Solutions to Map Reviewing Issue

[Ash]

Nice edit in

You should've read my original post, but it was censored down.

Anyway, the way to stop things like that is by saying something like 'this space is for critique only, do not write anything but your review in here', and if the need arises, add something in about negrep for abuse.

 

[HappyTauren]

what about we just dump the map section? If anyone is serious enough with their project, they will have their own thread in map development.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

You may speak out outsourcing map moderating to reviewers. The problem with that, however, is that you can speak however much you want of people giving reviews, but I just don't see that happening. People who are downloading the maps and playing them hardly give feedback. Perhaps they don't have an account. Perhaps they don't want to spend the time to type something thoughtful out. In either situation, the maps still aren't getting moderated because people aren't reviewing them.

Another potential problem caused by having the general public review maps is the fact that some people can just make stupid posts/reviews which are not worthy of even being counted as a review (though mods can do this too sometimes) but will count anyway. There will have to be some kind of regulation, but the more regulations there are, the less likely people will write reviews. Which was the problem I already noted in my first idea.

 

[Ash]

No, no not at all. You obviously haven't read the full suggestion

What I've proposed is a system that would help map moderators approve maps quicker. One review from a moderator is equal to two from a minimod, which in turn is equal to 5 from normal users.

I suggested that we implement a system that allows users to vote, similarly to Mini-Mods, for approval, rejection or improvement of the map. Each 'vote' would have to be accompanied by a review, and if not then there's always the possibility of neg-rep from the moderator.

Having been a mod twice myself, I can say that I fully believe this system is capable, and would work extremely well if integrated within the map department. I'm not saying it'll reduce the queue overnight, if at all, more so that the queue will lose a few pages due to participation from the users.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Ah. That makes more sense. I figure that can work, perhaps. A reward/punishment system would help make people pursue making good reviews. (Perhaps a system where if a resource is approved and you voted in favor of approving it with a semi-detailed review, you would get rep for it, or a special variety of rep applying to map reviewing?)

I'm not saying that the pending map queue is just gonna disappear. In fact, I don't think that's even quite possible. The best to hope for is that it will build it no more. There are some really old maps that are still pending, and I believe the only way those maps are ever gonna get out of pending is if they are purged. After purging, their owners may re-upload them, thus setting them up for the queue again under the new system.

We also have the problem of duplicate maps. I see a lot of same-subject nothing-new maps floating around the map depository. Could there be a bump up in the minimum requirements of what you can submit? Either that, or the people who review maps (who, under your suggestion, would be open to many more people) would have to a be a lot more active to eliminate those maps. 5-10 minute efforts does not make a good map.

 

[Ash]

I'm not sure how the rep would work out, it'd basically turn the map section into a terrain section. But, you're right in the fact we need something to attract users to the section to do the reviewing in the first place.

Duplicate maps aren't as bad as people make them out to be. I've encountered 7, at the most, during my time as a mod. It's quick, and easy, to sort out, too.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Heh, if you say so, Ash. But other than a +rep incentive, something else must be given; looking at the amount of feedback compared to the amount of downloads, it palls in comparison. That must mean the majority of downloaders (and by majority, I mean like 90%+) do not say what they think of the maps they are downloading. While this may have a few exceptions, this holds true for most maps and that's what we're considering here: the big picture, the every man's map.

If it's not rep, why can't we have a secondary system that promotes the helping out of reviewing maps? Perhaps, after specific "progress points" of achievement, such as a certain number of maps successfully approved that you gave input on approving, you will get awards or something that will signify that you are a competent map reviewer.

 

[Ash]

It's definitely an avenue to explore...

I'm slightly too drunk to continue this conversation at the moment, though, so I'll let someone take over my part./

 

[Grim]

*Takes over Ashes Part*
To encourage people to review maps maybe offer specific icons that go under your avatar?
Like the Paypal one and the other ones that you can get for winning competitions.

This time however It could be a selection of human icons?
e.g.:
10 Reviews = Peasant Icon
50 Reviews = Militia Icon
75 Reviews = Footman Icon
100 Reviews = Rifleman Icon
250 Reviews = Captain Icon
500 Reviews = Knight Icon
750 Reviews = Admiral Proudmoore Icon
1000 Reviews = Arthas Icon
2500 Reviews = Uther Icon
5000 Reviews = Sheep Icon

To be honest... I doubt anyone would b able to hit even 1000 reviews ^^
But it sets targets

 

[AirHead]

if that happened 1) people would easily be able to just make a few extra accounts to get they're Naruto maps approved. and 2) I think that the person who submitted the map would decide who got +rep for a good review in which case they might as well just say please rep people that make a good review. what I'm saying is that there are flaws in every way of doing this, the way it is now just seems best to Ralle, and that's why it's like this to begin with.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Well, no, cause if the reviews your writing along with your votes would suck. And if the reviews suck, the votes don't count.

