Staredit Network

Yes, I'm refering to v5. You wouldn't do such a system for v4, of course. This is the kind of thing you'd need a fresh start for.

But I'm reffering to v4 because I want a premium maps section and I don't want to wait uncertain time till v5.

Well to do that with the current system would be messy. Without the platform in place to measure maps accurately in general, you'd have to literally do a new process to measure them manually. There's a lot of maps out there, but it wouldn't be an impossible task. You'd certainly have your work cut out for you.

My suggestion applies for having such a system already in effect, though. Then deciding what is "premium" and all that should become trivial, really.

Did you actually read my suggestion? I think not.

No as I said, there was getting to be too many posts to reply to. Was your suggestion the one to make a submissions system for maps to be reviewed for "premium" decision?

ADDITION:
I thought that was what we already had going, though. Map reviews, I mean.

How about for v4, we could have something as simple as a stickied post in the Map Showcase forum for "Premium Maps". When a map is tested by the DLDB mangers, they chose whether or not to add it to the sticky. It would be very easy to accomplish and maybe people could suggest obvious maps to add to the "Premium Maps" sticky by posting in the thread. The solution to the problem doesn't have to complex, it just has to work for the time being so a better version like Tux's can be coded into v5.

I hope I didn't repeat any suggestions, I'll read back a few pages to make sure I don't have to delete this post.

No nobody have to reply to them. People like me and you post topics(polls) about maps that we think should be premium. Then people post their thoughts, reviews there and vote in the poll. The DLDB keepers assigned to this will check the topics and if they find enough votes, good references and reviews they move the map to the new category.

Urmom, one topic would be to cluttered as there are quite some maps for this.

Well let's see. There's already a forum designated for map reviews. You're basically saying add some criteria to pick which of those reviews earns a map "premium" status, right?


That again brings back the issue of popularity, though. To avoid it, you'd need to add another layer. Either designate a team or something to review the maps posted in that forum seperately and make their own decision, or wait until a given entry gets enough votes or high enough minimum rating from the public to be a 'premium' candidate, and then have the team review it for themselves.

The later doesn't eliminate popularity, but lessens the work load and makes things more organized. The former would be the correct way to do it, but would also need a way to organize the reviewing team so each entry gets the coverage needed for a 'premium' decision. You wouldn't want one person able to set things as premium or not, even though for most maps they're either obviously premium or obviously not. It wouldn't be fair to the few ones in between, though, so you'd need (I'd say) at least 3 "official" people have reviewed it to be sure.

No, when it comes to reviews and discussion it quits being a popularity. It will be active SEN members who will decide the map is good or not.

Oh come on, you don't think you (and most of the other mappers here) are exempt from leaning towards specific kinds of maps, do you? Map makers usually have better opinions than non-mappers, of course, but map makers are also biased in some regards, as they'll usually lean towards the maps that are most in line with those that they've made.

And in any case, no one, I mean no one, is above being biased for what they like. Even people who claim profession as reviewers themselves.


But that's at least why you'd want a sample of reviewers for each entry, at least, before allowing it to be premium.

At first I liked fritfrat's idea best, but thinking about reality (wich v5 is not), I think the voting forum method will be the best.

I suggest combining the People and the Judges.

The map will become premium like this:

-It is rated by judges, and they decide should it become a condidate.
-If it becomes a condidate, a poll with a discussion is created
-After it is over (came to a logical end), the Judges re-read all the posts, and consider them. (This is needed in case they missed some huge bug, or are not pro enough at this tipe of maps to notice the disbalance)

I added the last point, making it Judge-People-Judge because not all Judges may be good Bounders, or Impossible map players, or Thing players. In truth, there are a fiew UMS map styles that have only a fiew really good people at them. If those good people are not Judges, let's hope they atleast post their thoughts.

Considering what you said there no fair way how to tell is a map good or bad? I don't see what are you trying to make out here then.

It's like science. You cannot prove anything. You can only create test cases for a given theory, and as long as the tests confirm that theory then it's at least valid. More the better. But all it takes is one false instance, and the whole theory is false.

