"substandard / too simple" section

[Freddyk]

Hi,

I believe the difference between the "main" ressources sections and the "substandard / too simple" subsections is not clear at all.

For example, all latest models from Ujimasa Hojo that fill the models section today, are simple edits in my opinion and then should belong to the subsection.
On the contrary, an original model like the Goblin Steamboat should have its place in the main section.

From my point of view:
- "substandard" is not a good name because it does not define clearly the difference, and it also implies that ressources inside are "inferior" to others, while they are indeed just in a different category.
- "simple" vs "original" for example would be a better categorization, and what fits in which category should be explained as clearly as possible.
- for models, "simple" would include models that are simple edits of existing models, or just geomerges, or just texture swap, anything that doesn't require a big amount of work.
- "original" models would be the ones that feature custom mesh, texture or anims, in general something that clearly required a fair amount of work and looks original.

What do you think?

 

[MiniMage]

Well, isn't that what it's supposed to be right now? If not, this would be a good change. Back when I was moderating, I was intentionally dividing models with clear effort put into them and models that I deemed to be simple, sometimes too simple for approval. But as you pointed out. Effort should be rewarded.

As for the name itself. It should be farily easy to change, I think? I personally ranked the models differently in the past, to show difference, but as you pointed out, they are decent, but in two different realms of existence.

The term Original and Simple also raise questions. For example, models taken not from warcraft 3 but WoW and other blizzard sources, would that be simple or deemed original? Quality wise, the model can be on par with an original model, yet effort wise, on the level of the simple. That would place a lot of these models among the simple and might make searching for them difficult.

 

[Ralle]

The title is misleading, but it would be very long if it fit perfectly. Currently these are the things that are contained in there:
- resources awaiting a modification by the author which never happened
- resources of low quality
- stolen resources
- inappropriate resources

Over time we want to delete the stolen and inappropriate ones and end up with:
- resources awaiting a modification by the author which never happened
- resources of low quality

Also, something to make it more interesting. Approved resources that are 4+ years old would probably end up in the "Substandard / Low-Quality" section today but didn't back then.

So yeah, it's a mess. But at least now you can access the things that are rejected but still useful to some people if you want to.

 

[Chaosy]

I think the substandard section is a big mistake. While I do think that some spells should be displayed, there -are- certain spells that should absolutely not be displayed. Yet clumped together in the same place.

This is a complaint for spells alone, I wont say that there is an issue in the other sections because frankly I go no right to sections I do not involve myself in.

The substandard section should be for submissions that are working fine but have some flaws.
Meaning they should still be MUI/MPI, leakless etc

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

I think the substandard section is a big mistake. While I do think that some spells should be displayed, there -are- certain spells that should absolutely not be displayed. Yet clumped together in the same place.

Well, there is no way in separating them since they were all from Hive 1.0's Needs Fix (Awaiting Update) and Rejection. I mean, to do so would tale years of dedicated work to sort all the sections.

 

[Chaosy]

To my knowledge rejection was removed. Or well, unless a submission breaks the site rules.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

To my knowledge rejection was removed. Or well, unless a submission breaks the site rules.

Well yes. Most of the substandard resources don't meet the section's respective rules as they came from both Needs Fix and Rejected pre Hive 2.0.

 

[Chaosy]

Mhm, which means that everything rated 2-6 (on a scale from 1-10) is clumped together. While really it should be 4-6.

In my opinion, anyway.

 

[KILLCIDE]

Over time we want to delete the stolen and inappropriate ones and end up with:
- resources awaiting a modification by the author which never happened
- resources of low quality

The substandard section should be for submissions that are working fine but have some flaws.
Meaning they should still be MUI/MPI, leakless etc

Oh how I would love the Spell Section to be in such a beautiful state like that :*)

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

how about we rank submissions as

copy and paste
and
original

because let's face it, that is all there is to it. some submissions are a few figures and colours swapped around, where as a very small collection have a completely original idea and makeup

 

[Chaosy]

True.
Though there is more to a spell that a concept.