 

[~Void~]

I believe the original LOAP is open source, or has been made open source because it's unprotected and nobody knows who the hell made it, and whoever did either doesn't step forward or nobody believes them.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

LOAP maps? That's just we need, isn't it?

But really, I don't care if there are offshoots to open source maps, so long as they had as much care and effort put into them as you would put into any map. What I don't think should exist are the ones that are slapped together with a bit of leaking glue (get the pun?) and then stuck out here. I also dislike the maps with absolutely no description. It tells me nothing when you have random stuff in your map description that has nothing to do with your actual map.

Anyways, that was just some of my gripes... I'll continue when I see fit.

 

[Septimus]

Multiply account = good bye

If they are trying to create a mass amount of account to give fake info about their map

 

[Steel_Stallion]

I still think it should be a half private group like Medivh's tower. Where you atleast need to have some sense in you and be slightly known. That way people cant abuse it much, and can just be kicked out if they are complained about.

 

[Gilles]

I think a more wc3sear-like system would be great. In fact I'd moderate maps again if I only had to log on, look through a handful of reports, and delete a few maps.

 

[Ash]

In fact I'd moderate maps again if I only had to log on, look through a handful of reports, and delete a few maps.

So, it seems more or less universal agreed, we think that the resource system that I'd suggested, and has since been improved by myself and others, is a good idea?

 

[Linaze]

Gogo wc3sear.ch system, it is the only choice as things are at the moment.

 

[Newuser]

So, it seems more or less universal agreed, we think that the resource system that I'd suggested, and has since been improved by myself and others, is a good idea?

Seems like it .

*Takes over Ashes Part*
To encourage people to review maps maybe offer specific icons that go under your avatar?
Like the Paypal one and the other ones that you can get for winning competitions.

This time however It could be a selection of human icons?
e.g.:
10 Reviews = Peasant Icon
50 Reviews = Militia Icon
75 Reviews = Footman Icon
100 Reviews = Rifleman Icon
250 Reviews = Captain Icon
500 Reviews = Knight Icon
750 Reviews = Admiral Proudmoore Icon
1000 Reviews = Arthas Icon
2500 Reviews = Uther Icon
5000 Reviews = Sheep Icon

The problem I can see with that is that it may encourage people to write reviews HOWEVER it may also mean that people will just rush their review and review it "half-effort".

People might not even play the map and might just write a review by what people say in the comments and what other people have said in their reviews.
This is just an example of what people might do, they want a lot of reviews, then they'll just make their reviews as quick as possible.

By as quick as possible, it could mean:
1. They don't play the map at all and just review by writing it based on what other people say about the map(like I said already).
2. They just plain lie or just be vague.
3. They play the map quickly but not thoroughly, and just write a quick review based on the short experience.

These are just some examples.

Rewarding people for "quantity" of rewards might not be a good idea, in fact, rewards all together for reviewing seems like a bad idea.

For example, lets say reviews need to have quality.

People could make a review look like a "quality" review by simply stealing what other people said, maybe rewording it, or by just plain out lying.

If they have decent grammar and English in their post, they could make their review look "quality" very easily.

Basically, I don't think rewarding for reviewing is a good idea, mainly because it'll most likely reduce the honesty as well as the quality of the reviews.

The "reward" for reviewing maps could "theoretically" be simply that you helped the map maker improve his map, or you were able to give suggestions for improvements to the map.

If I played a map that I liked, and I had something to suggest to make it more fun, and the suggestion got in, I'd say that'd be a reward for reviewing the map.


Anyway, to encourage users to review: Simply add a "Write a review" button, when clicked, it'll show the user a "Pros:", "Cons/Bugs:", "Full Review", and "Suggestions for Improvements" text box(same thing I said in last post).

"Write a review" button would encourage users to review, because it'd make writing a review for the map easier.

IMO, I'd think a lot of people would write reviews even if they wouldn't get rewarded, as long as the writing review process was very easy.

I mean, I've read the comments by users on several maps, most of the comments could be transformed into "formal reviews" very easily because they address the pros and cons of the map, as well as providing improvements for the map maker already in their comments. The only thing they need is to make it into a formal review is just to use headings or titles and organize their comments.


Of course, we could make it so that anyone can simply write a review by posting it in a comment but that'd be a little "messy" IMO, so I suggest separating reviews and comments from each other and adding a "Write a review" button which makes writing "formal" reviews easier by having a "Pros", "Cons/Bugs", "Full Review", and "Suggestions for Improvements" textbox that users can simply write in it.

 

[Ash]

Right, so to clarify my point for people reading this thread onwards, I'm going to re-illiterate myself.

