Map Section issues {A message to all map "reviewers".}

[Zeron]

oh not the "reporter" i was meaning the person being vulgar. i thought the reporter was reporting the violator that was demeening the map maker. and the one who is doing the criticing or the type of person that is would then probally find a way to belittle others and make themselves feel better in a way that wouldnt cause them to be reported. causing a new debate.

 

[Joe-black-5]

What Kwah said D:
These days, any report reaching the report section will not live for more than a day
(thanks to triggerhappy)
All are taked care off.

 

[Lambdadelta]

Hehe. wc3c does a better job. The only problem with wc3c was the time they took, and now the inactivity. [/IRRELEVANTPOST]

 

[Zombie]

If someone makes a map that is just default terrain, default name, no effort and they upload it, then they deserve to be laid into. I don't think anyone would upload a map like that in their right mind unless they were trolling.

Then be innovative and lay into him with a manner that doesn't remind me of a cave man attacking the wall with a club. Seriously, outright flaming and repeating of the same offensive posts with no content over and over again just feeds the troll. If he's ignored/reported and dealt with by the staff in a calm, quiet manner, he'll get slapped more effectively than reading 15 posts of "YOU SUCK WHAT IS THIS TRASH".

Why do people neglect the fact that there is a report button for rule violation, though? That would save time of debating and ranting.

Maybe because we expect the staff to be a little more autonomous and vigilante, not only taking action if it's reported? It's not a police office after all, it's tad easier to keep track of and take action against violations than having to carry out a full-scale investigation, yet they very rarely take action if it's not reported.

I could mention in this case a moderator whose name I will not disclose, sitting in chat all day long spamming, generally dealing with threads in his area only if reported, while he immediately closes ones that directly affect his personal character without a moderation notice.

But in all seriousness, what do you expect to be done about this?

Use the report function where necessary, and beyond that there's not much I can see to do.

In all honesty, I'm expecting the people in the chunk of the community doing the act described to at least consider getting their act together, instead of proposing anything for the staff always finding excuses to dodge their responsibilities.

If you really want to hear my suggestion (I know to no avail since it'll never get seriously considered), get a moderator who only deals with user commentaries to maps and not maps themselves until the situation is resolved.

 

[M0rbid]

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/latest-updates-news-101/new-regulation-icon-section-178748/

Maybe something like this could be a solution for the map section aswell?

 

[Kwah]

In all honesty, I'm expecting the people in the chunk of the community doing the act described to at least consider getting their act together, instead of proposing anything for the staff always finding excuses to dodge their responsibilities.

If you really want to hear my suggestion (I know to no avail since it'll never get seriously considered), get a moderator who only deals with user commentaries to maps and not maps themselves until the situation is resolved.

Problem: Aforementioned people will, in general, not read this thread. However, I'm not abject to the idea, and people of that nature exist to some extent (mostly embodied by Trigger but he's dealing fine for the moment.)

Despite the apparent misconception, all reports are considered by specially trained staff monkeys, who give it the fairest adjudication that their hominid brains can muster.

But really. We read reports. We solve problems that are reported.

 

[Zombie]

Problem: Aforementioned people will, in general, not read this thread. However, I'm not abject to the idea, and people of that nature exist to some extent (mostly embodied by Trigger but he's dealing fine for the moment.)

Despite the apparent misconception, all reports are considered by specially trained staff monkeys, who give it the fairest adjudication that their hominid brains can muster.

But really. We read reports. We solve problems that are reported.

Oh I bet they will, they just won't respond. Most people in question opened up their thread a few days ago with discussing a related problem, their thread is just a few below this one, which means they do read site discussion. Another thing is that they might decide to ignore it.

Regarding the rest of your points:

Maybe because we expect the staff to be a little more autonomous and vigilante, not only taking action if it's reported? It's not a police office after all, it's tad easier to keep track of and take action against violations than having to carry out a full-scale investigation, yet they very rarely take action if it's not reported.

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

if you want to point out the same mistakes again and again and take more time for your review than the map creator took for his map....sure...go on!

