Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-01 at 11:36:27
QUOTE(fritfrat(U) @ Sep 1 2006, 04:06 PM)
...even though we will have to wait a couple years 
Oh fine, every time somebody points out that something should be done, Moose says: Wait till v5 comes out, it will fix everything.
Maybe instead of waiting 2 years (let's say) we will make our life here more comfortable for those 2 years ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-01 at 11:43:05
QUOTE(DEAD @ Sep 1 2006, 02:38 AM)
The problem is that nobody is interested in writing reviews if it does close to nothing.
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Aug 31 2006, 10:09 AM)
An accepted review may recieve minerals... none if it is barely a valid review, or something like 5, 10, 20, or 30 depending on how well it was written. This is the incentive to write reviews.
Perhaps to encourage reviewers to get maps that aren't very popular, the first review of a map will get a +10 mineral bonus?
Perhaps to encourage reviewers to get maps that aren't very popular, the first review of a map will get a +10 mineral bonus?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-01 at 12:31:07
The minerals system would have to be worth something in v5 to actively encourage reviews, though. How are we going to do that?
I don't think a few title and name effects are gonna do it.
I don't think a few title and name effects are gonna do it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-01 at 12:32:21
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Sep 1 2006, 07:30 PM)
I don't think a few title glows are gonna be enough.
[right][snapback]554241[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]554241[/snapback][/right]
They are enough in v4 to make people spamm. Why not ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-01 at 12:37:58
I've got way more planned for v5, trust me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-01 at 12:38:55
QUOTE(Jammed @ Sep 1 2006, 11:31 AM)
They are enough in v4 to make people spamm. Why not ?
[right][snapback]554244[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]554244[/snapback][/right]
Spammers are not unique to this forum.
Anyway that's another thing. In addition to reviews, perhaps there should be a way for posts to be 'rated'? If they're gonna be earning people minerals, and if minerals were to somehow have some semi-intrinsic meaning this time around, then you'd want spam posts to not count for minerals, right?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lord_Agamemnon(MM) on 2006-09-01 at 12:42:05
I'm trying to see what would happen here, and the way I see it is this: people will go to "Premium Maps" much more than "Regular maps," so the "Regular maps" won't get downloaded. Essentially, what you're doing is just making the quality requirements for entering the DLDB higher. Which I don't object to, since some of the things I downloaded that got good ratings were quite atrocious, but it seems like that would be the only effect. I agree with MilleniumArmy on this one.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-01 at 13:01:25
QUOTE(Lord_Agamemnon @ Sep 1 2006, 11:41 AM)
I'm trying to see what would happen here, and the way I see it is this: people will go to "Premium Maps" much more than "Regular maps," so the "Regular maps" won't get downloaded. Essentially, what you're doing is just making the quality requirements for entering the DLDB higher. Which I don't object to, since some of the things I downloaded that got good ratings were quite atrocious, but it seems like that would be the only effect. I agree with MilleniumArmy on this one.
[right][snapback]554249[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]554249[/snapback][/right]
If you define the criteria for "Premium Maps" well, then those that meet it should be played more than "regular" maps, really. Anything that qualifies as a regular map should either be an intermediate state for a quality concept in development, or otherwise as a space for newer mappers to climb the learning curve.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-02 at 08:58:35
To be honest I think only few of us will still be there when we switch to v5, if any.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-02 at 09:45:11
QUOTE(DEAD @ Sep 2 2006, 07:58 AM)
To be honest I think only few of us will still be there when we switch to v5, if any.
[right][snapback]554670[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]554670[/snapback][/right]
I'm not so sure about that. Instinct tells me Blizzard may finally be up to something with Starcraft. I can envision there being some resurgence if they were to announce any new continuity for Starcraft.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-02 at 09:47:28
That will take even more time than v5 to come. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-02 at 12:31:37
Why?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-02 at 12:38:30
Why what? 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-02 at 13:18:54
QUOTE(DEAD @ Sep 2 2006, 09:47 AM)
That will take even more time than v5 to come.
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Sep 2 2006, 12:31 PM)
Why?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-02 at 13:23:05
Mini Moose, at this speed of progress, we will have to wait for v5 for a long time, so we might as well make life comfortable here. If you're too busy, hire somebody who isn't if you want to speed it up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-02 at 13:39:21
Because blizzard make games pretty slow. And then they test them over like milion times before release.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-09-02 at 14:20:30
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Sep 1 2006, 08:07 AM)
And you don't think people would end up only downloading stuff with the higher rated reviews then? Might as well put it all in the same place.
