Official "There are too many pending resources" Thread

[JesusHipster]

Why do think that being able to ban people is a bonus? It's not like we can take the hammer for live target practice or use it to to our own end. And it's not like I love removing people from the site or tidying up the shit they leave behind. I do it because I want the forums to better off than a cesspool.

I think it's more of a discussional problem of a school of thought. I think of it as of a privilege because i see forum as a low-scale representation of a society. However it's not that important in this discussion.

They can definitely refer to the review if they agree with it. We don't require people to reinvent the wheel when they don't need to. AFAIK references have been included in reviews several times.
_____

That sounds exactly like what the reviewer position is already in place for. We're definitely open to add more people to it, and are looking into it daily.

Well, my suggestion was to simplify this process even more. In this case we have lower grade moderators - the reviewers that can, besides the ability to review the resource, choose a review from a user who is not a member of a group. The difference is the lack of pre-review bureaucratic procedures and the fact that a user can do this once and forget about this practice.

The fact that it's not restricted is great. Maybe people don't know about it or just have some specific prejudices, who knows. At this point my suggestion is reduced to just adding something like "Keep in mind that your quality review of a resource can be accepted as a moderator's review, %username" to the "notices" part of the page or something.

well i mean the purpose of reviewers was to legitimize reviews from trusted users, in a sense. i've also seen mods cite a user review, particularly in the maps section. but how often do you see user reviews, and how often do you see one that's 'complete and more or less objective'? i don't think this is a solution.

I belive that if a user is informed about the possibility of his comment becoming a mod review a swarm of review comments is to be expected. I also can't realy imagine any downsides to trying it, besides a chance of not resolving the problem.

I was not the one to bring this problem up, but (once again) i would like to thank reviewers and THW administration for hard work regarding this issue. It's not that it bothers me personaly, but i think that all of the community recognizes the effort.

 

[Ardenian]

I belive that if a user is informed about the possibility of his comment becoming a mod review a swarm of review comments is to be expected. I also can't realy imagine any downsides to trying it, besides a chance of not resolving the problem.

Keep in mind not every user is qualified enough to judge about approval and other
moderation tags. Filtering the comments of trusted and experienced users and then
checking the resource yourself ( something every moderator and reviewer should do,
independently from the reviews of users commenting) you don't save much time.
The comments and reviews could hint you points for your own moderation
and state some points you can focus on when evaluating the resource yourself though.

The Reviewer posts are meant to qualify experienced users to speed up the whole
moderation machine, I assume.

 

[JesusHipster]

Keep in mind not every user is qualified enough to judge about approval and other
moderation tags. Filtering the comments of trusted and experienced users and then
checking the resource yourself ( something every moderator and reviewer should do,
independently from the reviews of users commenting) you don't save much time.
The comments and reviews could hint you points for your own moderation
and state some points you can focus on when evaluating the resource yourself though.

The Reviewer posts are meant to qualify experienced users to speed up the whole
moderation machine, I assume.

Good point. But what about the map section where this method, as far as i understand, is already utilized?

I still think that when a trusted user (ex. General Frank or Grendel for model section) writes a review and gives a star rating it woun't need futher clarification by a moderator or a reviewer, he can just stumble his review without even doublechecking. This isn't the best way, but i think that it's better than the current situation or the wide user-rating based approval.

Futhermore, if someone at least a little bit compitent leaves a comment where he, let's say, lists all the technical downsides\mistakes of the model and gives a clear justification to his verdict (which was, by the way, lacking among previous moderators and not only mr. Minimage, as i have recently discovered) i also don't see any reason to not use his comment as a review without doublechecking. Or maybe use a user-made review but set up a different rating. In a way "I a agree with this guy, he sounds smart, but i think that his rating is way too high for this model, so it's officialy 3\5 and 4\5 stays in the review under the resource from the comment author, blah blah".

I think i will stop pushing this idea right now, starting with this post. I think i said everything i had to say a number of posts before and there should be a room for other discussion. Whatever you guys decide to do i wish you best of luck with this flood of resources.

 

[Ardenian]

If there are problems with a resource and users commenting show up these,
then usually the moderators and reviewers act fast. You can sometimes see moderation comments
like 'Reported as not working' and such.

