Report, edit, etc...Posted by Daedalus on 2006-08-25 at 17:48:23
I agree with Shocko. Besides, if you're DLDB keeper and you also like to do the reviews stuff then also become MRD keeper.
I think that this whole review thing is (one of) the best solution(s). I would say lets go for it.
I think that this whole review thing is (one of) the best solution(s). I would say lets go for it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-08-25 at 17:48:52
QUOTE(Felagund @ Aug 25 2006, 10:43 AM)
Even though your friends are the ones that make good maps? Coincidence!
I think we can settle on something in the middle of the road. We should adopt a standard grading system for maps, and any that attain a certain score will be eligible to be in the map spotlight. Therefore, only maps in the contests that achieve that score may go up in the spotlight, and if there aren't enough, then we could pick from any of the other premium maps. Also, the map spotlight should change weekly.
[right][snapback]550450[/snapback][/right]
I think we can settle on something in the middle of the road. We should adopt a standard grading system for maps, and any that attain a certain score will be eligible to be in the map spotlight. Therefore, only maps in the contests that achieve that score may go up in the spotlight, and if there aren't enough, then we could pick from any of the other premium maps. Also, the map spotlight should change weekly.
[right][snapback]550450[/snapback][/right]
Before we can worry about premium maps or spotlights, we need to ensure that the base system for all maps gets worked out first. The current system uses ratings that mean practically zip, as you see popular maps getting dissed by h8ers and poor maps getting 5'd by sore newbs (or even the creators themselves; who probably shouldn't get to have any meaningful vote for their own releases). Hence my proposal.
As for spotlight/premium maps, there's a few requirements: First, how do you determine quality? What measure of quality defines premium? Which of those in that measure get to be spotlighted at any given time? And for how long?
Answer those questions, and we have our solution.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by LegacyWeapon on 2006-08-25 at 18:00:26
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Aug 25 2006, 05:48 PM)
As for spotlight/premium maps, there's a few requirements: First, how do you determine quality? What measure of quality defines premium? Which of those in that measure get to be spotlighted at any given time? And for how long?
Answer those questions, and we have our solution.
[right][snapback]550641[/snapback][/right]
Answer those questions, and we have our solution.
[right][snapback]550641[/snapback][/right]
Elite maps vs Flashy maps
How much of the trigger is related to gameplay rather than for aesthetic value?
Elite maps vs Premium maps
How fun is the map?
Premium is an opinion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-25 at 18:05:11
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Aug 25 2006, 02:48 PM)
Before we can worry about premium maps or spotlights, we need to ensure that the base system for all maps gets worked out first. The current system uses ratings that mean practically zip, as you see popular maps getting dissed by h8ers and poor maps getting 5'd by sore newbs (or even the creators themselves; who probably shouldn't get to have any meaningful vote for their own releases). Hence my proposal.
As for spotlight/premium maps, there's a few requirements: First, how do you determine quality? What measure of quality defines premium? Which of those in that measure get to be spotlighted at any given time? And for how long?
Answer those questions, and we have our solution.
[right][snapback]550641[/snapback][/right]
As for spotlight/premium maps, there's a few requirements: First, how do you determine quality? What measure of quality defines premium? Which of those in that measure get to be spotlighted at any given time? And for how long?
Answer those questions, and we have our solution.
[right][snapback]550641[/snapback][/right]
Well all I know is the Map Spotlight should be updated weekly, as it was before. Quality could be based on a simple point system that each reviewer has to answer which could be general like:
QUOTE(Simple Point System)
Originality = 10 Points
Triggers = 10 Points
Terrain = 10 Points
Fun Factor = 10 Points
Triggers = 10 Points
Terrain = 10 Points
Fun Factor = 10 Points
Or we could use the current point system in the review section to compare maps:
QUOTE
Creativity: / 10.0
Terrain: / 10.0
Orginality: / 10.0
Complexity: / 10.0
Fun Level: / 10.0
Average: / 10.0
Beat the map? Yes or No.