Hate to break it to you but exclusivity, elitism, etc. are all facts of life. Along with limits in human energy, time, and patience. There's I think enough entries in the DLDB to make reviewing each and every one of them impractical by a judges panel (over the long term). Plus most of the time it's easy to tell at least when a map sucks, which doesn't take an expert to do. You likely can rely on the public at least for that much filtering.
Anyway, as I said, if you want to avoid unfairness then it's not a matter of avoiding any kind of "Premiums" section so much as it is engineering the criteria to define "Premiums" to be fair in the first place. As I said, people all end up making their own selections of prefered maps for themselves in the end anyway. I'd rather have a set prescribed to them from people who know what they're talking about than to let them pick only the popular and obvious stuff, and never even get to see the bigger picture.
Anyway in order to define "Premiums" at all, again, you have to define quality in the first place. Getting the basic system for reviewing maps in the first place will be the prereq for that. I like Moose's outline, but I think it could use a few improvements still. It'll do for now, though.
[right][snapback]554189[/snapback][/right]
Hate to break it to you but exclusivity, elitism, etc. are all facts of life. Along with limits in human energy, time, and patience. There's I think enough entries in the DLDB to make reviewing each and every one of them impractical by a judges panel (over the long term). Plus most of the time it's easy to tell at least when a map sucks, which doesn't take an expert to do. You likely can rely on the public at least for that much filtering.
Anyway, as I said, if you want to avoid unfairness then it's not a matter of avoiding any kind of "Premiums" section so much as it is engineering the criteria to define "Premiums" to be fair in the first place. As I said, people all end up making their own selections of prefered maps for themselves in the end anyway. I'd rather have a set prescribed to them from people who know what they're talking about than to let them pick only the popular and obvious stuff, and never even get to see the bigger picture.
Anyway in order to define "Premiums" at all, again, you have to define quality in the first place. Getting the basic system for reviewing maps in the first place will be the prereq for that. I like Moose's outline, but I think it could use a few improvements still. It'll do for now, though.
[right][snapback]554189[/snapback][/right]
Well of course there's going to be exclusivity and elitism and such. Of course the "better rated" maps should have more download counts. But the problem is that everyone's got different expectations. Our opinions differ when it comes to defining a "better" map. We can't just make one absolute criteria for everyone when we've all got different expectations of what a "premium" map rating is.
Contrary to what you've said, I believe it should not be us (the raters, DB keepers, etc) that defines the premium maps; it should be left up to the user, the browser, to determine what maps are good enough. Why? Some people would like maps that rated 7.0 or more. Other's might like it 8.0 or more. Infact, there might even be those fastidious snobs who only like maps that get ratings of 9.5 or more. So you see, all of us have different criteria for what's a "premium" map. And these ratings don't automatically mean they are a 7.0 or whatever to you; infact you might rate it a 9.0 after playing it.
Lets say we, for some reason, made a premium section in which the criteria was only for maps with 8.5 ratings or more. What if there was this map that got a 8.4 but if you played it, you would've rated it as one of the best maps you've ever played. There's probably going to be lots of maps out there with an 8.4 or less in which you would absolutely love. And you're not going to love every map that got an 8.5 or more.
So you see, you have to leave a margin of error when it comes to defining what rating of maps you are willing to play. Besides, map reviews are not just about ratings; it can tell you what kind of game this map is, and then you can use your own judgement to determine whether it's worth playing or not.
So if we do in the end have to make a "premium section," it should not be absolute. It should be adjustable, meaning that we ourselves can define what's premium (rating wise.) This section will help you organize maps from the DLDB which supposedly fit your criteria.
With a flexible premium section, or even without one, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
But with a rigid, already-defined premium section, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
So in the second picture, people would automatically only download those maps that get a certain rating or more. Maps with even a 7.9 might actually be better than those with an 8.0 or more but the problem is that nobody is going to give it a chance because it's not in the premium section. The whole point of these "premium" map sections is to give people a chance to play a good map. With a rigid, absolute premium section, it would potentially drive traffic away from just as good maps.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-02 at 14:20:41
DEAD, how does Blizzard's production speed affect v5's?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-02 at 14:29:58
It doesn't. I mean that v5 will be long, but SC2 will be even longer.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-02 at 14:42:47
Sorry, I can't read. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-02 at 21:28:25
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Sep 2 2006, 01:20 PM)
Well of course there's going to be exclusivity and elitism and such. Of course the "better rated" maps should have more download counts. But the problem is that everyone's got different expectations. Our opinions differ when it comes to defining a "better" map. We can't just make one absolute criteria for everyone when we've all got different expectations of what a "premium" map rating is.