In my opinion, the difficult part starts when a review calls for approval.
Then there has to be an official proof by a moderator or reviewer before the
resource is approved, that's how it works here in Hiveworkshop.
Then you have to check the resource yourself, there is no way around it.
The possiblity that reviews of unexperienced users miss points is high and if
a user is experienced in reviewing and writing constructive comments, then
the Staff surely contacts that person, if all requirements are met, to offer
an option to help furthermore, becoming Reviewer or even Moderator.

It is great you care about Hiveworkshop!
I am excited what other users say to your idea

 

[Shadow Fury]

Ardenian raised a good point, and I'd like to clarify how I proceed with that.

I still think that when a trusted user (ex. General Frank or Grendel for model section) writes a review and gives a star rating it woun't need futher clarification by a moderator or a reviewer, he can just stumble his review without even doublechecking. This isn't the best way, but i think that it's better than the current situation or the wide user-rating based approval.

That might work out for models, but certainly not with maps.
Maps are no like other resources. You don't know exactly what you'll get (even if there are screenshots) until you test the map. With that being said, I cannot trust blindly a review, even if it was from a clone of myself, or even if 10000 users voted and rated the same thing! A moderator/reviewer must (not should) check the map himself and then settle if the present review(s) is/are fair and fitting before taking his final decision on the map. This still consumes time; it just saves some, although I don't fancy this method, as a moderator's/reviewer's job is not moderating resources based on users' reviews. I might use it a few times, but not many, and even when I do, I usually add my views as well.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

the best way?

I think a new system needed to be created where the models are anonymous until approved.

and

submits need to be placed on a waiting list until the are allowed to be interviewed.

this will make users more cautious about submitting poor quality, and remove UNfair reviewing.

thank you for ignoring my advice

 

[Ardenian]

submits need to be placed on a waiting list until the are allowed to be interviewed.

This is an interesting idea. For models, skins and icons it could work out.
However, not for maps. There are maps you cannot just moderate due to multi player
requirement, for example.

Finally though, it would most likely slow down the moderation machine,
as one cannot moderate resources with obvious flaws or errors, as other
resources are in between.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

isn't that the point of moderating?

to find what is good or bad.... how can a moderator complain about that

but now I'm judging

 

[Homor]

The huge amount of pending resources is pretty brutal. I know first hand.

I first uploaded my map in January. We're almost in April now and it hasn't been approved yet. It's... not a good feeling, to say the least. Not knowing if you're map is going to get approved or not is hard enough on you, but not even having it reviewed for months at a time is even worse.

3 moderates testing, reviewing, approving and rejecting 80+ maps must be incredibly difficult and I sympathize completely. But being on the other end of that situation is also really crappy.

I hope we can find a solution soon.

 

[Solu9]

I think a new system needed to be created where the models are anonymous until approved.

It's not a terrible idea, but I can't speak for how easily that system could be integrated with vBulletin.

And even if it was easy, we're moving from vB soon either way. Keep it in mind and lobby for it once we've moved.

That is a really interesting idea. That is one way to lessen biased reviews and moderating.

Edit:
fladder's post removed?

 

[fladdermasken]

I think it's more of a discussional problem of a school of thought. I think of it as of a privilege because i see forum as a low-scale representation of a society. However it's not that important in this discussion.

If it's a low-scale societal representation, it would be equivalent to a joint police/custodian force. Our job is soaking up shit, but with the ability to tell them off for leaving it there in the first place.

I still don't see it as a privilege as much as I see it as a job.

At this point my suggestion is reduced to just adding something like "Keep in mind that your quality review of a resource can be accepted as a moderator's review, %username" to the "notices" part of the page or something.

I belive that if a user is informed about the possibility of his comment becoming a mod review a swarm of review comments is to be expected. I also can't realy imagine any downsides to trying it, besides a chance of not resolving the problem.

We can probably add a line like that to the submission rules. I'll forward it to ML and see what we can work out.

I think a new system needed to be created where the models are anonymous until approved.

It's not a terrible idea, but I can't speak for how easily that system could be integrated with vBulletin.

And even if it was easy, we're moving from vB soon either way. Keep it in mind and lobby for it once we've moved.