 

[Zombie]

Why is this the fourth time I have to explain; it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it.

One can point out a map "sucks" without telling the user that he needs to get laid. That's the point.

 

[En_Fuego]

Why is this the fourth time I have to explain; it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it.

One can point out a map "sucks" without telling the user that he needs to get laid. That's the point.

yeah, but then where's the fun in map reviewing? and do people actually tell them "to get laid" ?

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Allow for a rating of 0 out of 5 that replaces the Thumbs up rating bar with a "Needs to Get Laid" label.

 

[vAnKaTa_G.G.]

To be honest I think most of these "Map Reviewers" don't usually "review" maps. And usually people refer to them as "Trolls". But I really agree that the posts Zombie pointed out are... well... in the wrong forums. However there really are many decent map reviewers on the hive (of course ) but there are many users who mostly troll and thumbs down with no reason and rate 1/5 "just for fun"...

 

[RiotZ]

People are idiots. If you want to stop something like this the site should have more mods deticated to tracking poor behavior in members. You're not going to get anything done with a petty post that says "We a wary wary angwie wit you."

Go crack some skulls and get something done.
Also, I think it's hilarious when someone tries to say something very mean in English but just fucks it up so bad they make them self look like a fool.

 

[Kwah]

but there are many users who mostly troll and thumbs down with no reason and rate 1/5 "just for fun"...

I'm more doubtful there. Lots of maps deserve 1/5.

 

[RiotZ]

I'm more doubtful there. Lots of maps deserve 1/5.

Very very very true. Most maps on THW suck. >.>
We have to hunt down Grevious111, De.Facto, and CloudWolf when we want to play something good.

I'm missing a few people I know. >.>

 

[The World Is Flat]

But what they don't need is the hive acting just like they are.

The whole point is that the community needs to be more mature in these incidents, the Report button, kindly ignoring these troll maps and offering Constructive criticisims

It doesen't help if some kid put in a genuine effort on somthing that sucked and then had the hive boo and downrate it because it wasnt up to par. It doesn't make the hive look good, it makes us look like a bunch of kids who find happyness in telling other people how much they suck, and how cool we are because we can say that.

That isnt a good impression in my oppinion, we need to be a more mature site, as impossible as that is.

 

[vAnKaTa_G.G.]

I'm more doubtful there. Lots of maps deserve 1/5.

Well can't argue with that. But my point is that some maps don't.

Most maps on THW suck.

Well... I have to disagree with you. There are many decent maps in the hive. And I must say only 40-45% of the maps I play are from the "top" here at the hive this doesn't instantly make them rubbish. But saying that a map sucks just... well sucks. At least point out some reasons behind your posts. Not just troll around like some people do. I try to review maps and I actually try to post a decent review. Not just one sentence.

 

[RiotZ]

Well can't argue with that. But my point is that some maps don't.


Well... I have to disagree with you. There are many decent maps in the hive. And I must say only 40-45% of the maps I play are from the "top" here at the hive this doesn't instantly make them rubbish. But saying that a map sucks just... well sucks. At least point out some reasons behind your posts. Not just troll around like some people do. I try to review maps and I actually try to post a decent review. Not just one sentence.

Keyword 'decent' there are plenty of decent maps. If you are going to spend the time searching for a map then dling it, do you want to play some half-ass decent map? Hell no. All map makers should pride themselves in making there maps as perfect and as far away from wc3's principals as possible before releasing it.

 

[Deolrin]

The fun in map reviewing is supposed to be to help the mapper improve? :/

 

[The World Is Flat]

Thats exactly it.

 

[Zeron]

The fun in map reviewing is supposed to be to help the mapper improve? :/

unless you get some "Akward as hell" sexual satisfaction of telling someone their map sucks donkey b@lls then yes, it is.

 

[Deolrin]

yeah, but then where's the fun in map reviewing?

Referring to this.

 

[En_Fuego]

Referring to this.