Contrary to what you've said, I believe it should not be us (the raters, DB keepers, etc) that defines the premium maps; it should be left up to the user, the browser, to determine what maps are good enough. Why? Some people would like maps that rated 7.0 or more. Other's might like it 8.0 or more. Infact, there might even be those fastidious snobs who only like maps that get ratings of 9.5 or more. So you see, all of us have different criteria for what's a "premium" map. And these ratings don't automatically mean they are a 7.0 or whatever to you; infact you might rate it a 9.0 after playing it.
Lets say we, for some reason, made a premium section in which the criteria was only for maps with 8.5 ratings or more. What if there was this map that got a 8.4 but if you played it, you would've rated it as one of the best maps you've ever played. There's probably going to be lots of maps out there with an 8.4 or less in which you would absolutely love. And you're not going to love every map that got an 8.5 or more.
So you see, you have to leave a margin of error when it comes to defining what rating of maps you are willing to play. Besides, map reviews are not just about ratings; it can tell you what kind of game this map is, and then you can use your own judgement to determine whether it's worth playing or not.
So if we do in the end have to make a "premium section," it should not be absolute. It should be adjustable, meaning that we ourselves can define what's premium (rating wise.) This section will help you organize maps from the DLDB which supposedly fit your criteria.
With a flexible premium section, or even without one, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
But with a rigid, already-defined premium section, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
So in the second picture, people would automatically only download those maps that get a certain rating or more. Maps with even a 7.9 might actually be better than those with an 8.0 or more but the problem is that nobody is going to give it a chance because it's not in the premium section. The whole point of these "premium" map sections is to give people a chance to play a good map. With a rigid, absolute premium section, it would potentially drive traffic away from just as good maps.
[right][snapback]554808[/snapback][/right]
Contrary to what you've said, I believe it should not be us (the raters, DB keepers, etc) that defines the premium maps; it should be left up to the user, the browser, to determine what maps are good enough. Why? Some people would like maps that rated 7.0 or more. Other's might like it 8.0 or more. Infact, there might even be those fastidious snobs who only like maps that get ratings of 9.5 or more. So you see, all of us have different criteria for what's a "premium" map. And these ratings don't automatically mean they are a 7.0 or whatever to you; infact you might rate it a 9.0 after playing it.
Lets say we, for some reason, made a premium section in which the criteria was only for maps with 8.5 ratings or more. What if there was this map that got a 8.4 but if you played it, you would've rated it as one of the best maps you've ever played. There's probably going to be lots of maps out there with an 8.4 or less in which you would absolutely love. And you're not going to love every map that got an 8.5 or more.
So you see, you have to leave a margin of error when it comes to defining what rating of maps you are willing to play. Besides, map reviews are not just about ratings; it can tell you what kind of game this map is, and then you can use your own judgement to determine whether it's worth playing or not.
So if we do in the end have to make a "premium section," it should not be absolute. It should be adjustable, meaning that we ourselves can define what's premium (rating wise.) This section will help you organize maps from the DLDB which supposedly fit your criteria.
With a flexible premium section, or even without one, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
But with a rigid, already-defined premium section, here's how the DLDB traffic would look:
So in the second picture, people would automatically only download those maps that get a certain rating or more. Maps with even a 7.9 might actually be better than those with an 8.0 or more but the problem is that nobody is going to give it a chance because it's not in the premium section. The whole point of these "premium" map sections is to give people a chance to play a good map. With a rigid, absolute premium section, it would potentially drive traffic away from just as good maps.
[right][snapback]554808[/snapback][/right]
Nice graphs.
People do have different opinions of maps, true, but this isn't about personal tastes or opinions (I could decide I liked all the Strip Hermiones out there enough to vote them 10s, for instance). It's about quality. That is, how well the map is made, how it performs for what its trying to do, fun factor for those who play that type of map, etc. You can at least make those aspects fairly uniform.
We shouldn't set up the system to do favors to popular maps, which are already gonna be popular (premium or not). We should set it up to bring the quality maps to light. Leave it to someone else to make their own popularity contest. This is a mapping site. Good maps should get the recognition they deserve here. Let the popular stuff get their usual hype elsewhere.
EDIT-
But you know, now that I think about it, I think the problem is that you just can't get a good compromise between popularity and quality. But there's no reason not to include a seperate popularity rating to cover that ground, though. Use a more structured process to formulate the "quality" rating, and then use a more general voting process to find the crowd favorites.
At least that way people will know they're playing crap no matter how popular it is.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2006-09-03 at 00:03:40
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Sep 1 2006, 12:38 PM)
Spammers are not unique to this forum.