Maps, however, aren't scientific theories. They're art creations. But a similar set of rules applies nonetheless. The more coverage from the widest possible set of reviewers you can get, the more accurate a rating you'll be able to produce. Of course, it stops being necessary to need to review a given map beyond a certain point, as it's usually then enough to decide if that map is any good or not. It's more thorough, sure, but with tons of maps to have to review it isn't practical.



I think there should be a layer of judges to decide on all premiums in the end no matter what, though. How to go about handling that layer (as in whether a given judge can make a premium or if it requires 3 or more to make one), depends on how many maps there'll be, whether the map hasn't already been overwhelmingly decided as premium or not, and whether the judges themselves can agree on maps being premiums or not.

EDIT- To start, perhaps letting premiums be decided by votes and reviews is fine, using judges only to tally the votes after the polling wanes down or to step in to handle close calls (judges'll probably just be borrowed DLDB maintainers or whatever other relevant mods or respected members are on hand). If using the public to decide becomes messy, though, then the judges layer should come into full effect, in addition to the public polls. Maybe like a 50/50 kinda thing, or something.



(boy I like to talk a lot lol)

Creations, art, games, graphics are all criticized by public. This way we see is the game good or bad, by references, reviews and opinions. I don't see how maps are so much different.

/well I like to talk short but to the point.

I actually think it should be the opposite (as suggested earlier). If we're thinking practically about v4 then we need the following:
- A new forum for "Premium Maps" submissions.
- A team of 5 judges (or another odd amount).
- A set point system at the end of each review (like the current system at the end of the current reviews).

Basically I like the idea that someone would create a poll with simple "Yes/No" responses asking the public for their opinion. If the public likes the map (more "yes" than "no" rsponses), then the review process begins. Each member of the review team writes a decent review of the map and then gives his or her own "yes" or "no" response. A majority of "yes" answers means it becomes a "premium map" and a majority of "no" means nothing special happens.

If it is unanimously decided (or at least a majority rule) that a map should be considered for review even though the public perhaps disagrees, then the review team can then review it anyway.

At least with this system, the public has their say and the judges then review with their say.

Apparently most people here aren't back in school yet, just me

Devlin, I have to admit I like Jammed's idea, simply because with yours it is extremely possible that no public attention is created for a map, and then the judges don't even get to their role into playing into it. They are extremely similar, but judges weeding out the crappy submissions first I think would encourage more public interaction.

I'm not going back to school, already graduated.

Well I figured that we were trying to prevent the judges from going through the entire DLDB to find good maps. Unless I'm not getting it, his requires the judges to find maps and create polls for them. Then once those are posted, the public votes. Then the judges review based on votes, right?

Mine is essentially the same except anyone can suggest a map (including the judges). But it leaves ti open for maps that perhaps the judges overlook.

I don't think he meant for the judges to decide if it was to become a candidate.. I understand how you interpreted it that way, though. I understood it as the user submits (for example, in a sticky), the judges see if it's pretty good to weed out crappy maps, and then the judges post it up for the public to see.

But your idea is better now that I think about it anyways, because it just allows everyone to see it once someone wants their map considered. People could always just wait for a first judge response to see if it is worthy of consideration.

Only edits I would make would be MANY more judges, so not all of them have to check every map. I'd still recommend 10-12 or so. That and you don't want it to be based on Yes/No responses only by the public, I'd recommend interactive discussion by the public like DEAD originally suggested and then have it go to the judges to confirm it as a premium map if most of the posters thought it was worthy.

117th post, ima quote what you said so we don't get lost here.

The only problem with the black and white yes/no system is that it requires a large sample of people before you start getting accurate values. I think a numeric system is in order, so that instead of one person posting a yes and another posting a no (which makes an even split), one person could post a 4.5/5 (as their 'yes') while another person could post a 2/5 (as their 'no'), which would adjust for whether someone is only sorta "no" versus really strongly "no", when everything is averaged together.

Yeah I didn't mean for it to be a simple black and white yes/no vote. I was expectingdiscussion to ensue, as you guys have said, and that's perfectly fine. I do also like the idea of people rating the maps in their yes/no responses (kind of like how the Terrain forum works when people ask for ratings). Then they'd tally up all the numbers, average it out, and think of it that way.

OK, this topic is going nowhere. I feel like posting another like tux did. Give me some time and I'll come up with a good solution, my way...