And the average would be used to show which are worthy.Terrain: / 10.0
Orginality: / 10.0
Complexity: / 10.0
Fun Level: / 10.0
Average: / 10.0
Beat the map? Yes or No.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kenoli on 2006-08-25 at 18:34:09
With quality reviews/ratings, we wouldn't need a premium section at all. You could just list the maps by rating.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-25 at 19:11:32
But what about the Spotlight? I still think we should bring it back. Without the original Spotlight, I would have never found many of my favorite maps. And I think that ideal should continue with a new set of three maps shown off weekly.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-08-25 at 20:26:52
QUOTE(Kenoli @ Aug 25 2006, 05:33 PM)
With quality reviews/ratings, we wouldn't need a premium section at all. You could just list the maps by rating.
[right][snapback]550677[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]550677[/snapback][/right]
You could, but I'd figure you'd use the spotlight then to highlight obscure, newer, or older maps. Things people might have forgotten or overlooked for whatever reason.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by xMCx on 2006-08-25 at 22:42:51
The reviewers should stay anonymous, if there are any. People could begin to hate them for receiving low scores.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-25 at 23:02:14
I actually disagree. I think they the reviews should show the person's online handle. That way it reflects who is considered a good reviewer and who isn't.
It'll work the same way film reviews do. When people see a critique from a critic they like, they have more interest in the film. Same would potentially go for the maps.
It'll work the same way film reviews do. When people see a critique from a critic they like, they have more interest in the film. Same would potentially go for the maps.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by in_a_biskit on 2006-08-26 at 07:54:23
I'm thinking that it'd be a good idea to have a bit of a dynamic system of getting people to review maps. My idea is to have an election-type system where members can nominate themselves to be an "official" reviewer for the next four to six months, and then the other members do a bit of a vote on who they think would be the best reviewer, or the admins choose one, or hold a "map reviewing contest" or something to appoint two or three members whose job it will be to review maps.
Because you can re-choose the reviewers, bad or lazy reviewers can be filtered out relatively easily. There's nothing that says you have to listen to the reviewers' opinions, so really I don't think there's much of a problem if a bad reviewer gets picked temporarily. But on the other hand, having allocated people as reviewers would mean that proper reviews happen much more frequently, and will generate more interest in the DLDB as well as providing things to put in the map spotlight.
With regards to the map spotlight, I have another idea, which I think I have mentioned some time in the past - there should be different categories of "spotlight" maps. There can be a place for newly uploaded maps, recently downloaded maps, contest-winning maps, recently reviewed maps, recently rated maps, and even a random map. And since most of these can automated, there can be frequently-changing maps on spotlight even with practically no extra effort in the long term.
addition:
I just read the rest of the original thread, and realised that a very similar idea (with regards to map reviewing) had recently been posted there. I support that idea, but especially in the form that I put it above (ie, map reviewing, not stamping things with "premium map", and a short-medium term election rather than a once-off thing). I still propose an explosion of the map spotlight to a semi-automatic multi-dimensional display box.
Because you can re-choose the reviewers, bad or lazy reviewers can be filtered out relatively easily. There's nothing that says you have to listen to the reviewers' opinions, so really I don't think there's much of a problem if a bad reviewer gets picked temporarily. But on the other hand, having allocated people as reviewers would mean that proper reviews happen much more frequently, and will generate more interest in the DLDB as well as providing things to put in the map spotlight.
With regards to the map spotlight, I have another idea, which I think I have mentioned some time in the past - there should be different categories of "spotlight" maps. There can be a place for newly uploaded maps, recently downloaded maps, contest-winning maps, recently reviewed maps, recently rated maps, and even a random map. And since most of these can automated, there can be frequently-changing maps on spotlight even with practically no extra effort in the long term.
addition:
I just read the rest of the original thread, and realised that a very similar idea (with regards to map reviewing) had recently been posted there. I support that idea, but especially in the form that I put it above (ie, map reviewing, not stamping things with "premium map", and a short-medium term election rather than a once-off thing). I still propose an explosion of the map spotlight to a semi-automatic multi-dimensional display box.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by fritfrat(U) on 2006-08-26 at 09:28:36
Reviews are a bad idea for premium maps. Adding an option "review this map" to every single map in the DLDB actually isn't a bad idea, but it should be completely unrelated to premium maps.
