More map mods needed

[eubz]

We have so many spell mods while few are taking care of the map section. I think the map section should have the most mods because each map needs more time to review than a spell.

 

[Binsu]

Indeed, I agree and to be specific, I'm only one versus 10 pages of maps but I'm not complaining but maybe we can have some little amount of mods helping or if all ways were done, we could hire 1-2 mods.

 

[eubz]

How about kobas and orcnet?
EDIT: Because you said you're only one.

 

[Ralle]

I took the liberty of moving your posts to a separate thread. The "Hive Staff" thread is more about keeping track, not discussing problems.

You are right, 10 pages of maps is a lot. I have sent PMs to -Kobas- and Orcnet. They are both super busy with their lives, but perhaps they can squeeze in a few hours now and then.

 

[Binsu]

Well, I took down just now 2 pages. 8 pages left to be exact and I'm still continuing.

I can really notice most maps has improper descriptions so I am setting them to Awaiting Update but some Rejected due to many rules they broke.

 

[eubz]

I will start reviewing some maps then.

 

[Linaze]

Hasn't this been the case since always?

 

[Rui]

Indeed, I agree and to be specific, I'm only one versus 10 pages of maps (...)

I know your pain.

Hasn't this been the case since always?

Not really. If map reviewing had been done the way I intended it to be, then «always» would probably be accurate during this present day. However, the map mods that followed bounty_hunter2 preferred to do short moderator comments relying on the map's information rather than actually reviewing it. ap0calypse still tested some stuff I believe. From thereon, map “reviewing” was done in a way that makes the term designation hardly fitting.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Not really. If map reviewing had been done the way I intended it to be, then «always» would probably be accurate during this present day. However, the map mods that followed bounty_hunter2 preferred to do short moderator comments relying on the map's information rather than actually reviewing it. ap0calypse still tested some stuff I believe. From thereon, map “reviewing” was done in a way that makes the term designation hardly fitting.

Well sometimes it's clear the map can't be approved yet by looking at the upload information.

 

[Daffa]

To be honest, map section pending list has about 20%-40% junk maps (stolen, WIP below Beta [except hosted projects, if any], lacks description, etc. which brokes rules)

 

[PurgeandFire]

Hasn't this been the case since always?

It was 1-2 pages for a while. Orcy and Kobas got pretty busy. We didn't promote Hell_Master for a while. He's been doing an awesome job so far, but sadly he's had to take up a big mess.

Although, come to think of it, I think it is sort of a rite of passage for map mods. Orcy had to pile through tons when he was promoted, Kobas too, VKael as well (iirc). The life of a map moderator is tough.

 

[Linaze]

It was 1-2 pages for a while. Orcy and Kobas got pretty busy. We didn't promote Hell_Master for a while. He's been doing an awesome job so far, but sadly he's had to take up a big mess.

Although, come to think of it, I think it is sort of a rite of passage for map mods. Orcy had to pile through tons when he was promoted, Kobas too, VKael as well (iirc). The life of a map moderator is tough.

1-2 pages is nothing. I remember when it was 20 or whatever pages and I actually had to play maps (not only me of course, but there weren't many other active map reviewers at the time). This meant finding players on battle.net to play some horrible map made by a twelve year old kid who didn't even care about the critique you provide him but instead went on to make another horrible footman wars clone that required 12 players to be properly tested.

The life of a map moderator isn't tough. It used to be.

 

[Binsu]

Well, me and my helpers seems to be having control over it now. Near on making it down to 6 pages.

 

[muzzel]

I think there is nothing wrong with normal users making suggestions about (dis-)approval of maps. Just play the map and if you see huge flaws/bugs/etc. tell the moderators about it so they dont have to test the map again. Ofc this only works with obvious problems, not with personal dislikes.

 

[eubz]

Reviewing a map doesn't mean only playing the map and if you see huge flaws/bugs/etc you'll say this not a good map. You'll have to open it in WE if possible to look at every elements ie, triggers, terrain (because you can't see the entire map at a glance if you just play it. This is to see the balance of the map in terms of terrain.), using the scenario wisely, and more. This is actually the pain of the moderators and it is not easy.

 

[Cihparg]

Didn't Hive have Minimods at some point? What happened to that system?