There may be two vJASS systems that do the same thing.
Though one uses structs, and another one use a hashtables, which makes them different.

As of not an inferior version of an existing system wont be approved afaik.

 

[IcemanBo]

Well, there is no way in separating them since they were all from Hive 1.0's Needs Fix (Awaiting Update) and Rejection. I mean, to do so would tale years of dedicated work to sort all the sections.

They all were seperated already in Approved/Pending/NeedsFix/Rejected, so just now they are not seperated anymore.
Though, making rejected resources visible was a good step, since mods can always delete a submission to make them invisible in a dangerous or inappropriate state. But to throw away the seperation structure seems wrong. ;S

 

[Eagle XI]

Ill be going on an tangent here and state rejection should come back for the spells section.
Something is either leakless and written efficiently or its not, as there is no inbetween there.

 

[Chaosy]

[code=jass]Table

Here you go. Almia is a good coder, yet not approved.
So yeah, there is something in between.

 

[Kyrbi0]

For the models, my issue with a strict black-and-white divider is that "simple" is not always easy to tell.

In general, I'd agree that custom model/texture/animations > in-game model/texture/animations (at least, in terms of effort)... Usually. Even then, I have seen some really lazy custom work that pale in comparison to some really talented in-game work.

Furthermore, how do we differentiate if a resource has a custom model but in-game animations? A custom texture but a geomerged model? Animations that are *partially* custom, or all in-game but a random assortment of them (and/or tweaked)?

Finally, (to take a specific example) I must say that while it's true that Ujimasa *just* does retexture work (technically he does some model edits too, but generally just to make the texture-work better/easier, AFAIK), he is an absolute wizard at it, and a prolific one at that. He has provided this community in invaluable overabundance of useful resources. It's hard not to call that "quality".

 

[Freddyk]

Finally, (to take a specific example) I must say that while it's true that Ujimasa *just* does retexture work (technically he does some model edits too, but generally just to make the texture-work better/easier, AFAIK), he is an absolute wizard at it, and a prolific one at that. He has provided this community in invaluable overabundance of useful resources. It's hard not to call that "quality".

Well, that's the point actually: it's not about quality (we already have the rating to judge quality), but about categorization.

That is why i said "substandard" is a bad name in my opinion: some models are simple edits, but they are well made and do the job perfectly (Ujimasa building models fit in this category), so you can't deny quality, but you can't either compare it to a completely custom model. I'm not saying that's easy, because as you said the line is not so clear between the two categories.

My concerns are that now you have to browse two categories (three if you count submissions) when looking for a resource, so the question is: what is the difference between the two categories? To me it's not clear at all.

Some of you appear to speak about the old rejected or needs fix status that have been merged into this new substandard folder. But then that means it's just a trash folder... Is that what we want?

 

[Kyrbi0]

Well, that's the point actually: it's not about quality (we already have the rating to judge quality), but about categorization.

Sure the ratings are there, but in my mind, it isn't quite enough to really tell the whole story. I mean, (again using Ujimasa's stuff as an example) I feel like giving his works the "quality" grade it deserves puts it on a level that would make other quality works feel bad.

That is why i said "substandard" is a bad name in my opinion: some models are simple edits, but they are well made and do the job perfectly (Ujimasa building models fit in this category), so you can't deny quality, but you can't either compare it to a completely custom model. I'm not saying that's easy, because as you said the line is not so clear between the two categories.

On this we absolutely agree, though perhaps for different reasons. "Substandard" just sounds so harsh & rude.

My concerns are that now you have to browse two categories (three if you count submissions) when looking for a resource, so the question is: what is the difference between the two categories? To me it's not clear at all.

Can one not do a Search across those two forums/categories?

 

[Ralle]

Via the search system you can search multiple repositories with a single search.

 

[Eagle XI]

Mayhaps should add Director's Cut above as an category, so can view the best hive has to offer with one click.