Even though I don't like the whole idea of premium maps, if this goes underway, I'd recommend this awesome system I just thought up:
Elect a panel of about 10-12++ people to receive submissions. Anyone can submit a map, just like the DLDB, though I'd recommend a 1 or 2 map at a time limit, maybe 3 maps in submission at a time for regulars, since they are more likely to have more premium maps. Only instead of 1 person checking it like the DLDB works, 6 people would check the map, and atleast 4 of them would have to say that it is good and worth it. Make it a simple yes/no system after creating a definition of what you want in the premium map section. If it was a 3-3 tie it could go to a 7th person, who would be encouraged to vote no if unsure. Also, have it so you cannot give a yes to your own map.
You'd say.. 6 people checking every submission? That would be a LOT of checking! Well, it would be, but if you get a big enough panel (there are easily enough good mapmakers out there that would be willing) and emphasize that only great maps should be even considered for submission, it really would work out rather awesome. And have it so if the same person submits a few really crappy maps they are unable to submit a map for a month or something. Having so many people check each submission allows for different preferences of types of maps, different opinions, and different overall views on maps alltogether accurately create the most unbiased opinion possible.
What you guys think?
DOUBLE EDIT: I mention my definition I came up with to compare to in a later post.
Even though I don't like the whole idea of premium maps, if this goes underway, I'd recommend this awesome system I just thought up:
Elect a panel of about 10-12++ people to receive submissions. Anyone can submit a map, just like the DLDB, though I'd recommend a 1 or 2 map at a time limit, maybe 3 maps in submission at a time for regulars, since they are more likely to have more premium maps. Only instead of 1 person checking it like the DLDB works, 6 people would check the map, and atleast 4 of them would have to say that it is good and worth it. Make it a simple yes/no system after creating a definition of what you want in the premium map section. If it was a 3-3 tie it could go to a 7th person, who would be encouraged to vote no if unsure. Also, have it so you cannot give a yes to your own map.
You'd say.. 6 people checking every submission? That would be a LOT of checking! Well, it would be, but if you get a big enough panel (there are easily enough good mapmakers out there that would be willing) and emphasize that only great maps should be even considered for submission, it really would work out rather awesome. And have it so if the same person submits a few really crappy maps they are unable to submit a map for a month or something. Having so many people check each submission allows for different preferences of types of maps, different opinions, and different overall views on maps alltogether accurately create the most unbiased opinion possible.
What you guys think?
DOUBLE EDIT: I mention my definition I came up with to compare to in a later post.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mightybass101 on 2006-08-26 at 09:32:20
The only problem is every one has a different opinion, maby people should be grouped into voting only for a certin types of maps. like if sum1 only likes UMS and they go around telling all the meele makers they suck...... just a thought
Report, edit, etc...Posted by fritfrat(U) on 2006-08-26 at 09:35:21
The idea behind my suggestion is to recognize everyone has a different opinion, which is why so many people would check each map. AND it allows any unknown author who has never even posted before to submit a great map for recognition.
And my idea would only be for UMS... I'd say that judging a melee map as pro or not our current system is fine. http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=25498
And as far as specializing goes, people would only vote yes/no on maps they wanted to play. So people who like RPGs more would be more likely to play and see if the RPGs were good, etc.
And my idea would only be for UMS... I'd say that judging a melee map as pro or not our current system is fine. http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=25498
And as far as specializing goes, people would only vote yes/no on maps they wanted to play. So people who like RPGs more would be more likely to play and see if the RPGs were good, etc.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-08-26 at 11:04:16
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Aug 25 2006, 05:53 PM)
But I'm "biased" and "elitist" I'll put all my friends maps in there. 
[right][snapback]550435[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]550435[/snapback][/right]
Ok, I'll do it for you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-26 at 14:38:37
QUOTE(fritfrat(U) @ Aug 26 2006, 06:28 AM)
Reviews are a bad idea for premium maps. Adding an option "review this map" to every single map in the DLDB actually isn't a bad idea, but it should be completely unrelated to premium maps.
Even though I don't like the whole idea of premium maps, if this goes underway, I'd recommend this awesome system I just thought up:
Elect a panel of about 10-12++ people to receive submissions. Anyone can submit a map, just like the DLDB, though I'd recommend a 1 or 2 map at a time limit, maybe 3 maps in submission at a time for regulars, since they are more likely to have more premium maps. Only instead of 1 person checking it like the DLDB works, 6 people would check the map, and atleast 4 of them would have to say that it is good and worth it. Make it a simple yes/no system after creating a definition of what you want in the premium map section. If it was a 3-3 tie it could go to a 7th person, who would be encouraged to vote no if unsure. Also, have it so you cannot give a yes to your own map.