I propose that we give the users the option to 'review' or 'criticise' maps, in order to help moderators out with their day to day work. One moderator review is equal to two mini-mod reviews, which is in turn equal to 5 user reviews. If the map gains the required amount of reviews that vote for approval, then it is approved by a moderator.

If the map has 5 votes for approval, but 1 vote for rejection, then one vote is negated for approval, thus the map only has 4 votes for approval, and so on and so forth.

Each vote for approval must be accompanied by a review that provides, in sufficient detail, critique of the map in question. This can be in the form of a full, well written review, or -- I'm not a fan of this one -- the '+ and - system'. If it isn't, then we can introduce the option of neg rep, or, if it goes on for long enough, possibly even an infraction.

We also agree that it'd be good to reward users for reviewing maps, this would keep their interest in the site, and promote healthy usage of it. However, we haven't quite decided on what we would be able to give them, as giving rep would only lead to bad submissions and the turning of the map section into a quasi-terrain department.

 

[Gilles]

Right, so to clarify my point for people reading this thread onwards, I'm going to re-illiterate myself.

I propose that we give the users the option to 'review' or 'criticise' maps, in order to help moderators out with their day to day work. One moderator review is equal to two mini-mod reviews, which is in turn equal to 5 user reviews. If the map gains the required amount of reviews that vote for approval, then it is approved by a moderator.

If the map has 5 votes for approval, but 1 vote for rejection, then one vote is negated for approval, thus the map only has 4 votes for approval, and so on and so forth.

Each vote for approval must be accompanied by a review that provides, in sufficient detail, critique of the map in question. This can be in the form of a full, well written review, or -- I'm not a fan of this one -- the '+ and - system'. If it isn't, then we can introduce the option of neg rep, or, if it goes on for long enough, possibly even an infraction.

We also agree that it'd be good to reward users for reviewing maps, this would keep their interest in the site, and promote healthy usage of it. However, we haven't quite decided on what we would be able to give them, as giving rep would only lead to bad submissions and the turning of the map section into a quasi-terrain department.

I agree with everything, and resent that last part.

Perhaps Moderators can promote people that do a good job. These users would have voting power added to each vote, so when they vote it counts as two user votes or three.

 

[ragingspeedhorn]

The best sort of review system to get whould be none at all and have a Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone vote system. People can vote 0-5, if the score goes too low a file gets auto removed (blammed). The more users vote on things the more their vote counts, etc. Then people can flag things with inapropiate material/stolen stuff and such to increase their "whistle" status, the more you report that is a proper report the better the whistle status, the more poor reports the poorer the whistle status.

It is kind of like the "vote" system is now, but just more advanced and actually counting for something. It works really well at Newgrounds and it gives the review-crew a lot less work.

 

[Septimus]

The best sort of review system to get whould be none at all and have a Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone vote system. People can vote 0-5, if the score goes too low a file gets auto removed (blammed). The more users vote on things the more their vote counts, etc. Then people can flag things with inapropiate material/stolen stuff and such to increase their "whistle" status, the more you report that is a proper report the better the whistle status, the more poor reports the poorer the whistle status.

It is kind of like the "vote" system is now, but just more advanced and actually counting for something. It works really well at Newgrounds and it gives the review-crew a lot less work.

Well, that is 1 bad idea. People would just make a multiply account to vote for their own resources and downrated somebody else resources.

 

[Hakeem]

People flame, spam, and troll, but we don't allow that either, do we?

 

[Steel_Stallion]

People are always going to spam, flame and troll no matter what you do. You can't prevent it from happening.

It's going to happen

That's why we have moderators, and that's why we need more people to start reporting posts so that users do their part too.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Active users. That's what we need. Not just users that post for the heck of it and for menial things. I mean, go about your business on the Hive. But if you see anything out of place, you should help to correct. Help someone in need. Do your part to keeping the hive a nice place to be. Moderators just ensure that the peace is kept.

However, to get back on topic: I personally thought the newgrounds system would've been a nice way to regulate the map review system, however, there are those who would try to abuse it. For those of you saying people would make groups of users just to get their way, we could make it so you can't review until you've given an introduction. This way, it's easy to tell who's creating a high number of accounts (which is not allowed). Also, when they try to get their own map reviewed, they'd need to make 5 well thought-out reviews that then need to be read by a moderator. So, it wouldn't' be as easy as you said it would be to abuse the system.

 

[ragingspeedhorn]

Nahh, the vote power should just be regulated after post count, rep amount, time being registered, factors like that so a newly registered nobody would not have as much to say as someone who contributes. The newground system really does work well with that.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

Some of the rep floating around is sorta... iffy. Post count maybe, but a portion of that usually comes from silly responses in a forum like the Off-Topic one, and time-being registered doesn't always prove that someone's competent. While I understand that it would prevent newly created users from abusing any sort of power, it does also create the situation that some people that do not deserve that much power will have it. Unless a clean slate is made for this system for everybody. Or, as I believe, a separate system in terms of moderating the maps.