Anyway that's another thing. In addition to reviews, perhaps there should be a way for posts to be 'rated'? If they're gonna be earning people minerals, and if minerals were to somehow have some semi-intrinsic meaning this time around, then you'd want spam posts to not count for minerals, right?
[right][snapback]554247[/snapback][/right]
Anyway that's another thing. In addition to reviews, perhaps there should be a way for posts to be 'rated'? If they're gonna be earning people minerals, and if minerals were to somehow have some semi-intrinsic meaning this time around, then you'd want spam posts to not count for minerals, right?
[right][snapback]554247[/snapback][/right]
The problem with a post-rating kind of system is that, if used to determine something like forum access, could easily used to limit the abilities and forum access by new members. I've seen it on a few sites (though they usually let you buy your way in with donations). I don't like anything that can be abused by the inherent stupidity of people.
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar @ Sep 2 2006, 09:28 PM)
But you know, now that I think about it, I think the problem is that you just can't get a good compromise between popularity and quality. But there's no reason not to include a seperate popularity rating to cover that ground, though. Use a more structured process to formulate the "quality" rating, and then use a more general voting process to find the crowd favorites.
At least that way people will know they're playing crap no matter how popular it is.
[right][snapback]554950[/snapback][/right]
At least that way people will know they're playing crap no matter how popular it is.
[right][snapback]554950[/snapback][/right]
I like this idea. Perhaps do it like a Presidential Election? Two votes, one by reviewers or some other qualified persons, and a general vote. It'll be just like democracy: the popular vote will mean almost nothing at all!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-09-03 at 01:52:00
Here are the issues I have as of right now:
1) Making a seperate category for "quality" maps will still have the same problem as shown in my second graph. Only those "quality" maps will be getting all the traffic from the DLDB. There's going to be other maps out there that might also be of "quality" status but for some reason aren't in the "quality" section (maybe because nobody played it yet or just by bad luck noone gave it good or any reviews.) Although this system will bring more attention to quality maps in the quality/premium section, it will at the same time potentially draw attention away from quality maps that are not in the quality/premium section.
2) Quality of a map is something you can rate on a 10 point scale. You can't just simply declare that "this is a quality map" or "this isn't a quality map." Quality of a map isn't just based on two levels (level one being no quality, level two being quality.) It's based on a scale. You can compare quality maps with each other and determine which one has more quality in it. Some maps can have a 7/10 quality rating, others can have a 8/10 or even a 9/10. In all of my earlier posts, just replace the phrases "map rating" with "map quality" and we still have the same problem I was talking about earlier.
3) I think the best resolution to all of this is to implement a different map reviews system. There will be no input boxes for you to score a map (except for an overall rating.) From what I've been getting from these topics, most of you guys treat map reviews as if they were only about ratings/scores. Well I want it so that these map reviews will ONLY be about the reviewer's comments. There is no wrong way for someone to express his or her opinions about a map.
As you can see in the map reviews that I've made, I could care less about the scores I give them. I focus more on the description, the comments I have about the map. I let the readers know what the map is like and I give them my thoughts about it. I share with them my experiences in the map, hoping that the readers will get a visual idea of what the map is like. THAT's what map reviews are about. Or at least that's how they should be. By reading the map reviewer's comments can someone determine what a map is like. Reading two or more reviews that share different opinions about a map will help someone better determine what a map is like, as they can see both sides about the map.
1) Making a seperate category for "quality" maps will still have the same problem as shown in my second graph. Only those "quality" maps will be getting all the traffic from the DLDB. There's going to be other maps out there that might also be of "quality" status but for some reason aren't in the "quality" section (maybe because nobody played it yet or just by bad luck noone gave it good or any reviews.) Although this system will bring more attention to quality maps in the quality/premium section, it will at the same time potentially draw attention away from quality maps that are not in the quality/premium section.
2) Quality of a map is something you can rate on a 10 point scale. You can't just simply declare that "this is a quality map" or "this isn't a quality map." Quality of a map isn't just based on two levels (level one being no quality, level two being quality.) It's based on a scale. You can compare quality maps with each other and determine which one has more quality in it. Some maps can have a 7/10 quality rating, others can have a 8/10 or even a 9/10. In all of my earlier posts, just replace the phrases "map rating" with "map quality" and we still have the same problem I was talking about earlier.
3) I think the best resolution to all of this is to implement a different map reviews system. There will be no input boxes for you to score a map (except for an overall rating.) From what I've been getting from these topics, most of you guys treat map reviews as if they were only about ratings/scores. Well I want it so that these map reviews will ONLY be about the reviewer's comments. There is no wrong way for someone to express his or her opinions about a map.
