THW resources quality discussion

[Uncle Fester]

Should moderation be abolished?

I once thought the problem was rather little.

No, not abolished. I fear that abolishing moderation will make the Hive's over all quality suffer as well, as everybody will be able to upload any kind of trash.

I'd only ever seen it in the icon section, but to be fair I've never done models/skins/spells. The only problem the map section has had in my time is under-moderation (has since been remedied) where hundred of maps were never looked at.

As for leaving, most of the modders for this game are in their twenties now - they're leaving regardless of the social dramas that will play out here.



I don't see why it should be abolished - it's meant to verify that a resource is functional. The problems start when the mods want you to upload their versions instead of yours.

I get the impression that many of the problem mods were removed several years ago - I've heard of a big "cleaning-house" (I was inactive, sick of dealing with them).
@Uncle, I don't really see this problem currently; have you tried uploading any models recently?

//\\0o//\\

This under-occupation problem was also the case a few times @ the model section.

I don't think it should be abolished either, but a few changes wouldn't harm it. This version issue is one of the points.

Yes, i uploaded a few models this year, and it was nearly every time the same......."it feels like needing this and that" or moved to needs fix with the reason "make the head a bit wider; something is wrong with the torso too, i can't say what exactly, but there is something", or experimental changes "try using this, maybe it performs better". I had to fix at least 4 thingies @ each model and nearly none of them was a functionality issue. And, more sadly, after browsing through the model section i unfortunately had to find out that i am not the only person that has to experience this. It's rly frustrating. You try to make a good model, and at the end all you get is just a "Needs fix" or "Rejected" coz someone didn't like the style or a small detail.

I don't believe icon moderators ask you to make the icons in a special style. If the icon is well made, it will be approved.

i make icons too, -excuse me, printscreen icons from my models, and i never rly experienced that in the icon section.

Hopefully they don't now (I haven't been around there for a while), but they did.. You're right that they don't explicitly demand a particular style - but if you don't make it in a style that they liked you would have many problems & it wasn't worth the headache. However, the plagiarism accusations were taken as compliments.

The problem is with the "Well made" criteria applied to the icon. So long as it has enabled/disabled for basic icons, passive enabled/disabled is present for passives, the upgrade format is present for the upgrade-related icons, and the score-screen icon is present for heroes in game, and the sizing is right, the icon is functional ingame. Instead comments like "It's too fuzzy" or "you should pronounce that one shape and maybe change the color to make it look better" were encountered, or "are you sure you did this?". This is a game modding site, not art class. The suggestions can be helpful but should not be a requirement. If a modder likes it he can use it - unless the mods reject / needs-fix it which leaves it invisible to those you may have use for it. This site is a resource archive; resource archive =/= digital art studio.

I'm pretty sure the mods I dealt with are long gone now (I won't be bothered to check). I can link you to the battle I fought, but it was Crabby_Spider who really went rounds with the mods. I'd advise to leave the matter as it is though - we've moved on & the icon section is still around.

//\\oo//\\

I think plagiarism should be strictly watched. Plagiarism goes contra to originality, IMO.

I can't rly say much for the icon section, but so far i never rly had a problem there, and honestly, i am rly crappy and inexpirienced in icon making. I also never rly got active in maps and spell sections, so i can't speak for there either.

Mods are usually replaced after some time, though i believe this is mainly due to real-life issues they have. That's not rly necessary, but thx for the offer. I can imagine how it looked like. To leave your fights or this topic generally? To be honest, i think it is time to seriously deal with it......

 

[Boris_Spider]

The originality criteria has always amused me, as originality doesn't exist. As such, this whole plagiarism scare hasn't meant very much to me. Besides, nothing we do in relation to WC3 can be used for profit. If you're that concerned about your 'work' being plagiarized you really shouldn't be posting things on the internet. If money was involved, then I could understand the fear-mongering.

The link offer was to ralle only and would be done as a PM.

