enough words to fill up 100 characters), but the really short ones are easily noticeable and are, thus, reported.

 

[CMarket]

Ah, now that explains it all. First I thought what you wanted to say, that it would be a short comment, completely independent of the actual review you would write as a comment on the map thread. Than when I started seeing more and more people typing words, I thought it actually meant words as in a min limit for the comment to the thread and not the grade.

Lol, and to think some of you fools wanted 500 words. That's like five thousand characters. LOL!

 

[Septimus]

I am sorry if I typed it wrong on one of my posts, but I was talking about 100 characters, alphabet letters, not words.

Oh.... that explain it... XD...

 

[Rui]

(...)
Also Rui said many maps were Reviewed but when i see in the map section there are only 7-8 maps which are shown as Reviewed. Why? Going to place the newly reviewed maps in there soon?

Maps in Reviewed status were reviewed by more than a single moderator, or by one moderator and some mini-moderators or relevant users (such* as PurplePoot).
You'll find that the maps that were put in there are reviewed by me and bounty hunter2. Bounty may be missing in 1 or 2, those are the ones in which he did not make part of the testing crew.

{EDIT}
In sum, the maps are approved, but are more credible than the others since they weren't looked at by a single person.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

Suggestion

At present in the map section there are many map threads which have been rejected but see this as an example

Maps in category:All of type:Campaign(130)

There are not 130 campaign there. same goes for all categories.

Why not make the number tell only the number of maps actually present for the users in map section excluding all the rejected maps from the map count?

It will make it possible for the users to actually know how much maps there are.

Originally By Rui
Maps in Reviewed status were reviewed by more than a single moderator, or by one moderator and some mini-moderators or relevant users (just as PurplePoot).

What do mean by relevant users? The ones whose reviews were found to be of quality or something else?

 

[CMarket]

Relevant users are users who are highly respected as good reviewers such as Poot, Captain Griffen and Ash. Basically the ones he would like to be in the Map Mini-Jury but either don't want to or can't because of lack of free time.

 

[Rui]

Zelda.Alex, well, that's something you'll have to report to Ralle. There are plenty of ways to do that: sending a private message (I'd advise against this, since he probably gets too many), posting a thread on the Bug Report forum, Admin Contact...

Relevant users are those whose reviews are credible. They do not necessarily need to be "wanted" for the Map Mini-Jury.

 

[Zelda.Alex]

originally by Rui
Zelda.Alex, well, that's something you'll have to report to Ralle. There are plenty of ways to do that: sending a private message (I'd advise against this, since he probably gets too many), posting a thread on the Bug Report forum, Admin Contact...

OK i did it in Admin contact.
But what do you think of this idea?

Edit:
I just thought on thing. Wasn't posting that in bug report forum against forum guideline? It was a suggestion not a bug(i think).

 

[Rui]

I'm pretty sure the resource types should only count with Approved (and maybe Pending) resources, so it might be a bug. But the Admin Contact is OK.

 

[Septimus]

I really oppose the idea of user could post a map that are not belong to them simply because it was popular at battlenet.

This could resulted into countless of approve map with different version or same version, which are uploaded by different author.