 

[muzzel]

Reviewing a map doesn't mean only playing the map

It does if you encounter obvious bugs after 30 seconds of playing, which is exactly my point. Users shouldnt be allowed to approve maps, but disapproving things is sometimes much easier.

 

[Linaze]

Didn't Hive have Minimods at some point? What happened to that system?

I don't know what happened to it, so I can't answer that question. However the system wasn't great (to use a mild expression) so there's no reason to take it back either way.

 

[muzzel]

there's no reason to take it back either way.

Well, except that there are more map mods needed

 

[eubz]

It does if you encounter obvious bugs after 30 seconds of playing, which is exactly my point. Users shouldnt be allowed to approve maps, but disapproving things is sometimes much easier.

At some point, you are right.

 

[Linaze]

Well, except that there are more map mods needed

Mini mods cannot substitute map mods. They're at most a compliment.

 

[Rui]

1-2 pages is nothing. I remember when it was 20 or whatever pages and I actually had to play maps (not only me of course, but there weren't many other active map reviewers at the time). This meant finding players on battle.net to play some horrible map made by a twelve year old kid who didn't even care about the critique you provide him but instead went on to make another horrible footman wars clone that required 12 players to be properly tested.

The life of a map moderator isn't tough. It used to be.

My regime for map reviewing. Because, even though the majority could be that twelve year old kid, there will be other maps whose quality will be deign of that time, review and more.

Though I do remember you gave up after a while.

Reviewing a map doesn't mean only playing the map and if you see huge flaws/bugs/etc you'll say this not a good map. You'll have to open it in WE if possible to look at every elements ie, triggers, terrain (because you can't see the entire map at a glance if you just play it. This is to see the balance of the map in terms of terrain.), using the scenario wisely, and more. This is actually the pain of the moderators and it is not easy.

A lot of the people I used to work with stand (or used to) by that benchmark. On my end, I have never demanded that a map's triggers should be checked. On the contrary; I always said people shouldn't care if the map leaked 10 locations, 10 sfxs and whatever, so long as those leaks did not take a toll on the map's performance.

I think there is nothing wrong with normal users making suggestions about (dis-)approval of maps. Just play the map and if you see huge flaws/bugs/etc. tell the moderators about it so they dont have to test the map again. Ofc this only works with obvious problems, not with personal dislikes.

Didn't Hive have Minimods at some point? What happened to that system?

Well, except that there are more map mods needed

Yeah, minimods used to perform that function exactly. They were essential to track downright rule-breaking maps and perform testing assistance whenever a map moderator needed a team of players.

In addition, it was a useful tool to recruit potential new map moderators. Whereas others stated the long testing period set people off, which I preferred over as opposed to promoting random guys based on insipid demonstrations of interest.

 

[PurgeandFire]

1-2 pages is nothing. I remember when it was 20 or whatever pages and I actually had to play maps (not only me of course, but there weren't many other active map reviewers at the time). This meant finding players on battle.net to play some horrible map made by a twelve year old kid who didn't even care about the critique you provide him but instead went on to make another horrible footman wars clone that required 12 players to be properly tested.

The life of a map moderator isn't tough. It used to be.

Yeah, I meant that 1-2 pages is a good sign. It is currently at 7 pages (which is still relatively decent compared to the past). I just didn't communicate properly. It was 1-2 pages several months ago, but it accumulated over time due to mod inactivity.

And yes, it was much more tough before (although, I'm not sure if everyone tested as thoroughly as you described ). That is why I'm pretty happy with the current rules. It streamlines the reviewing process, and usually the ones that have little-to-no effort put into them won't pass (e.g. proper description). It also gives users some reviewing power (sometimes a mod will refer to a user's review in his own approval/disapproval).

I wouldn't say that it isn't tough though. Regardless of how easy reviewing an individual map is (if you can even consider it "easy"), going through 7 pages is rather difficult/annoying, especially on your own. Perhaps we'll consider another map mod--it all depends on how Hell_Master feels. It seems like he is pressing through quite well, but if it becomes overwhelming, we'll definitely put in another mod.

 

[Binsu]

I'm doing fine and the sections already down to 6 pages as far as I know or near going down to 6 pages.