You'd say.. 6 people checking every submission? That would be a LOT of checking! Well, it would be, but if you get a big enough panel (there are easily enough good mapmakers out there that would be willing) and emphasize that only great maps should be even considered for submission, it really would work out rather awesome. And have it so if the same person submits a few really crappy maps they are unable to submit a map for a month or something. Having so many people check each submission allows for different preferences of types of maps, different opinions, and different overall views on maps alltogether accurately create the most unbiased opinion possible.
What you guys think?
EDIT: I tried to make a defintion, which is very hard for including the simplest of maps to the most complex. Here is what I could come up with to compare the yes/no vote to.. any ideas to expand on it, finish it, or completely replace it would be great.
A map professionally made with an absence of errors that provides lasting entertainment and a variety of...
[right][snapback]551016[/snapback][/right]
Even though I don't like the whole idea of premium maps, if this goes underway, I'd recommend this awesome system I just thought up:
Elect a panel of about 10-12++ people to receive submissions. Anyone can submit a map, just like the DLDB, though I'd recommend a 1 or 2 map at a time limit, maybe 3 maps in submission at a time for regulars, since they are more likely to have more premium maps. Only instead of 1 person checking it like the DLDB works, 6 people would check the map, and atleast 4 of them would have to say that it is good and worth it. Make it a simple yes/no system after creating a definition of what you want in the premium map section. If it was a 3-3 tie it could go to a 7th person, who would be encouraged to vote no if unsure. Also, have it so you cannot give a yes to your own map.
You'd say.. 6 people checking every submission? That would be a LOT of checking! Well, it would be, but if you get a big enough panel (there are easily enough good mapmakers out there that would be willing) and emphasize that only great maps should be even considered for submission, it really would work out rather awesome. And have it so if the same person submits a few really crappy maps they are unable to submit a map for a month or something. Having so many people check each submission allows for different preferences of types of maps, different opinions, and different overall views on maps alltogether accurately create the most unbiased opinion possible.
What you guys think?
EDIT: I tried to make a defintion, which is very hard for including the simplest of maps to the most complex. Here is what I could come up with to compare the yes/no vote to.. any ideas to expand on it, finish it, or completely replace it would be great.
A map professionally made with an absence of errors that provides lasting entertainment and a variety of...
[right][snapback]551016[/snapback][/right]
I don't mind the yes/no system, but I think my major issue is that we'd then have to create a list that defines a "Map Spotlight" map that the reviewers would then use when casting their votes. Otherwise its a simple question of whether or not this team of voters simply likes the map. Of course that helps with diverse opinions, but its no longer based on reviews.
And that's why I thought it could be based on numbers. If we had a system which basically shows the highest rated maps (the ratings being the total of all the averages from the separate reviewers) each week without showing the same map twice, then it would make everythign so much easier.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DoomGaze on 2006-08-26 at 17:49:11
Ugh, can't we just keep things simple and reform and reset the map ratings? By limiting votes to trustworthy members, or maybe some staff team, we don't need to go through all those reviews, create a new category, and crap like that. That was the original intention of the rating system, so users can easily find maps they would like without having to read an extensive review. That way, we don't need to go through all this decision about how premium maps would be determined and such. Unless you guys still insist on creating a section specially for the elite maps anyways.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-26 at 17:52:05
Well after we've gone through this whole discussion, I've basically started wanting the map spotlight back. Whether we call them "Premium Maps" or give them a new section I suppose doesn't matter, I just liked the idea of seeing three new showcased maps each week. And I always looked at them because they were showcased. Now that its only used for contest winners, I don't care as much.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-08-26 at 17:59:59
QUOTE(in_a_biskit @ Aug 26 2006, 06:54 AM)
I'm thinking that it'd be a good idea to have a bit of a dynamic system of getting people to review maps. My idea is to have an election-type system where members can nominate themselves to be an "official" reviewer for the next four to six months, and then the other members do a bit of a vote on who they think would be the best reviewer, or the admins choose one, or hold a "map reviewing contest" or something to appoint two or three members whose job it will be to review maps.
