Staredit Network

If we can assume the rewards for helping with staff functions like reviews are worth it to people, then that might work.
Had a new idea recently when looking at maplantis's option of picking more than one type of "report" to give a map.  You could expand on that by making it possible to take the place of writing full reviews altogether, where instead users can pick out terms to "describe" the map from a set provided in a list or box or something.  That way the software itself would have something to work with to know a map's qualities.  How's that for automation?

Theoretically with that it'd even being able to use the descriptions provided to automatically move maps to the categories they're most appropriate for (useful if categories were to change later), create "most difficult defense map" or "most disturbing movie map" or other abstract categories, filter out bad ones, etc.  Of course anything that ends up on the filter queue would have to be checked by moderators.  Plus maps found in the wrong place can be "reported" separately to counter abuse.
I don't know.  Just an idea I was thinking about.
[right][snapback]609977[/snapback][/right]

Maybe all reviews should be visible without approval, but then the moderators come in just to make sure every one gets looked at and dish out the appropriate reward (or deletion).
[right][snapback]610090[/snapback][/right]

I'm going to try.  It all plays out nicely in my head.  Here we go:

We have the DLDB, works mostly like before but there is no pre-approval (except for things containing .exe's).  Users submit maps.
Other users review these submissions, critiqueing the map on gameplay and etc, generalized rating 1 to 10, but more importantly, alerting us to which maps aren't worthy to be in the database.  The idea here, for them, is that good first reviews get rewarded first than a good review 50th on the list, more or less.  We also have a simple report button for users who wish to tell us a map is utter crap without writting a review, necessarily.
Other such users can rate a review on 1 to 10 on it's worthiness.  No reward necessarily, but it'll bump up better reviews to the top of the pile and crapty ones will go down the list, if not deleted.  This is where the submitter, if the author, comes back into play.  If I was an author of a map, I would be checking the reviews and if someone was being stupid, I would report it to get it off my file.

People who manage the DLDB can do random checking on files, reviews, whateverm besides the "this file is getting horrible reviews / 'not worthy to be in the database' values."  Here is what furthers the system's usefulness:  if a manager checks out a file (at random or otherwise), s/he can put his stamp of approval on the file, keeping it out of the automatic "this file might need to be checked" list.

If the managers still proceed to go through every file, more power to them.  But they won't necessarily need to do so.  Ultimately, the goal is faster approval, more user interaction, community management, and actually BETTER checking of files, opposed to one person checking the files out.  And that makes it worth the try.

And so I'm going to try that.  And so... Moose, I don't want to disregard(?) your effort and time, but I want the reviews to be apart of the dldb itself, in the manner described above.
[right][snapback]609828[/snapback][/right]

Maybe all reviews should be visible without approval, but then the moderators come in just to make sure every one gets looked at and dish out the appropriate reward (or deletion).
[right][snapback]610090[/snapback][/right]