"Leave the matter alone" was in reference to the battles with the mods that Crabby & I had. He's no longer part of this site and I'm only here for short intervals (which are decreasing with time). The mods are put in place to control the content of their galleries, as it happened my content and Crabby's content was deemed unworthy - really not our problem. Ralle could give himself a headache trying to 'punish' a handful of kids for rejecting something without accomplishing anything. So "Do Nothing" is the best course of action for this matter.

Off-topic @ Uncle
Are there any other WC-style games out there with an editor (not SC2)?

//\\oo//\\

 

[Uncle Fester]

The originality criteria has always amused me, as originality doesn't exist. As such, this whole plagiarism scare hasn't meant very much to me. Besides, nothing we do in relation to WC3 can be used for profit. If you're that concerned about your 'work' being plagiarized you really shouldn't be posting things on the internet. If money was involved, then I could understand the fear-mongering.

The link offer was to ralle only and would be done as a PM.

"Leave the matter alone" was in reference to the battles with the mods that Crabby & I had. He's no longer part of this site and I'm only here for short intervals (which are decreasing with time). The mods are put in place to control the content of their galleries, as it happened my content and Crabby's content was deemed unworthy - really not our problem. Ralle could give himself a headache trying to 'punish' a handful of kids for rejecting something without accomplishing anything. So "Do Nothing" is the best course of action for this matter.

Off-topic @ Uncle
Are there any other WC-style games out there with an editor (not SC2)?

//\\oo//\\

Yeah, originality is a matter to itself. I undertand your point, but what i don't like on rips from other games is mainly that they neither fit in style nor in the way they're made into WC3. The Hive is, IMO, for entertainment and amusement, not for making money. It would be a good idea for decreasing the unemployment rate though.

Oh. I wasn't actually plunning to dig up all those matters from the past. I can imagine how it looked like and what it was about.

Depends in which way "WC3-Style". The best example that comes to my mind is Armies of Exigo, and there are also the Battle for Middle-Earth series from Lord of the Rings, along with some other LOTR games like The War of the Ring.

 

[Vinz]

I fear that abolishing moderation will make the Hive's over all quality suffer as well, as everybody will be able to upload any kind of trash.

How about user group-moderations? But probably not.

 

[Kazeon]

I've been thinking about this lately, it's about only allowing certified users to rate on resources. Certified user means anybody who has been admitted that he/she is capable to give accurate and objective reviews for times.

I've found that most of user ratings are just inaccurate. Sometimes they are just too-easily got excited and throw a 5/5 on instant. And there are just too many cases which make me disagreed about public ratings and votings, and that happens in the Arena section too sadly.

By doing so, I hope THW's rating standart will become more precise and consistent.

 

[Tank-Commander]

That would suffer the same problems claimed about moderator inconsistency - rather this is more advocation for the removal of user ratings. For instance: who holds the authority to choose those who deserve the ability to vote? is it multiple people? then it's going to be inconsistent for the same reason. Is it one person? then there's going to be a lack of dissent unless they count a wide range of people able for different reasons, which then suffers the same issues again as the former. Indeed by limiting public opinion it also enables people the ability to downplay other's work for more personal reasons (you can try to vett them, but they may have some valid points and then "remove" more marks than they normally would due to personal reasons) technically it's possible now but not so pervasive as anybody can vote and little value is placed on those votes.

Really I fail to see how it would actually change anything - it'd just make user ratings more similar to moderator ratings, which people are already complaining about, due to the pitfalls already expressed in this thread.

(It also doesn't solve retroactive ratings)

 

[Vinz]

The discussion actually shifted from ratings to moderation.

 

[Uncle Fester]

How about user group-moderations? But probably not.

Em.....what exactly do you mean? Every resource must be moderated by a group of mods?

I've been thinking about this lately, it's about only allowing certified users to rate on resources. Certified user means anybody who has been admitted that he/she is capable to give accurate and objective reviews for times.