 

[GhostThruster]

mod reviews are stupid. the 'official' rating of a hive resource shudnt be determined by a single person, moderator or not. placing significance (eg a director's cut) on something so subjective (ie resource ratings by moderators) is unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. imo, the perfect moderation system is this;
- approved - the map doesn't break any rules and is of sufficient quality
- pending - the map hasnt been reviewed or has been deemed insufficient in quality
- rejected - the map breaks resource rules or it is pending and hasnt been updated for x amount of time after moderation
moderators can still vote, but just like every other user.

i dont think this can be done now, but ralle ought to consider it for hive 2.0. anyways to be more on-topic, yes map moderators shud skip reviewing and approve/reject based on quality/compliance with rules.

 

[SpasMaster]

anyways to be more on-topic, yes map moderators shud skip reviewing and approve/reject based on quality/compliance with rules.

Reviewing does take some time, indeed. What you suggest is kinda true. Moderators should moderate and reviewers should review. Perhaps the moderator could give a full review if the mapmaker wants it, I dunno.

The point is - map moderators already have a lot to do. Cutting off the whole "reviewing" process might help things out.

 

[Linaze]

Moderators should moderate and reviewers should review

Generally, this.

A number of years back it made more sense to review maps to keep some sort of minimum level of quality in the section, but now that the section's hit rock bottom since long any such minimum level is irrelevant. Embrace the epicwar:ness with a pinch of moderation already.

 

[Vengeancekael]

I don't know what ya'll are talking about, it was pretty easy to take down those 12 pages of random anime maps two years ago.

Anyway, you guys shouldn't stress yourselves out too much. There aren't that many serious map makers left for war3, it's okay to have that many pages pending.
Though I suggest having mods who'll still do a bit of work each, maybe they'll be busy with exams/work, but they should make up for those days with some heavy moderation. Don't come with your "but you don't get paid for moderating resources made by whining users", you took up the job, so do it properly or just resign and get a proper replacement.

Not shading any of the current map mods though.

(I think)

Also didn't we have that discussion about moderator ratings a while ago? (maybe two years ago??)
Ghosty has a point obviously, but I think moderators could still give maps a rating/DC based on the general user response. When it has over 100 user ratings peaking around 4.90-5.00, then sure, why not give it a shiny rating, it's just another rating given to the user to encourage him with his work. Giving DCs used to be more justified back then when multiple mods were always available to give their opinion on a map.

edit: For those sucking up to map mods with their help in the maps section or whatever section to get some recognition and possibly be promoted to a real moderator, just stop if you're doing it to get access to some special powers/privileges, it's not that much fun and you'll be an obstacle to the general mood of the website. As a mod you'll be holding a small responsibility and ignoring that would make you a bad user in my book.

(OT - Has anybody played the new D3 patch? It's so much better now!)

 

[Ralle]

mod reviews are stupid. the 'official' rating of a hive resource shudnt be determined by a single person, moderator or not. placing significance (eg a director's cut) on something so subjective (ie resource ratings by moderators) is unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. imo, the perfect moderation system is this;
- approved - the map doesn't break any rules and is of sufficient quality
- pending - the map hasnt been reviewed or has been deemed insufficient in quality
- rejected - the map breaks resource rules or it is pending and hasnt been updated for x amount of time after moderation
moderators can still vote, but just like every other user.

i dont think this can be done now, but ralle ought to consider it for hive 2.0. anyways to be more on-topic, yes map moderators shud skip reviewing and approve/reject based on quality/compliance with rules.

That will be the system.

The "moderator rating" will go away but be replaced by a two-part rating system:
rating by users, rating by reviewers

Reviewers are moderators and more. It will be the average of the reviewers just like the users rating.

 

[Rui]

mod reviews are stupid. (...)

I reject this opinion because a single person determined it.

The "moderator rating" will go away but be replaced by a two-part rating system:
rating by users, rating by reviewers

The system Ghost described existed during the mini-mods' era. When I played maps online with testing teams, I always set the moderator rating to the average of the ratings of all the reviewers — or those who bothered to, which was never Rao Dao Zao's case, for example.

 

[eubz]

For those sucking up to map mods with their help in the maps section or whatever section to get some recognition and possibly be promoted to a real moderator, just stop if you're doing it to get access to some special powers/privileges, it's not that much fun and you'll be an obstacle to the general mood of the website. As a mod you'll be holding a small responsibility and ignoring that would make you a bad user in my book.

Helping out is already a responsibility.