 

[Pyritie]

Well, that is 1 bad idea. People would just make a multiply account to vote for their own resources and downrated somebody else resources.

If they make multiple accounts, we ban them. Just like we do for contest vote abuse.

 

[Ash]

What if we adopted the system I proposed, but include a 'newgrounds' styled approach to it, I.E 'whistles' 'blam level', etc.

That seems to be the direction we're heading in, anyway.

 

[ragingspeedhorn]

I can agree with that.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

I second the agreement. It will help out the map department a lot and hopefully get more users to participate in maintaining the Hive.

 

[Linaze]

I concur, changes are required, and this way is a step in the right direction.

 

[benx_x]

I agree with that.

Imo though, trying to go for a perfect system won't work, because there isn't one.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

We don't need a perfect system, we just need a better one than the one that exists now. And this might just be it.

 

[Ralle]

So basically a yes/no system for everyone to vote anonymously?

 

[Ash]

So basically a yes/no system for everyone to vote anonymously?

I propose that we give the users the option to 'review' or 'criticise' maps, in order to help moderators out with their day to day work. One moderator review is equal to two mini-mod reviews, which is in turn equal to 5 user reviews. If the map gains the required amount of reviews that vote for approval, then it is approved by a moderator.

If the map has 5 votes for approval, but 1 vote for rejection, then one vote is negated for approval, thus the map only has 4 votes for approval, and so on and so forth.

Each vote for approval must be accompanied by a review that provides, in sufficient detail, critique of the map in question. This can be in the form of a full, well written review, or -- I'm not a fan of this one -- the '+ and - system'. If it isn't, then we can introduce the option of neg rep, or, if it goes on for long enough, possibly even an infraction.

We also agree that it'd be good to reward users for reviewing maps, this would keep their interest in the site, and promote healthy usage of it. However, we haven't quite decided on what we would be able to give them, as giving rep would only lead to bad submissions and the turning of the map section into a quasi-terrain department.

With regards to the 'rewards', we've discussed and came to the conclusion that the system should be like that of 'Newgrounds'' system. That is, something like this:

Q: What is a level? What is it based on? What is it good for?

A: A level is a number (between 1 through 60, inclusive) along with an icon of a fist, glove, or weapon for a user based on that user's experience. Levels 1 through 8 are static in that their level requirements and range remain fixed; each is 50 experience points apart. Levels 9 through 60 expand to even out the experience point differential between those levels. Because they change, their requirements and range cannot be accurately given. Levels serve no purpose except to increase the voting power in the Flash Portal and to indicate amount of experience. For this reason a higher level often commands a certain amount of respect.

Q: What are experience points?

A: Much like a traditional role playing game, registered users may acquire experience points and gain levels resulting in higher status.

The best reason to gain experience points is added weight to your votes. Users with an abundance of points will have the strength of multiple voters, meaning they can hurt the movies they hate and help the movies they love. We make the assumption that anyone who visits the site daily will have a better idea of what good content is, so frequent visitors have more influence over the rankings. Remember, you must be logged in for your voting power to be augmented!

Experience points also unlock secrets, which can be accessed from your Account Options page after you log in.
Q: How do I acquire experience points?

A: There are several ways to gain points:

* Every day (by Eastern Standard Time), you may vote on at least five Flash Portal submissions to deposit ten experience points. Voting on more than five in a single day does not give you additional experience points.
* When creating a Grounds Gold user account a user can earn a few extra points by signing up for mailing lists and creating a public profile.

We also discussed that gaining extra 'levels' or 'ranks' would be useless, unless it gave you some extra things. Turn your head back to newgrounds:

Q: How does one receive 'Blam' or 'Protection' points?

A: Blam and Protection points are earned by voting on a movie or game that is "under judgment" (submissions marked as such in the Flash Portal). If a user votes a 0-1 on a movie and it is subsequently deleted (see deletion qualifications below), the user receives one Blam point. Conversely, when a user votes 2-5 on a movie that successfully passes the judgment phase then that user receives a protection point.

Movies are deleted if they fall below the listed score at the listed number of votes:

* 100 votes: 1.0
* 150 votes: 1.25
* 200 votes: 1.60

Q: What are these extra points good for?

A: Blam and Protection points increase a user's voting power (which otherwise would be strictly based upon experience). The increase is a percentage bonus based on the user's level. For information on the Blam/Protect levels, including rank names, badge pictures, and associated voting percentage bonus, view the complete list of ranks.

Q: What is an aura? What does it do? How is it determined?

A: An aura is a self-selected indication of a user's voting disposition. It was originally determined by one's voting habits but this is no longer the case. A user may select or alter his aura in his general configuration.