I've found that most of user ratings are just inaccurate. Sometimes they are just too-easily got excited and throw a 5/5 on instant. And there are just too many cases which make me disagreed about public ratings and votings, and that happens in the Arena section too sadly.

By doing so, I hope THW's rating standart will become more precise and consistent.

Yeah, though rating is another matter.....
The discussion was actually about the Hive's resource's quality and what can be done to improve it. IMO, some freedoms the mods currently have are a road-block in increasing the quality.

That would suffer the same problems claimed about moderator inconsistency - rather this is more advocation for the removal of user ratings. For instance: who holds the authority to choose those who deserve the ability to vote? is it multiple people? then it's going to be inconsistent for the same reason. Is it one person? then there's going to be a lack of dissent unless they count a wide range of people able for different reasons, which then suffers the same issues again as the former. Indeed by limiting public opinion it also enables people the ability to downplay other's work for more personal reasons (you can try to vett them, but they may have some valid points and then "remove" more marks than they normally would due to personal reasons) technically it's possible now but not so pervasive as anybody can vote and little value is placed on those votes.

Really I fail to see how it would actually change anything - it'd just make user ratings more similar to moderator ratings, which people are already complaining about, due to the pitfalls already expressed in this thread.

(It also doesn't solve retroactive ratings)

Same as above, the thread's topic is what can be done to improve the Hive's quality. I suggested making some changes in the moderation rules coz in my eyes they hinder a quality improvement right now.

The discussion actually shifted from ratings to moderation.

.....and in fact it was supposed to be a talk about how we can improve the Hive's overall quality.

 

[GhostThruster]

remove moderator ratings, give them only the ability to set a resource's status as:
- approved: is of sufficient quality/functionality
- pending: has not been moderated yet, or still needs a minor fix
- rejected: breaks rules
they can rate as normal users would.

i've suggested this before in another thread

 

[Uncle Fester]

remove moderator ratings, give them only the ability to set a resource's status as:
- approved: is of sufficient quality/functionality
- pending: has not been moderated yet, or still needs a minor fix
- rejected: breaks rules
they can rate as normal users would.

i've suggested this before in another thread

The moderation options currently are, IMO, fine, what i think must be changed is that approvability is considered in terms of style and subjectivity. Yeah, as you said, approval should be a must-give as long as the model functions properly, the overall quality is sufficient and it doesn't break the rules.

Obviously, so many people have complained about/suggested to change this subjectivity issue in moderation. I rly wonder why nothing has been achieved so far.....

 

[Ralle]

I've been thinking about this lately, it's about only allowing certified users to rate on resources. Certified user means anybody who has been admitted that he/she is capable to give accurate and objective reviews for times.

I've found that most of user ratings are just inaccurate. Sometimes they are just too-easily got excited and throw a 5/5 on instant. And there are just too many cases which make me disagreed about public ratings and votings, and that happens in the Arena section too sadly.

By doing so, I hope THW's rating standart will become more precise and consistent.

This is exactly what we will be getting.

It will eliminate moderator rating and allow moderators and specific users to rate the resource. Multiple of these ratings will be averaged to something just like the moderator rating but aggregated from multiple people. Also, the moderator is not forced to rate the resource if he so does not want to.

 

[Chaosy]

Multiple of these ratings will be averaged to something just like the moderator rating but aggregated from multiple people.

I don't agree on that part. I know way more than a few icons that get really positive comments but the mod rates it 3/5.

Now, I am not saying the mod in question is wrong. But the ratings are completely different in way too many places for your 'fact' to be true enough in my eyes.

edit: forget that I said icon. I imagine that it happens in most of the sections, not that one specifically.

 

[Ralle]

I don't agree on that part. I know way more than a few icons that get really positive comments but the mod rates it 3/5.

Now, I am not saying the mod in question is wrong. But the ratings are completely different in way too many places for your 'fact' to be true enough in my eyes.

edit: forget that I said icon. I imagine that it happens in most of the sections, not that one specifically.