Because you can re-choose the reviewers, bad or lazy reviewers can be filtered out relatively easily. There's nothing that says you have to listen to the reviewers' opinions, so really I don't think there's much of a problem if a bad reviewer gets picked temporarily. But on the other hand, having allocated people as reviewers would mean that proper reviews happen much more frequently, and will generate more interest in the DLDB as well as providing things to put in the map spotlight.
With regards to the map spotlight, I have another idea, which I think I have mentioned some time in the past - there should be different categories of "spotlight" maps. There can be a place for newly uploaded maps, recently downloaded maps, contest-winning maps, recently reviewed maps, recently rated maps, and even a random map. And since most of these can automated, there can be frequently-changing maps on spotlight even with practically no extra effort in the long term.
addition:
I just read the rest of the original thread, and realised that a very similar idea (with regards to map reviewing) had recently been posted there. I support that idea, but especially in the form that I put it above (ie, map reviewing, not stamping things with "premium map", and a short-medium term election rather than a once-off thing). I still propose an explosion of the map spotlight to a semi-automatic multi-dimensional display box.
[right][snapback]550994[/snapback][/right]
Because you can re-choose the reviewers, bad or lazy reviewers can be filtered out relatively easily. There's nothing that says you have to listen to the reviewers' opinions, so really I don't think there's much of a problem if a bad reviewer gets picked temporarily. But on the other hand, having allocated people as reviewers would mean that proper reviews happen much more frequently, and will generate more interest in the DLDB as well as providing things to put in the map spotlight.
With regards to the map spotlight, I have another idea, which I think I have mentioned some time in the past - there should be different categories of "spotlight" maps. There can be a place for newly uploaded maps, recently downloaded maps, contest-winning maps, recently reviewed maps, recently rated maps, and even a random map. And since most of these can automated, there can be frequently-changing maps on spotlight even with practically no extra effort in the long term.
addition:
I just read the rest of the original thread, and realised that a very similar idea (with regards to map reviewing) had recently been posted there. I support that idea, but especially in the form that I put it above (ie, map reviewing, not stamping things with "premium map", and a short-medium term election rather than a once-off thing). I still propose an explosion of the map spotlight to a semi-automatic multi-dimensional display box.
[right][snapback]550994[/snapback][/right]
Continually electing reviewers would be a great way to handle the problem, but in addition to continually schedualing periodic elections, you'd need to both have people wanting to be in the poll and people willing to vote for them. I don't expect that'd be a problem, but it is a continous long term thing putting its requirements in human hands. Generally you want the continuous long term stuff to be automated unless you're sure you can hold the enthusiasm indefinitely. Rewards system could help with that, though.
Of course realize that designating reviewers is another form of giving people "rep" to allow their reviews to count more, just simplified.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-08-26 at 18:18:56
Someone (DEAD, perhaps?) could take an initiative and make a page of what they consider to be the best maps of each type on their own website. Independant resources are good. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-08-26 at 18:41:33
Roger that. And maybe I will send you an independent PM to you. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Laser_Dude on 2006-08-26 at 19:13:29
maybe have a system where each user picks all his/her favorite maps, like up to 3, and you can list them by how many people have this map as a favorite.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-08-26 at 19:17:51
That sounds like a good solution. The best so far.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-26 at 20:12:17
Actually, that's an excellent idea. Perhaps in our profiles we can list favorite maps and favorite map makers (like they have at www.newgrounds.com) and then somewhere on SEN would be a list of the top choices for both categories.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-08-26 at 20:20:27
Keke, this is where is I play the v5 card again.
I'm fairly certain IP actually has a favorites section on v5 for user's favorite things. The only thing that would be needed is tracking how many people have something as their favorite.
I'm fairly certain IP actually has a favorites section on v5 for user's favorite things. The only thing that would be needed is tracking how many people have something as their favorite.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-08-26 at 20:24:43
Damn you! Well one day when v5 is out (...hopefully...), you'll be stuck with having to do it.
Or you'd probably claim it will be in v6. Argh.
Or you'd probably claim it will be in v6. Argh.