I was using sarcasm to fuel your argument. My whole argument has been a bit sarcastic (except for the fact that some people DO deserve to get yelled at)

No one enjoys flaming that much, though.

 

[Zeron]

I believe there is more than a significant amount of the population on the hive that get satisfaction by beating people like undead-neanderthals with their obnoxious phrases

 

[En_Fuego]

I believe there is more than a significant amount of the population on the hive that get satisfaction by beating people like undead-neanderthals with their obnoxious phrases

I don't care if you think the world will end in 2012.

I don't care if you think an asteroid will fall and kill everyone on earth, extincting human life.

I don't care if you think that Carzhai is corrupt.

I don't care if you think that I'm being an asshole right now.

If you don't get my point: I don't care if you guys think that people get some ecstatic joy from flaming people. Prove it. Don't just come to some strange assumption based on a guess.

 

[Zeron]

Studys are been placed on bullys and the bullied all the time. Theres always a reason for the bully to act6 such ways but the studys also show that bully enjoys the power. and that is what a flamer is... a bully with even less balls because he feels more power saying demeaning things to people when he knows they cant see/find him.

 

[The World Is Flat]

And suprsionly En_Fuego, We dont care if you don't care, welcome to the party.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

lol, so they just try and make others miserable for no reason AT ALL?
Whatever the reason, the point stands the people in question could merely do with turning the aggression dial down and looking up the definition of constructive criticism.
What more is there to be said?

 

[ap0calypse]

O hey, let's get back on-topic?

I've still seen people post senseless comments on maps (and warned them for it, telling I'd -rep them next time I saw them doing such a thing).
I can say that the amount of grab-your-pitchforks-and-torches-kind of rages against certain low-quality maps have decreased, but the "Bad terrain, bad object data, rejected" hasn't.

And yes: I am NOT perfect whatsoever.
I'm glad Debode quoted what I said before, but honestly: I find that more a human thing - I usually try to avoid such comments, but when you're in a really bad mood you sometimes just can't help yourself.
I can't justify myself in that case, but such things don't happen often... I hope.
What I do often is reject 'without reason' though (when a user clearly breaks some ground rules).


More map mods:
Improbable. It takes too long (about 2 months?) for a single user to be chosen, approved and promoted to a moderator.
May seem like a lot? Well, it is... but we can't help that either: every time we browse through a player's record, we find negative things (and I find that a downside of the internet: not everything should be recorded and treated as that person's general behaviour).
And on top of that, there are only a few users in which I can see a potential map moderator.

New rules:
A main problem right now is that people don't read (or even don't know of) the rules.
New rules won't change the fact that people don't read them.


I only noticed this thread now (I never read this sub-forum), but I started acting against these things a while ago.
Now you can say "But app0000hhh, you do it yerself! D:".
Yes... I do, but different
As I said before, I reject maps ('without reason') because of clearly broken rules.
However, if one would ask why the map got rejected, I'd just tell them about the broken rule(s) (or anything else wrong with the map), so they can just ask for information at any time and I will provide them with it (not the best solution, but a lot faster... and the massive amount of maps requires me to work in a more efficient way).


(@ Grey: Yes... that's the entire point of internet according to some).

 

[vAnKaTa_G.G.]

New rules:

A main problem right now is that people don't read (or even don't know of) the rules.
New rules won't change the fact that people don't read them.

Guess that makes rule Number 1 Read the rest of the rules . jks (or am I )
But I really must say that there isn't much to do about all the terrible reviewers. I guess we have to live with them.

 

[WaterKnight]

I just took a peek in the maps section. First map, clearly against the rules because of sexual contents, so why has everyone to write a one-liner that it should be deleted/rejected/that it offends the rules? Just report it. I am moderator at another Wc3 mapping site and think that public moderation by normal users just does not fit into our concepts, it's good that people seem to be aware of the rules but it's repetitive, sometimes it's not right/complete, they get cocky, everyone throws their opinions into it and destroys the thread further, not rarely ending in flames vs counter-flames or spam vs counter-spam.