I am not sure you understand this. Instead of the moderator deciding this all by himself, it will be averaged on more than just the moderator's opinion.

 

[Kazeon]

I don't agree on that part. I know way more than a few icons that get really positive comments but the mod rates it 3/5.

Now, I am not saying the mod in question is wrong. But the ratings are completely different in way too many places for your 'fact' to be true enough in my eyes.

edit: forget that I said icon. I imagine that it happens in most of the sections, not that one specifically.

Ralle said moderator's and user's rating will be sum-ed up together and counted as one rating! I know you have a worse idea because of my explanation! You are welcome

 

[Chaosy]

Oh, I misunderstood.

You were explaining how it will work when hive 2.0 is released (right?). I thought you were speaking on how the system works currently compared to how Dalvengyr's suggestion. It seemed like you were negative about it.

 

[Uncle Fester]

This is exactly what we will be getting.

It will eliminate moderator rating and allow moderators and specific users to rate the resource. Multiple of these ratings will be averaged to something just like the moderator rating but aggregated from multiple people. Also, the moderator is not forced to rate the resource if he so does not want to.

Though i didn't rly had anything against the moderation system so far, i must say that i like this idea. Currently i believe that most user ratings are just sympathy stuff in order to get some rep back in turn, so i guess it's fine to limit rating to certain people only.

I don't agree on that part. I know way more than a few icons that get really positive comments but the mod rates it 3/5.

Now, I am not saying the mod in question is wrong. But the ratings are completely different in way too many places for your 'fact' to be true enough in my eyes.

edit: forget that I said icon. I imagine that it happens in most of the sections, not that one specifically.

That's why i think, the change is being considered......most people uprate something coz they're to inexperienced and get easily over-excited or coz they expect some rep back in turn (as mentioned above). So the rating will be limited to a certain grp of people, i guess mainly those who make resources themselves. Correct me plz, if i am wrong in this.

Oh, I misunderstood.

You were explaining how it will work when hive 2.0 is released (right?). I thought you were speaking on how the system works currently compared to how Dalvengyr's suggestion. It seemed like you were negative about it.

I think it is going to happen on Hive 2. Btw, if we already speak about this topic, when is Hive 2 approximately going to be come true, and......what about future moderations? Will they be the way they are now, or is there going to be a change? A change like the much-wished "no subjectivity in approvals"?

 

[Ralle]

Ralle said moderator's and user's rating will be sum-ed up together and counted as one rating! I know you have a worse idea because of my explanation! You are welcome

Not all users, but users in a special group along with moderators.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

It will eliminate moderator rating and allow moderators and specific users to rate the resource.

Not all users, but users in a special group along with moderators.

What special group chief?

 

[Vinz]

Every resource must be moderated by a group of mods?

I meant that multiple users will moderate it. But nevermind, the more recent plans are better.

What special group chief?

It will come after Hive 2 it seems.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I meant that multiple users will moderate it. But nvm, the more recent plans are better.

It will come after Hive 2 it seems.

Oh, that's what you meant. Sounds quite good too, though i think some rules for moderations (rules for mods) should be brought up first.

 

[Ralle]

A group of people who are deemed good at rating stuff.

 

[Uncle Fester]

A group of people who are deemed good at rating stuff.

Nice. Just two little questions:
1) after which criteria will the "raters" be chosen?
2) what about the moderation issues? Are they going to be changed as well?

 

[Ralle]

Nice. Just two little questions:
1) after which criteria will the "raters" be chosen?
2) what about the moderation issues? Are they going to be changed as well?

1. I am just making the system. Have not decided the criteria. I guess skill is one. Urge to rate people's stuff is another.
2. We will always require some level of quality.

 

[Uncle Fester]

1. I am just making the system. Have not decided the criteria. I guess skill is one. Urge to rate people's stuff is another.
2. We will always require some level of quality.

