Resource categories visual changes

[Civil]

Hi all,

I really like the update to add the 'Useful/Simple' category. Oftentimes when I am searching for models I'm actually more interested in these as I'll be looking for a less flashy effect, or a simple model that's more appropriate to the situation I need.

With that said, I feel like the category clashes with the Recommended category in both naming/visuals.


'It works and satisfies the submission rules' is the description for the Recommended category, but surely applies to the vast majority of Useful/Simple resources. It doesn't seem that resources are put in the Useful/Simple section if they don't 'work', it's more so that they might be lacking polish, wasting space, lacking less essential animations etc. These resources are still going through an approval process and in that sense are satisfying some level of submission rules. That description doesn't really fit the naming of 'Recommended' either, which suggests a level of quality above simply meeting the minimum requirements tot be uploaded.

I also think that the naming of 'Recommended' doesn't really make sense when the Useful/Simple section exists. There are models in the Useful/Simple section which would certainly be recommended to be used, they don't all have issues if they're useful/simple, some are just less effort. Those resources in particular are done a disservice by the naming scheme since they still feel like they're in a second class section. The green thumbs up vs the yellow 'Ok' really conveys substandard to me, and 'Recommended' implies that these resources are not recommended by proxy.

I've read previous discussions on these sections and I know a big part of resistance to change on the sections is because of re-moderation needing to be done to reclassify resources. However I think you could go some way to improving the sections just with a few visual changes with no reclassification needed.

The first change I would suggest is to give the green tick to all resources classified as Directors cut/High quality/Recommended/Useful.

Then you can differentiate between the sections with a second icon that would appear below it. This change would be purely visual and shouldn't affect any of the current filters/approval process. Depending on the icons used, that should make the useful/simple section appear more friendly.

In my mind the only section that should not be given a tick would be the 'Lacking' section, as its the only section which has been 'Processed' but fails to meet standard requirements. The current thumbs down seems appropriate for that one.

The second change I would suggest is renaming the Recommended section to 'Detailed', which to me would better describe the differences between the Useful/Simple section and is neutral enough to not confuse it with the 'High quality' section which implies a better standard. I've seen 'Original' suggested before, but for me that is more of a reclassification than 'Detailed' since it seems like an edit could be put in Recommended currently if it were detailed enough.

These are just suggestions to spark a further discussion on the matter, I'm mindful of not coming in and telling moderators/administrators 'this is how it should be', I just think it's useful to offer some concrete ideas to a discussion that's been had before, otherwise things tend to stagnate.

Thanks for reading

 

[deepstrasz]

We had Substandard, Approved and Director's Cut. Now we have Lacking, Useful/Simple, Recommended, High Quality and Director's Cut. I understand you want to fuse Useful/Simple with Recommended. All these changes don't really do any good in the long run as there will always be some critique as to what the exact role of any of these categories is and what they should include.
If simplifying stuff would be less confusing and give users fewer boxes to tick when searching/browsing, then one could just think of Lacking which should be fused with Restricted because usually Lacking is not even useful, not to mention good in some way, basically resource upload spam. And, then just have Approved (like before) and Director's Cut. That way we aim more at quality rather than quantity and the rating of some resources in Approved would be the thing to put them in the (not anymore) non-existing Useful/Simple category, visually (in one's head).

 

[Civil]

Hi deepstrasz,

Nope, I don't want to fuse Useful/Simple with Recommended at all. I don't actually have a problem with how resources are classified at the moment, as in what goes into putting them where they are. I rather feel that the spirit of why resources are put in 'Recommended' vs 'Useful/Simple' is not conveyed well by the visuals/naming scheme. My suggestions are based around renaming/changing the icons to better reflect the current system.

 

[deepstrasz]

I'm not really following. The distinction, visually in what the icons are concerned, is very obvious. If the moderation criteria behind which resource ends where is the actual culprit, then that's what you'd need, a sort of transparent moderation guide for each type of category?
Regarding the names, I agree, recommended sounds too vague. Useful/Simple is understandable. Before it was Substandard which was a bit unfair (we have Lacking now) although there are borderline resources in this section that would be more appropriate for Lacking (especially in Maps).

 

[Civil]

The icon for Recommended is a green thumbs up. The icon for Useful/Simple is a yellow 'Ok' hand emoji.

To me that really conveys the old 'Substandard' name rather than the new Useful/Simple category. It implies 'Ok' quality which is not necessarily the case.

Similarly having one category be called Recommended implies that the resources in the Useful/Simple category are by proxy not recommended which in a lot of cases is not true.