Edit:
fladder's post removed?

Yeah sorry, I hit submit instead of preview. I still had stuff to respond to.

 

[Homor]

The mods really stepped their game up when it came to approving resources. I'm extremely impressed. I just popped in to tell you guys that you've done a great job.

 

[Ardenian]

*mods and reviewers

 

[Chaosy]

Not meant to insult any of the ones in charge of the map section but I think Rufus did most of the job.
In terms of number of approved maps.

 

[Shadow Fury]

Not meant to insult any of the ones in charge of the map section but I think Rufus did most of the job.
In terms of number of approved maps.

You are 100% right. I don't take any of the merit about the pending maps reaching one page only. It's all thanks to Rufus and Ardenian.
Excellent job, guys Nobody ever did what you are doing right now in the entire history of the Hive! Feel proud!

 

[fladdermasken]

Cleaned the thread thoroughly. Please keep future posts remotely on topic.

Big shoutout to our modeling and mapping crew. Previously at 5 pages and almost 100 pending resources in both categories, we're now down to 10 maps and 23 models.

These are very managable figures.

Great job, guys!

 

[Solu9]

Just dropping by to say how awesome it is that the time for pending models has been reduced greatly and the moderator reviews are full of advice and constructive criticism. I'm actually looking forward to read what a moderator has to say about a moderated model. And that's not just my own models.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Flux]

The JASS Resources forum is pretty inactive from feedbacks lately. There are even resources from 2015.

 

[Ralle]

Usually they are awaiting response from the author or something.

 

[Flux]

This one doesn't look like it. And there are probably more.

 

[The_Silent]

Nobody can complain about the amount of pending models now, haha.

 

[JesusHipster]

Since HIVE 2.0 this thread can now be resurrected

Not really complaining, just wondering what's wrong.

Can't speak about other fields of the site, but model pending section is filled with things. Even the ones that are straight to "too simple" don't seem to be moderated.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

testicular cancer! ^^

oh sorry.... wrong thread... hmm your problem... uhm...

we should look into this -_- serious face... but more importantly we need moderator tools

I'm working on one but it's likely very dumb

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

for some reason I feel the hive incompletely dead.... ops wrong thread.

still anyone look at the map section recently.

or the new thread posts....

or the .... hmm we should look into this

 

[JesusHipster]

for some reason I feel the hive incompletely dead.... ops wrong thread.

Well, this feeling is certainly an expected one in WC3 community in 2016. Still I would very much enjoy the models getting approved\declined in the pending sections. I mean, is it a technical issue or the problem actually is about people being lazy and not approving things for over two weeks. No offence, but I think there were about 4 or more people only in models section, the whole thing should be working fine..


EDIT: hopefully this dead community vibe that you get is just an illusion

 

[fladdermasken]

Well, this feeling is certainly an expected one in WC3 community in 2016. Still I would very much enjoy the models getting approved\declined in the pending sections. I mean, is it a technical issue or the problem actually is about people being lazy and not approving things for over two weeks. No offence, but I think there were about 4 or more people only in models section, the whole thing should be working fine..

Four different reasons for absence pretty much just coincided randomly, and the model section took the full force of that. Last I heard, HappyCockroach should be fully available from the middle of July, and The_Silent said something similar. HappyTauren, Misha, and Fingolfin will try dedicating what little time they have to thin out the pile.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Well, this site is still suprisinly "alive" considering how old W3 is and how SC2 hasn't really picked up on this site.

Unless Blizzard decides to do W3 HD edition or release a major patch with some new content, I can't really see much that could be done to improve the situation. That is, until another Blizzard RTS comes

 

[Ralle]

Right now there are 87 submissions in the maps section. However, only 50 of them are waiting for a moderator. The rest are waiting for the author to make changes. You see them all as "Submissions" but you don't know the whole story. Right now "Awaiting update" is something a moderator can set on a bundle but it stays in the same place.

For models we have 65 submissions of which 65 are awaiting update.

I will work with reviewers and moderators to reduce the numbers.

 

[JesusHipster]

For models we have 65 submissions of which 65 are awaiting update.

Wait, so you are saying that all models in pending section are

The rest are waiting for the author to make changes. You see them all as "Submissions" but you don't know the whole story. Right now "Awaiting update" is something a moderator can set on a bundle but it stays in the same place.