As you can see in the map reviews that I've made, I could care less about the scores I give them. I focus more on the description, the comments I have about the map. I let the readers know what the map is like and I give them my thoughts about it. I share with them my experiences in the map, hoping that the readers will get a visual idea of what the map is like. THAT's what map reviews are about. Or at least that's how they should be. By reading the map reviewer's comments can someone determine what a map is like. Reading two or more reviews that share different opinions about a map will help someone better determine what a map is like, as they can see both sides about the map.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-03 at 10:31:11
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Sep 3 2006, 12:51 AM)
Here are the issues I have as of right now:
1) Making a seperate category for "quality" maps will still have the same problem as shown in my second graph. Only those "quality" maps will be getting all the traffic from the DLDB. There's going to be other maps out there that might also be of "quality" status but for some reason aren't in the "quality" section (maybe because nobody played it yet or just by bad luck noone gave it good or any reviews.) Although this system will bring more attention to quality maps in the quality/premium section, it will at the same time potentially draw attention away from quality maps that are not in the quality/premium section.
[right][snapback]555001[/snapback][/right]
1) Making a seperate category for "quality" maps will still have the same problem as shown in my second graph. Only those "quality" maps will be getting all the traffic from the DLDB. There's going to be other maps out there that might also be of "quality" status but for some reason aren't in the "quality" section (maybe because nobody played it yet or just by bad luck noone gave it good or any reviews.) Although this system will bring more attention to quality maps in the quality/premium section, it will at the same time potentially draw attention away from quality maps that are not in the quality/premium section.
[right][snapback]555001[/snapback][/right]
Yes, having a premiums section will exclude a lot of close calls most likely. And if it was only for quality, not popularity (remember the two aren't always the same), then a person might not find any maps they like in the premiums section at all. But frankly, that's just too damn bad.
A regulars section should define a range that, as I said before, is for either maps in an intermediate state before being premium quality, or as a space for people to climb the learning curve. A standard, if you will. It might not necessarily be fair to a lot of maps, especially ones that are fun to people even without quality, but it'll project the message that maps should need to reach a certain quality level before they can claim to be "professional" (which'd likely remain a controversial definition for awhile).
Why? Well because that's how mappers and mapping advances. Standards set a goal, and people function better with a goal in mind. And as a mapping site, that should be our real goal. Not promoting what's popular.
QUOTE
3) I think the best resolution to all of this is to implement a different map reviews system. There will be no input boxes for you to score a map (except for an overall rating.) From what I've been getting from these topics, most of you guys treat map reviews as if they were only about ratings/scores. Well I want it so that these map reviews will ONLY be about the reviewer's comments. There is no wrong way for someone to express his or her opinions about a map.
As you can see in the map reviews that I've made, I could care less about the scores I give them. I focus more on the description, the comments I have about the map. I let the readers know what the map is like and I give them my thoughts about it. I share with them my experiences in the map, hoping that the readers will get a visual idea of what the map is like. THAT's what map reviews are about. Or at least that's how they should be. By reading the map reviewer's comments can someone determine what a map is like. Reading two or more reviews that share different opinions about a map will help someone better determine what a map is like, as they can see both sides about the map.
[right][snapback]555001[/snapback][/right]
As you can see in the map reviews that I've made, I could care less about the scores I give them. I focus more on the description, the comments I have about the map. I let the readers know what the map is like and I give them my thoughts about it. I share with them my experiences in the map, hoping that the readers will get a visual idea of what the map is like. THAT's what map reviews are about. Or at least that's how they should be. By reading the map reviewer's comments can someone determine what a map is like. Reading two or more reviews that share different opinions about a map will help someone better determine what a map is like, as they can see both sides about the map.
[right][snapback]555001[/snapback][/right]
There's a reason for the practice of putting words into numbers. It's so you can make measurements. Without measurements, you can't build a system over it or out of it. That's what the makers of the new Semantic Internet are trying to do for the internet, for instance.
It might not be completely fair to quantify something like fun factor, yes, but how else are you gonna represent it? Remember there's thousands of maps in the DLDB, and clearly some can be measured definitively against others. For the rest, that's where the challenge lies: In defining how to quantify abstract concepts like fun factor.
But here's where I partly rebute some of my arguments. Ultimately, I agree that people should go with the comments in order to decide intimately on a given map (I know I usually do). A quality measurement does not always indicate that a map would be necessarily fun to them. No one can really tell someone definitely they're going to have fun with maps that do this and this, versus that and that. It's a decision you have to make on your own, really. Reading from a compiled set of information, and compiling it seperately for yourself, can at least help you close in on that decision.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-05 at 08:43:02
Yes we did a lot of talking... but it change Mooses mind ?