At least do not make your posts mainly out of vigilantism. It's the moderator's task to get people to know the rules and obey it.

But that's also a question whether this site here places quality above activity.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

The problems not people reviewing, the problem is people throwing in a few lines of flaming and calling it reviewing without actually reviewing it.

Yes we've been over this, if something clearly violates the rules just report it. If a map doesn't, other people reviewing the maps actually help the map moderators (if they're people the mods trust their opinion/judgment).

 

[ap0calypse]

I just took a peek in the maps section. First map, clearly against the rules because of sexual contents

Maps like that are rejected from the moment me or Cweener comes online.

I think that public moderation by normal users just does not fit into our concepts

They don't moderate it, there's a very clear difference between reviewing and moderating and just commenting.
I don't like them saying "approved/rejected" either, I do try to stop people from saying such things, as they are not contributing to the thread at all.

The problems not people reviewing, the problem is people throwing in a few lines of flaming and calling it reviewing without actually reviewing it.

That's exactly it, and I have given -rep for such actions before and will do so again (every time I see it).
Another problem is that I can't hand out -rep for people who just say that the map should be rejected because of bad [insert category here], it's not a review, but it's not braking the rules either - I just warn them :/

 

[Jaret]

Ap0calypse's PERFECT CLEAR POST (NO JOKING):

Maps like that are rejected from the moment me or Cweener comes online.


They don't moderate it, there's a very clear difference between reviewing and moderating and just commenting.
I don't like them saying "approved/rejected" either, I do try to stop people from saying such things, as they are not contributing to the thread at all.


That's exactly it, and I have given -rep for such actions before and will do so again (every time I see it).
Another problem is that I can't hand out -rep for people who just say that the map should be rejected because of bad [insert category here], it's not a review, but it's not braking the rules either - I just warn them :/

I, for talking in my name, have reviewed a couple of maps. OK, THE FIRST THING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD DO IS PLAY THE MAP, RIGHT? Hell, I even have seen people giving 1/5 rating to an awesome piece of cinematic, just because they "Didn't make a good description". The creator didn't want to give out spoilers, watch the cinematic and shut up, simple as that.
AND THE SECOND MOST-IMPORTANT Thing is to well... if it's playable, play it a couple of times, for both the "good and the bad force", and, if possible, online. I have reviewed a couple of maps, and they actually turned out to be good. And, 1 thing to y'all guys that play Wc3 and want a good map:
Look at reviews that aren't 2 liners. Read the "Block of text". Read the reasons why, what, this and that.
1 thing to y'all guys who review maps for Wc3 and want a good review:
Do not poke on 1 thing. Do not say "the region here sucks. Change it.". If it really is that bad, then just say what to change, something like: "I quite do not like the grass that you placed here. Could you use some other tile, or add a rock or two?"
Ok. I'll take out a "Banal example" of a map being wrong moderated:
Imagine if Ice_Frog came here and uploaded some new-DotA version, something really new, that he didn't want to upload to any other site, other than his own site. I think the majority would say "1/5. Go F*** you with your precious DotA somewhere else". I, for one, Dislike the fact that people do not care what the game's called, but instead of Warcraft 3 call it "dota". That's really stupid. AND DO NOT GO AND FLAME ME, I JUST PICKED DOTA BECAUSE YOU GUYS MOSTLY HATE IT.
If I was a mod (or If i even get to be one), I'd consider firstly playing the map a couple of times, read the description then, and then write a review. I wouldn't look at the posts below. I'd suggest things that would help first help the user in creating maps, then what he should change/keep an eye on/other various crap.
I do not say that Ap0calypse does his job wrong, i just say how I would do it. I'm pretty positive he does it the same way i described it. He's really a good addition to this site.

OH, my post became a block of text itself, so... that's it. Hope I cleared out something a little.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Playing maps multiple times is pretty time consuming, with the map influx it's not practical for the mods to play them multiple times (which is where user reviews come in handy). Then of course, before you a review a map the whole point is you should at least play the map first.