That can't be true for obvious reasons. Then there must be some error in statistics or something.

 

[Ralle]

That can't be true for obvious reasons. Then there must be some error in statistics or something.

I was only talking about maps.

 

[Chaosy]

Map section is stacking up.
5 pages, the oldest one is from early February.
Said map got reviewed buy has been set to "awaiting update" for 6-ish months.

 

[Deleted member 247165]

If that section is full, then the moderators should test each pending map, model, icon, UI, etc, and then decide their fate on HIVE.

 

[Heinvers]

Map section is stacking up.
5 pages, the oldest one is from early February.
Said map got reviewed buy has been set to "awaiting update" for 6-ish months.

As Shadow Fury is no longer a Map Moderator, we're currently back on square one with the Flood Gates. @StoPCampinGn00b will help out in the section for awhile along with the standing Map Reviewers.
Each of them are in the process of checking maps in chronological order to best decide which are worthy of approval, which should be rechecked if enough updates have been done to them and all that paper work.

The Map Section Submissions part is barely at page 5, we're at acceptable levels to handle this situation as best as possible.

@StoPCampinGn00b will be able to provide further insight for this matter.

 

[Chaosy]

The number of maps may not be insane - but awaiting update for 6 months?...
I know that maps are being commented on, I am just highlighting that those already reviewed may require a second one.

 

[Ralle]

Map section is stacking up.
5 pages, the oldest one is from early February.
Said map got reviewed buy has been set to "awaiting update" for 6-ish months.

It doesn't matter. The moderators aren't behind. Whenever they feel they have time they can take whatever hasn't been changed in 3 months after being set to "awaiting update" move to "Substandard". There are 24 pending maps right now waiting for moderators.

 

[JaredVeatz]

This section has stranded resources and seems to be abandoned since 2013 (correct me if I'm wrong)...

 

[JesusHipster]

the thing with another month without approved resources makes me sad

besides i think it could make a bad impact on the popularity of the website.

 

[fladdermasken]

This section has stranded resources and seems to be abandoned since 2013 (correct me if I'm wrong)...

It's not abandoned, we just haven't had any active moderator/reviewer for tools in a long time. This largely stems from the fact that few users have the time, interest, and/or necessary computer science background to properly moderate it. If anyone feel like they have the necessary skillset to do this, preferably computer science students, please get in touch with me.

the thing with another month without approved resources makes me sad

besides i think it could make a bad impact on the popularity of the website.

I agree. I'll start a thread about it in the staff forums and will reply when we have a clear response from our modeling staff.

 

[JaredVeatz]

It's not abandoned, we just haven't had any active moderator/reviewer for tools in a long time. This largely stems from the fact that few users have the time, interest, and/or necessary computer science background to properly moderate it. If anyone feel like they have the necessary skillset to do this, preferably computer science students, please get in touch with me.

I'll sign in!

 

[Sulfar]

I wonder if there's an order on how the resources must be reviewed because there are maps posted today with a "review"(actually just a mod asking the creator to improve the description) and my map have been pending for 50 days without even a single comment from a reviewer/moderator.

 

[Kino]

I wonder if there's an order on how the resources must be reviewed because there are maps posted today with a "review"(actually just a mod asking the creator to improve the description) and my map have been pending for 50 days without even a single comment from a reviewer/moderator.

Since you asked, here is how I handle such issues.

1) Is it even worth testing? ie. Does the map break the rules of submission. Failure to comply with submission rules will result in rejection regardless, it is easy to make a "improve your description remark" because otherwise the map will get rejected and hence no testing is needed.

2) Scale of map; the amount of content that actually needs to be tested. The more features you have, the longer it will take to actually test the map. ie. If you have a melee map; the only 2 things that need testing are the form and function of the terrain.

3) How easy is it to set up a test? ie. If your map requires multiplayer, has long sessions and is only balanced with sizeable team; then we will need to wait for a time where such a game can be arranged.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Hey!

Awhile ago I offered to create a moderators tool to help moderators critique and approve maps. well I've completed it ^-^

I was planning on adding a whole set of functions but I ended up merely making a spell check for warcraft maps. which I suppose you could use to instantly reject a map with over 100 spelling errors.