So my suggestion is:
rename Recommended to Detailed
Use the green thumbs up to indicate the resource has been reviewed (except for Lacking)
Use a secondary icon to indicate which category its in (Directors cut/high quality/detailed/usefulsimple)

Again that's purely visual changes, no changes to how resources are put in each category

 

[Armelior_is_back]

As someone who uses resources but doesn't know anything about the creation process (well, except maps but they're not really resources), the difference between "useful/simple" and "recommended" seems usually more about the amount of work it took that the final product, and maybe the originality.
So I understand why "detailed" might be better.

As an aside, what's the difference between "high quality" and "director's cut" ? Is the latter the old version ? Since it seems to be only (mostly?) attached to old stuff

 

[deepstrasz]

As an aside, what's the difference between "high quality" and "director's cut" ? Is the latter the old version ? Since it seems to be only (mostly?) attached to old stuff

Refer to this thread: Moderation System & Upcoming Grid View

 

[Kyrbi0]

Man this old 'nut... I've been fighting in these trenches for a while, and I respect a fellow "carer-about-nomenclature/-descriptions" joining the fray.

That being said, as one of the prime proponents of the phrase "Recommended" I don't really agree that it's a suboptimal name. ^_^" I treat it as being pretty close to "Approved" (which we couldn't use for obvious reasons), maybe just a half-step above.

I long had issues with "Substandard" (similar to what you're saying about "Useful/Simple"), and fought long & hard to get it changed. I don't honestly love "U/S" but it's better, less of a negative connotation. Still kinda wish we could replace that & "Lacking"; I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I have always seen it more as a "good - better - best" thing rather than a "bad - ok - good" thing. (after all, they're all "approved", they all meet the minimum standards)

One way to think about this is that the names are more descriptive/subjective than prescriptive/objective; the 5 levels are really just the equivalent of the star-ranking system (1-5), except only for reviewers/mods to apply. A "mod-ranking", if you will. It's a less subjective ranking than (what is assumed to be received from) the community... But it's still ultimately a subjective ranking system. Ultimately all of them are still "Approved" (a designation, not a ranking (this isn't the actual terminology but just roll with me on this)), all of them "fulfill the standards of the site"; if they didn't, they would not be Approved (and instead be "Awaiting Update" if they've been moderated, or "Pending" if they haven't).

So it's like "Approved - Lacking" or "Approved - Recommended"; the 2nd term is just a subjective description, not necessarily meant to unequivocally/irrevocably prescribe whether a resource is literally "simple" or not, "recommended" or not.

Now to make sure I responded to your points:

So my suggestion is:
rename Recommended to Detailed
Use the green thumbs up to indicate the resource has been reviewed (except for Lacking)
Use a secondary icon to indicate which category its in (Directors cut/high quality/detailed/usefulsimple)

1) No offense but disagree
2) (well assuming you mean "successfully passes a period of review & is Accepted into the system", since otherwise we're talking about "Awaiting Update"), it's got a Green Check Mark for that
3) Secondary icons are already extant (see #2); every Approved resource gets a green check mark for "Approved" & then a hand-symbol (thumbs up/down, etc) for it's Ranking.

As an aside, what's the difference between "high quality" and "director's cut" ? Is the latter the old version ? Since it seems to be only (mostly?) attached to old stuff

Deepstrasz pointed you in the right direction but just to add: Yeah DC is currently (?) just all the old DC resources, because for a time that designation was gone & High-Quality didn't exist. Since adding it back & adding HQ, the idea has been to work our way through the archives & move things where appropriate (DC is still hard to get to, gotta be recommended by users & then debated over by reviewers/mods // HQ is because we wanted something to highlight excellence above just "recommended" but that didn't quite reach the level of DC, so as not to dilute DC; it is also being progressively worked on for older resources to join those ranks)

 

[Civil]

If the levels are an equivalent of a star system as you say, I wouldn't say the simple category really fits into that the way it's currently used. If a model is perfect in its simplicity, no bugs, low file size, etc. thats a 5 star model in my books. But such a model will always be a 3 on this scale because by definition it can never be more than simple/useful

I wouldn't expect such a model to ever get a directors cut, because there's not enough to it to give any kind of wow factor. That's where the descriptors work much better than a star system.

I think if you look at the categories as just a star scale then yes there's no problem with the current visuals because they do represent a scale going upwards.

My understanding of it though was that the simple category evolved from substandard to useful/simple to change how it was moderated, to have a place for work that was simple but effective as well as models lacking in a few areas. You can correct me if that's wrong but it's how it looks from what is in the simple section.