 

[Jaret]

Playing maps multiple times is pretty time consuming, with the map influx it's not practical for the mods to play them multiple times (which is where user reviews come in handy). Then of course, before you a review a map the whole point is you should at least play the map first.

I actually think there're people judging maps by the minimap... Which is just ridiculous!

 

[ap0calypse]

Jaret, don't take me wrong here, but you're being too idealistic.
It's just not possible to, and I quote, "play the map a couple of times, read the description then, and then write a review" because of the massive amount of maps.
Usually I approve/reject maps based on the rules, so if a map doesn't follow the rules, I reject it (if the description isn't good, it's set to needs fix).

Your idea is great though, just like communism is a great idea - and that's where it stops.

Okay, you are right if you're ONLY talking about actual reviewing and not moderating, because reviews shouldn't have much to do with the description on the hive etc.
And another thing you're right about and I can't stand: people rating the map without playing it.
Now I can understand that people want a map's description to be improved, but a rating is based on the map, not on what happens on the hive - thus nobody should rate a map based on a description.

I hope this kinda covered your post :/

Edit: and the minimap also falls under "a rating based on what happens on the hive" (although some minimaps clearly show that the terrain is really lacking, mostly in TD's).

 

[Jaret]

Jaret, don't take me wrong here, but you're being too idealistic.
It's just not possible to, and I quote, "play the map a couple of times, read the description then, and then write a review" because of the massive amount of maps.
Usually I approve/reject maps based on the rules, so if a map doesn't follow the rules, I reject it (if the description isn't good, it's set to needs fix).

Your idea is great though, just like communism is a great idea - and that's where it stops.

Okay, you are right if you're ONLY talking about actual reviewing and not moderating, because reviews shouldn't have much to do with the description on the hive etc.
And another thing you're right about and I can't stand: people rating the map without playing it.
Now I can understand that people want a map's description to be improved, but a rating is based on the map, not on what happens on the hive - thus nobody should rate a map based on a description.

I hope this kinda covered your post :/

Edit: and the minimap also falls under "a rating based on what happens on the hive" (although some minimaps clearly show that the terrain is really lacking, mostly in TD's).

Well, that's kind of what i wanted to say, I think I didn't talk about moderating, but I didn't want it all to be a block-post, so... I just said how I would do these things, but... well, a pretty neat idea would be just to consider every "REAL" review about the maps. To find a hybrid in all of the reviews, and so find a perfect solution/rating. But yeah, you're right. I should have posted it a little more "Exact".

And for descriptions... They play a major role as well. The description will be the judge wether you will get other users or non-users to download your map or not. That's why it is called "description". It "Describes" your map. It would be ridiculous if a map about warcraft would have a description like: "You're controling the zerg in a fight against the protoss and terran..." (Well, I think that'll not happen... ever).

Bottom line: The Moderation is both reviewing the game, the mini-map, and the description (I think) AND is considering the rules of the hive.

 

[Boris_Spider]

I actually think there're people judging maps by the minimap... Which is just ridiculous!

Nearly all of the reviews I see are based on the minimap/description, which only serve as a means of advertising said map/game. It's one thing if a map is poorly advertised, but to pass/fail it without playing it (opening it in WC or WE is not playing it) simply because the ads fail to appeal, is the problem.

As I said earlier, the previewers consist attention-hungry users. Just report their posts and move on. Don't engage them, that'll only encourage them. You can't keep them out.

As for the mods, I'm surprised there are only 1-2 map mods. It makes sense for the other resource sections to consist of such, but maps require a great deal of time to actually moderate. Of course, as Ap0c mentioned, the number of people that are capable of serving as a map mod are few. (They'd need to be 'skilled' (poor word choice, but best I have currently) in GUI/VJass/JASS, terraining, tech trees, balancing, etc...)

Then again, the map mods exist only to determine whether or not a map is functional, not if it's "fun" - a very subjective term. They can recommend maps, but only if users indicate it should be done.