1) I think skill should be essential, as unskilled people tend to get overexcited easily.
2) I know, i was not meaning that......i was actually refering to the subjectivity issue in approvals. The reason why i say it goes hand-in-hand with quality is that no one is going to bother making a perfect thingie if there's a chance that it gets rejected coz the mod deosn't like the style.

 

[Ralle]

Well, as always. With such cases, if you think you are in a situation like this, make a thread in Staff Contact asking for a second opinion.

 

[Chaosy]

new life goal confirmed.

 

[Daffa]

The new system is intended to make certain users, ie. Elite Resources Makers has powers over their section. This also cause less subjectivity.

 

[Vinz]

Hopefully, sooner than Hive 2.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Well, as always. With such cases, if you think you are in a situation like this, make a thread in Staff Contact asking for a second opinion.

I know that but the problem is that in most cases this doesn't rly lead anywhere. From what i had experienced in the very past, and some other users told me the same thing, the resource creator rarely has a chance of winning this. Besides, why not simply change the rules a bit/make stricter definitions of quality and style-stuff so that it will be unnecessary to open hundreds of complain threads?

new life goal confirmed.

lol......

The new system is intended to make certain users, ie. Elite Resources Makers has powers over their section. This also cause less subjectivity.

Yeah, but only rating power, i think. I believe approval will stay @ the hands of the mods.

Hopefully, sooner than Hive 2.

Better anytime than no-time.

 

[eubz]

At this time, mods have their own will.

 

[Vinz]

I believe approval will stay @ the hands of the mods

I don't think it will.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I don't think it will.

So, you mean approval will also be decided in a grp in the future?

 

[Vinz]

The new system is intended to make certain users, ie. Elite Resources Makers has powers over their section.

These 'Elite Resource Makers', I hope, will have the power to moderate.

 

[Kazeon]

Approval should be still at mods' hands. Users in that group are only able to give ratings. You can call them "mini mod" imo.

For better idea about the rating system, moderator rating will be removed, there is only user rating, but only moderator and those users who can click the thumb button. That means user's rating and moderator's is merged into one.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Approval should be still at mods' hands. Users in that group are only able to give ratings. You can call them "mini mod" imo.

Yes, it should, but only objectivity (i.e. quality and functionality) should make the approval, not personal ideas (subjectivity & taste).

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Yes, it should, but only objectivity (i.e. quality and functionality) should make the approval, not personal ideas (subjectivity & taste).

Shouldn't approval status be based off of if the user followed the map submission rules? Sure it mentions quality in the rules, but that's more for rating.

 

[Rui]

I remember last week reading through this thread, but I didn't get to build the reply I wanted. In the mean time, we could consider partially delegating the approval and rating of resources to users. Sure, "super users", reviewers and stuff like that are also a good idea, though I'd grief for the lack of the Reviewed status in the latter case.

 

[Vinz]

So, when a resourced is put as Reviewed, will it be a somehwat less official Needs Fix?

 

[Rui]

That was how it was used at first. Afterwards, Reviewed maps were maps who had received critique by a lot of users, or at least 3 or 4.

E.g., sometimes I organized testing sessions for pending maps and I incited everyone to write a comment afterwards. I'd rate, as a user, as I thought it deserved, but the moderator rating would be the average of all testers' ratings. That is somewhat what Ralle seems to be planning?

 

[Vinz]

So Reviewed maps are Approved depending on critique they get? However I do not see the difference between Reviewed and Pending, other than the motivation to change it.

 

[Rui]

So Reviewed maps are Approved depending on critique they get?

Hmm, in loose terms. This is not equivalent to your second sentence though. Reviewed as moderated*-but-still-Pending is something of the past.

 

[Eagle XI]

Maybe should make an 'not-so-freehand' subcategory for icons and reject the resource to there instead attempting to force override your opinion over another's possible need of the resource, no matter how primitive it may seem at first glance compared to hand-drawn icons.
Hereby i dont question the experience of section moderators in their respective fields, however do feel as if wet is being burnt alongside dry.