I ran out of the time I would have used to create an import function for objects which didn't write over the already existing items. which could again be used by moderators to check for missing model files.

then the only thing left would be the users terrain and gameplay.

I was quite surprised at how easy it was to make a spellchecker. it took me only three days. I mean if it is this easy why didn't someone make it long ago to improve the hive?

anyway I'm feeling inspired now. I might have a look at how hard it might be to create an import function that doesn't write over old data. this would mean that users can import multiple spells, units and all alter object data without replacing existing files.

hope this helps someone. I would hate it to go to waste

 

[General Frank]

No one wants automatic resource moderation.
Resources are moderated case-by-case.
Period.

 

[Chaosy]

I mean, there are exceptions.
For example, for maps and spells you can check the description. If it has less than 1000 characters you are probably doing it wrong.
For models there could be a check for polygon count, too many or too low (extreme cases)

Obviously would not work for every case, but it could save some time potentially.
Even then I would not say it is worth the effort to create such a thing.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

No one wants automatic resource moderation.
Resources are moderated case-by-case.
Period.

Not an automatic system but a moderation tool that makes it easier on the moderator

I mean, there are exceptions.
For example, for maps and spells you can check the description. If it has less than 1000 characters you are probably doing it wrong.
For models there could be a check for polygon count, too many or too low (extreme cases)

Obviously would not work for every case, but it could save some time potentially.
Even then I would not say it is worth the effort to create such a thing.

A tool which could automatically provide this information on a neat little one sheet page, would make the life of a moderator much easier. In which instead of opening multiple programs you could simply plug in the necessary information and get a quick printout of what is and isn't included in the model/map. That would make the moderators like much easier, meaning quicker reviews and more work done in one day.

It wouldn't be hard to make. I've already been exploring the possibility of making a object handler that allows multiply imports. This could be used by the moderator to quickly and easily see what objects the user has and how many duplicates there are of the spells and so on

||||

I don't understand. Why are you guys so dead set a moderating tool? It won't take away from the effort you put in, it won't make you any less of a moderator or depreciate your value. You will still need to be a good moderator in order to use the tool, you would still need to be period

The tool will be only as good at the person who uses it. In fact the tool won't even be that good since it's functions will be limited.

I'm not trying to create a program that can replace you. Heck if I could do that I wouldn't be wasting my time on the hive(ok no I lie I would, but for the purpose of the argument) I would be super rich and spending my money like I have a 1000 dollar tree in my back yard.

All I am saying is a moderating tool is a possibility we should be looking into. I know no body likes change but when it is for the better of the hive, maybe we should consider it.

 

[Deleted member 247165]

I believe that your point is right. I'm supporting this.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

I believe that your point is right. I'm supporting this.

thanks for the suppory and on topic

a few months back I managed to make a warcraft map spell checker^-^!

which if I had the energy to continue on, would be my first warcraft moderating tool. unfortunately no one has used it, 66 downloads and guaranteed no one is actually using it.

then ralle make a trigger error checker.

so in a way we are slowly getting there, towards the day we have a moderating tool

here's to looking forward

 

[Deleted member 247165]

No problem

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

ok can I ask the staff a question here about maps? I realising asking if I can ask is pointless but yet have I not earned your attention?

would anyone find it useful to have a tool that could help you the moderator distinguish if a map should be in simple resources or qualify for the high quality section of maps? without needing to open or play the map to find these things out manually?

this said I have already made such a tool and I would just like to know your opinion on the matter. as a moderating tool it isn't very advanced but since there are no other moderating tools in existence... tell me what you think

currently the tool can

-check a map for spelling errors
-swear words and illegal text based material (no imaged or sound)
-count up the number of custom units, items, model...etc
-detect the percentage of flat land (usefully for exempting maps without hills or trees)
-calculate the in game loading time of maps
-verify that imported files (sound, ai, models..etc)are used
-give a preview of the introduction loading screen of a map, along with text

please If there are any more criteria that you feel is worth adding (and granted I can add it) I will be happy to oblige

 

[MasterBlaster]

I think that the "spelling errors" checker would be way more useful for map-makers than moderators.