Frankly having insanely standards for acceptance only results in problems. As long as it does not violate any major site rule and the author put effort into making it, it should be accepted.
Very agree with this, the more strict it is, the more problem it causes.
There should also be no moderator rating, since those themselves may be biased or over strict. The "I did not like it so its junk" problem.
Another abuse problem, yes, I agree.
In the end the rating should be dictated by users (of which moderators can rate as one if they want) and the comments left. If a lot of people say that the map is not worth playing then it probably is quite poor. Equally well if a lot of people say it is fun then it probably is quite fun.
Yes, I agree, as long this is not abused by their friend, if their friend say its fun "just as a friend" then this can be annoying.
As rating is done by a large number of peers, the author will be more willing to accept what he has and see his faults. This is in stark contrast to a moderator giving feedback which often results in a full blown confrontation between the two as the author thinks that person is being over strict or just being an "ass".
Pretty much agree, this happens a lot, wish it was like a teamwork way, so the author is capable accepting criticizes, but some people can't accept critics at all!
And about the moderator rating, I think they just wanna add a "feature" to this site, compared to modern gadgets, they put so many features that we rarely or don't even use, but it still adds to being "high quality" of that gadget.
In short, the moderator rating is just for this site to be "flexible" having every feature it can have (Like the +rep "feature") That's what I think... 'Cause you're right, the vote of the majority is more believable than just 1 moderator... It's like if a map has been uploaded and the moderator doesn't want that type of map even most of the players like it, the map still gets low rating.
I agree with the mass comment vs 1 mod comment but I disagree with the "flexible rating feature", it's possible for abuses, we can have our resources approve just because our friends uses this feature to help us. I think this feature should only be bestowed to a set of team of resource reviewers that promise to never abuse this system.
At some point in my hive-career I decided to start reviewing maps.
Within the first day I reached a point, where a person simply denied or made up excuses for anything that I said, instead of fixing his map.
Then a couple other reviews came in, saying the exact same things I said(mostly) from different angles. In the end this guy still didn't do much for the map and it got rejected.
When talking with him I brought an example of a person(tomoraider) that had actually responded in a positive way to my critique. This is what I mean by showing a good example.
Well, yeah, many people don't accept critics because they thing their resources are good [while in fact it's the reverse], I can't accept critic back when I just join but I learn and learn to accept critics.
I admit that when I give critique, then it can often be harsh, but I still work hard to keep it justified.
Yes, sometime we can get a bit far, but actually we only want the author to improve the resource.
I used to gather a team of map reviewers and the moderator rating would be the average of the team's ratings — a more balanced way to use moderator rating.
I agree, and if it's decided to be approved its approved, if rejected its rejected, btw, the
Map Reviewer Group you meant still exist.