 

[Adiktuz]

Map moderation is a really hard task... if you wanna do it fully, then you'll be checking out each part of the map from in-game and from WE... and that is surely a really hard thing to do... which is maybe why some start with filtering using the description etc.

 

[Ralle]

I am working on putting back the mini moderation system. What is this? Just a way for a group of people to vote for reject/approval in private to the moderator.

 

[Rui]

I like the reviewers system you proposed, by the way. Mini-mods and the way I made the scene work with them was only because it wasn't automatic in the first place.

There will be no utopia of a handful of people reviewing like professionals. Therefore, it would be better if you could still decide what posts count as reviews, just like it was before.

 

[PlankingWolf]

By mini-moderators, does it mean you still have to appoint someone or just users basically will vote?

 

[Rui]

There was a system made by Ralle in parallel with vB in which map moderators could mark posts as reviews. No semi-promotions are necessary.

Before that, we had something else — users voted for a map's approval and map moderators could decide how much a user's vote weighted (in general, not specific to a particular map), e.g. users had 1.0 by default, and we could set their vote weight to 3.0 (basically means it'll count for 3 votes). Once a map gets enough votes, it gets approved (or rejected, depending on the vote). I don't know if Ralle's proposal incorporates any of these notions.

 

[Orcnet]

Guys, no need to talk about this crap. The 'King' is back.

 

[Ralle]

There was a system made by Ralle in parallel with vB in which map moderators could mark posts as reviews. No semi-promotions are necessary.

Before that, we had something else — users voted for a map's approval and map moderators could decide how much a user's vote weighted (in general, not specific to a particular map), e.g. users had 1.0 by default, and we could set their vote weight to 3.0 (basically means it'll count for 3 votes). Once a map gets enough votes, it gets approved (or rejected, depending on the vote). I don't know if Ralle's proposal incorporates any of these notions.

I am putting back the traditional mini moderation system. A list of people can say approve/reject with a short message. This is shown on the list of maps. That is all. The automatic system still exists but is disabled.

 

[Rui]

You know, I'd really like it if you could take back the Reviewed status as well. Maps that actually got reviewed — by more than one person (as I mentioned before) — kinda deserve a section of their own. “Approved maps” could list maps with status Approved or Reviewed (simple matter of changing the URL).

 

[neo_sluf]

Warcraft as they said are dying...

So no much need effort on moderating since there are only few people who plays wc3..

Not to offense but... a person who makes a map is enough to give him a dc award.. so no need to put a very high standard on wc3 maps since there are now only few players.. and more and more are quit on modding..

give thanks to the people who still modd...

This is a bit off-topic... but just saying my opinion about map moderating..

 

[muzzel]

If thats your opinion you should leave this website.

 

[neo_sluf]

If thats your opinion you should leave this website.

No.. i am not insulting... the moderators or the reviewers or the way on moderating...

I am very sorry if you think i am insulting... not to mean that... sorry muzzel..


How about let the moderator to use the other user review?.. so they don't need to review the map if there are lots of people who review it already. Although some of it are unacceptable... let ease the responsibility of the moderators cause they are not paid...

 

[Adiktuz]

The mods can do that already if they want to do so...

 

[Orcnet]

Really guys, I think this discussion is already dealt with, chief already returned back the mini-mod system where users can vote the map if its approving or not (I guess that's how it works), I came back to clean the mess, so pending is down from 10 to 3 coz you know.

I got huge amount of swag on.

 

[PlankingWolf]

Warcraft as they said are dying...

So no much need effort on moderating since there are only few people who plays wc3..

Not to offense but... a person who makes a map is enough to give him a dc award.. so no need to put a very high standard on wc3 maps since there are now only few players.. and more and more are quit on modding..

give thanks to the people who still modd...

This is a bit off-topic... but just saying my opinion about map moderating..

The people want good or decent maps. Of course more people will leave if every map in all Warcraft websites were all crud.

 

[Binsu]

I request for the thread's closure since the problem has been solved and the maps in the sections are not that viral anymore. Thank you to eubz, Krolan and Dat-C3 for helping in the sections as mini-mod, to Ralle for bringing back the mini-mod system, Orcnet for going back to Hive and helping us take down the pages of pending maps by 2-3 pages and is now 4 pages in the sections and to all who participated in this discussion.

 

[eubz]

Close and graveyard this thread because everything now is fine. Thanks.