revamped voting system (maps)

[Xlightscreen]

Well this will probably start a argument or two here but I really want to suggest this.

I been observing people submitting maps for some time now and have came to the conclusion that the people responsible of reviewing and approving the maps are not capable of making a none-bias or none-personal review on a map.

With this in my I belief we should switch the approved system so that the approval rating is based on the users votes rather then just the reviewers. The rules could be simple really, if a map fell under a certain number such as say 2.00 then it would be denied with review moderators having greater voting power then users or just people with high rep.

A course there would defiantly be flaws in this such as people just voting 5 in order to get the map approved regardless of quality but this can be stemmed down by not letting users vote on there own maps and requiring and comment to be posted about the map to be property voted. This will make it easier to tell if this map is just being passed or not by how people comment rather there sincere or just "WOOT GREAT MAP".

As for people acutely voting this can be easily promoted through the site as well as if a map is bad and 1 person voted 5 for the fun of it 2 people or even the map moderators can give it a low rating to keep it out (this goes for maps that have been approved as well but to less of a effect.). In the end it would make the users feel more involved in the site community promoting a healthy judging environment for both users and moderators alike.

The reason for suggesting this is for one reviewer could find this map hard and not want to approved based on his/her experience on it on the other hand users could find the map being hard as a challenge and enjoy the map for that purpose. or the map happened to be a Tower defense which the current reviewer just despises TD maps.

This a course does not mean that all the approval should go to the users by any means this is why we have moderators and if something is indecent or does not work should be denied without any voting process.

 

[Rui]

(...)
I been observing people submitting maps for some time now and have came to the conclusion that the people responsible of reviewing and approving the maps are not capable of making a none-bias or none-personal review on a map.

By "personal review", you refer to the fact that we speak what we think? I can not guess the opinion of the crowd, you know. The point of the review is to criticize the map, and I can't get into peoples' heads to see what they think. Most of the users simply say "great map 5/5" and vote, instead of actually giving constructive feedback.

With this in my I belief we should switch the approved system so that the approval rating is based on the users votes rather then just the reviewers. The rules could be simple really, if a map fell under a certain number such as say 2.00 then it would be denied with review moderators having greater voting power then users or just people with high rep.

The auto-approval/rejection system has already been suggested. Sure, it's democratic, but there's this little big fact that stands in the way, which I mentioned up here: users overrate the resources. It can be completely crappy, yet it will still have minimum ratings of 3/5 or 4/5.

A course there would defiantly be flaws in this such as people just voting 5 in order to get the map approved regardless of quality but this can be stemmed down by not letting users vote on there own maps and requiring and comment to be posted about the map to be property voted. (...)

Users are unable to rate their own maps already. The comment2rate feature has already been implemented as well. Fortunately, that stopped downraters, but as I said, no constructive feedback is given.

Previously, I proposed that we allowed only people with a certain number of posts or reputation, but it was argued that it would actually associate reputation with something concrete. My suggestion would be to limit comments only to people chosen by the administration, then.


And I wish to remind the users that we have a voting system. I am not sure if I agree with it being used by regular members, but since they can, I recommend them to use it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Anyways, because the map section is being ignored by every member of the staff, eventually Ralle and I are just going to do something with it and people will need to deal with it. No clue when Ralle will find the time to actually code something, though.

 

[Xlightscreen]

No you are more the entitled to your opinions but there should be a solid guideline on which how maps are judged, as stated with my previous example of difficulty. I often see a map have a great concept of game play only to be rejected because the terrain isn't as good and the same goes with the opposite. This is often the case becuase most the reviewers make maps themselves, and get into the conflict of his/hers own standers on the maps they make with other peoples standards which should be in the end, as a community, be the users standers.

And yes in many sites, users that do have this kinda voting power will either vote 5 or 0 and rarely in the middle but like i stated before one user voting a 5 can have that score cut in half by one voting 0. another way to promote maps and users being involved with judging maps is possible monthly map completions. A front page of say top 5 maps of the week based on voting could also help on participation.

moderators could also be set as having more voting power as well. with higher up moderators acutely having the ability to just reject a map. this would also promote active moderation of the site as well by letting the reviewers communicate with the other site staff in map discussion.

 

[bounty hunter2]

No you are more the entitled to your opinions but there should be a solid guideline on which how maps are judged, as stated with my previous example of difficulty. I often see a map have a great concept of game play only to be rejected because the terrain isn't as good and the same goes with the opposite. This is often the case becuase most the reviewers make maps themselves, and get into the conflict of his/hers own standers on the maps they make with other peoples standards which should be in the end, as a community, be the users standers.

I tend to review maps here on The Hive. And yes I make maps myself. And I never ever would say no to a map if it has if it has bad terrain - good gameplay and vice versa. And for the other reviewers I think that they wouldn't do it to. Rui is actualy the only one with the power to approve maps and well his reviewing is done in a good manner. In my review you can get up to 80 points for a map and only 10 go for terrain and 10 for gameplay. I have seen the way Septimus review maps and my method is quite similar to his.

How could you actualy get the users standards? Hive would accept any map if it is bug/free in the past. Not anymore. Higher standards were made, but no map that has either good terrain or gameplay is endangered of being rejected.

 

[Rui]

(...) I often see a map have a great concept of game play only to be rejected because the terrain isn't as good (...)

When did this happen?

I see what you're trying to say with the standards now. Well, I really don't like scores for a long time now, and I doubt I would trust them even if I was to ask the public about their favorite part of mapping.
My ratings are based on how much I enjoyed the map, and after analyzing every aspect of it: the terrain, the game play and fun factors, how original it was... scores always cause controversy.

 

[Septimus]

Ralle been suggesting shallow approving but we mod always make a deep review which naturally consume a huge amount of time just to view a single map...
I believe a map with a good coding and decent quality should earn approval. After all, rating decide the quality while approval/reject decide the condition of the map.

 

[Xlightscreen]

My ratings are based on how much I enjoyed the map, and after analyzing every aspect of it: the terrain, the game play and fun factors, how original it was... scores always cause controversy.

but what is one mod standers on a map compared to another moderator? maybe they think one style of terrain is horrible why another mod think its great. by allowing the people to participate in the pass/fail process it would round out to a certain scoring or stranded on how map quality is. We are a course going to get a crappy map passed here and there. through this system however, you can easily set scoring criteria such as it needs to be 4.5 by the first 50 votes then since usually scores round down give it 4.0 by 100+ votes. I know these statics are a little excessive but these are just examples. all the status needs for requirements, average voter turnout on maps. all that could easily be gathered through weekly research and polls.


I will admit that this would be a big change to the sites structure and would take time and effort to put into place for it to work properly so let me propose a plan B.

Plan B. would be a specific checklist of base guidelines on a quality of a map for all moderators to look at this would eliminate the need for moderators to make there own standard and allow the reviewing process to go along more faster allowing more maps to be reviewed. why this would not effect any opinions the reviewer might want to say to the creator of the map such as improvements and such.

I know there is a sticky on map qualifications but that's for map makers to look at when i suggesting a base checklist i mean literary something a a moderator would be required to use as reference to there reviewing. a course any changes to this checklist can easily be changed through a majority vote by moderators or the sites owner. Remember this is also design to improve active moderation.