//\\oo//\\

 

[WaterKnight]

It's just not possible to, and I quote, "play the map a couple of times, read the description then, and then write a review" because of the massive amount of maps.

"But that's also a question whether this site here places quality above activity."

Do said poor reviews serve any purpose? Do you need them? Your statement would indicate that not each one would get a proper review anyway.

 

[Ironside]

Nearly all of the reviews I see are based on the minimap/description, which only serve as a means of advertising said map/game. It's one thing if a map is poorly advertised, but to pass/fail it without playing it (opening it in WC or WE is not playing it) simply because the ads fail to appeal, is the problem.

As I said earlier, the previewers consist attention-hungry users. Just report their posts and move on. Don't engage them, that'll only encourage them. You can't keep them out.

As for the mods, I'm surprised there are only 1-2 map mods. It makes sense for the other resource sections to consist of such, but maps require a great deal of time to actually moderate. Of course, as Ap0c mentioned, the number of people that are capable of serving as a map mod are few. (They'd need to be 'skilled' (poor word choice, but best I have currently) in GUI/VJass/JASS, terraining, tech trees, balancing, etc...)

Then again, the map mods exist only to determine whether or not a map is functional, not if it's "fun" - a very subjective term. They can recommend maps, but only if users indicate it should be done.

//\\oo//\\

I can't think of anyone that could be a map moderator currently anyway, and also 2 moderators are enough as long as the Map Reviewers do reviews and then send the maps links to moderators.

 

[ap0calypse]

"But that's also a question whether this site here places quality above activity."

Do said poor reviews serve any purpose? Do you need them? Your statement would indicate that not each one would get a proper review anyway.

First of all: I myself do dislike those poor reviews and would rather not see them, and I never said that no single map deserves a proper review either.
You're completely missing my point here.
We can't give a proper review to ALL maps due to their large numbers, we can give them to some though.
No: those poor reviews do not serve any purpose, but if you re-read my post, does it have anything to do with what I said?

Second: we can't stop people from uploading here, even if we do place quality above activity (we're kind-of in between those two), people will still upload bad maps, that hasn't got anything to do with the amount of maps uploaded - quality has to do with the amount of maps getting approved.

And for descriptions... They play a major role as well. The description will be the judge wether you will get other users or non-users to download your map or not.

Hence the description-rule.
It shouldn't influence the rating though, as a rating is based on the map, not it's aesthetics on a few sites.

Bottom line: The Moderation is both reviewing the game, the mini-map, and the description (I think) AND is considering the rules of the hive.

Then again, how are you going to review all pending maps?
Note that there's an avarage of 7 maps uploaded each day and that moderators to have lives of their own.
How are you going to review 7 maps each day, and then I didn't take the 170 still pending maps in consideration.

Yes: the minimap and description are valued in moderation, but not in the rating (I think I said this before ^^).

 

[Jaret]

First of all: I myself do dislike those poor reviews and would rather not see them, and I never said that no single map deserves a proper review either.
You're completely missing my point here.
We can't give a proper review to ALL maps due to their large numbers, we can give them to some though.
No: those poor reviews do not serve any purpose, but if you re-read my post, does it have anything to do with what I said?

Second: we can't stop people from uploading here, even if we do place quality above activity (we're kind-of in between those two), people will still upload bad maps, that hasn't got anything to do with the amount of maps uploaded - quality has to do with the amount of maps getting approved.


Hence the description-rule.
It shouldn't influence the rating though, as a rating is based on the map, not it's aesthetics on a few sites.


Then again, how are you going to review all pending maps?
Note that there's an avarage of 7 maps uploaded each day and that moderators to have lives of their own.
How are you going to review 7 maps each day, and then I didn't take the 170 still pending maps in consideration.

Yes: the minimap and description are valued in moderation, but not in the rating (I think I said this before ^^).

So again I think there should be more mods in the map section... at least 4, and there're 2 major reasons why:
-More quality reviews would be made on maps, because they would have more time to focus on 1 single map.
-Maps would be faster approved-rejected.

 

[WaterKnight]

First of all: I myself do dislike those poor reviews and would rather not see them, and I never said that no single map deserves a proper review either.

Not deserve, they just do not get one because of addressed missing capabilities.

Second: we can't stop people from uploading here, even if we do place quality above activity (we're kind-of in between those two), people will still upload bad maps, that hasn't got anything to do with the amount of maps uploaded - quality has to do with the amount of maps getting approved.

I did not mean the quality of maps but the quality of reviews. These could be punished. Of course, that would deter people and lower activity. But we are talking about fairly considerable excesses here.

Then again, how are you going to review all pending maps?
Note that there's an avarage of 7 maps uploaded each day and that moderators to have lives of their own.

The moderators are obligated to write reviews? Normally, that would be done by content staff/community. I do not deem valid approval in general but if you just judge after basic rules, you can do that before unlocking maps to the public, it is not as time-consuming, users won't come in touch with offensive contents.

Still, if the poor reviews do not help at all, this won't change the state of maps pending, either.

 

[ap0calypse]

So again I think there should be more mods in the map section... at least 4, and there're 2 major reasons why:
-More quality reviews would be made on maps, because they would have more time to focus on 1 single map.
-Maps would be faster approved-rejected.

I already addressed this point:

More map mods:
Improbable. It takes too long (about 2 months?) for a single user to be chosen, approved and promoted to a moderator.
May seem like a lot? Well, it is... but we can't help that either: every time we browse through a player's record, we find negative things (and I find that a downside of the internet: not everything should be recorded and treated as that person's general behaviour).
And on top of that, there are only a few users in which I can see a potential map moderator.

I did not mean the quality of maps but the quality of reviews. These could be punished. Of course, that would deter people and lower activity. But we are talking about fairly considerable excesses here.

Good, I'll start handing out warnings for utterly useless reviews, which will result in -rep if an already warned user does so again.
Unfortunately, that's all I can do about it.

The moderators are obligated to write reviews? Normally, that would be done by content staff/community. I do not deem valid approval in general but if you just judge after basic rules, you can do that before unlocking maps to the public, it is not as time-consuming, users won't come in touch with offensive contents.

No, we aren't obliged to write reviews...

But we don't have many (active) reviewers.
And the problem is that reviewers cannot see hidden maps either.
This would require a total rework of the maps section, which is supposedly destined for thw 2.0 (if it ever comes), and that system is fairly similar to what you just proposed (if it abides by the basic rules, it gets approved and can then be reviewed or moderated with more detail).

And we already have two states of approval:
Approved (basic approval, it abides by the rules and its quality is high enough).
and
Reviewed (Contains a review made by either a respected user or a moderator).

The problem is that too few users create reviews which are really worth changing the map status to reviewed.
And finding users for the job is painstaking as well.

 

[Ralle]

I agree something should be done about this.
My suggestion to you is this:
Go out and find those condescending reviews and tell them down in a nice way. Then write a positive review and if the other review seriously crosses the line, report it

 

[The World Is Flat]

But the problem with that is not many people are going to find time to do this, its so much easier to be negative.

 

[Jaret]

Well, I agree finding persions worth being called "map reviewers" Is really hard, but do not lose hope. Maybe 2 reviewers were enough last year, but remember... The hive is growing, and more people're joining to upload their maps here. More people = More reviewers. I can understand skins, models and icons to have 2 reviewers: You just look at it (icons), Look at the model itself using some skin in a model editor (Skin), open the model in the model editor and ingame (Model), but maps... they're a little harder and more challenging.

And yea, too little amount of people are actually capable of writing quality reviews, so that's a little bigger problem....

 

[ap0calypse]

Hmh, that's not really true :/

We just had a massive clean-up (cleaned up about a thousand maps total).
The amount of uploaded maps now in comparison to last year is about the same.

 

[Jaret]

Hmh, that's not really true :/

We just had a massive clean-up (cleaned up about a thousand maps total).
The amount of uploaded maps now in comparison to last year is about the same.

Really? I would have sworn it grew :/