Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2006-09-05 at 10:57:34
I dunno. But it explored the topic. That much is useful I think.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by xmrxsiegecopx on 2006-09-05 at 11:33:53
So far, we got three things that Moose could do:
1) Tux's or DEAD's idea of creating a "Premium Maps" section, telling the public which maps are of high quality or not.
3)Moose's Idea of combining parts of 1 and 2, and with mineral benefits.
The public (in particular, Battle.Net) doesn't really judge a map's quality by its quality level. They determine it by its replayability, game balance, and fun. No amount of "Premium Maps" or good reviews can change this (Battle.Net has been corrupted for a long time), it will only promote elitism and eventually heavily change the ways that SeN does in mapmaking: "Not for fun, but for fame." Nobody cares who makes the map (usually). Unless we actually get paid real money (or tons of minerals), I see this as a waste of time.
All three have their good points too, though IMO, all we need is the Map Spotlight and the Recommend & Reviews Forum/Map Reviews active again.
1) Tux's or DEAD's idea of creating a "Premium Maps" section, telling the public which maps are of high quality or not.
QUOTE(Tuxedo Templar)
Solution #1:
One thing that bugs me is that existing entries get scored in the dumbest ways from people's votes (or lack thereof). One thing I think we should have is a way to 'estimate' a map's worth, like with an algorithm to measure terrain complexity, unit placement, trigger use, etc. While it's certainly not true that all good maps are necessarily complex ones, the ratio of complexity to quality is generally proportional. Good enough for a baseline, at least.
With the baseline, accurate or not, you can get people who'd not bother downloading a map unless it had a 'good' rating to at least see someone's map (which might otherwise have no rating or some inaccurate one), and potentially be able to correct the ratings themselves.
Solution #2:
Another thing we should do, for DLDB entries with their own seperate release threads, is to connect those entries to their threads. Most of a map's reviews and feedback take place in its 'official' thread anyway (or at least most of the quality ones), so linking them together would definitely help. Like a field to specify the thread or webpage to substitute for the map's "description", or perhaps to use to forward to for that description with the download link embedded into it.
Solution #3:
People are notoriously irresponsible in how they rate maps, that is true. Electing representatives is on the right track, but I think it needs something more. Since it's still possible for reviewers to end up either in stagnation or become outright overwhelmed, it would make more sense to find a way to harness the public to fill in the blanks.
We need to make an incentive for people to produce quality reviews. That of course requires a means to determine what qualifies as quality reviews, as well as how to reward them.
Rewards: Minerals should work. If the system is better implemented this time around, so that it isn't abusable and had more meaning to it. But I'm thinking more along the lines of reputation. Or perhaps, reputation as how it relates to mineral gain. A person with a good rep can get minerals faster, hence encouraging rep gain over mineral gain. And to get rep...
Quality Reviews: This should be the primary way to get rep. Of course how do you judge who is a good reviewer? Well here's a list of ways that might work, all of which should be programmable with a bit of creativity:
Quantity: A good reviewer might typically be one who makes lots of reviews, right? Obviously though a spammer could achieve that just as easily. Therefore this should probably be a factor, but not the sole one.
.
Diversity: Do they review maps all the same? If not, then they're probably just being lazy and/or spamming. Or else maybe they're only reviewing the select few they like or hate, and giving the same score. In any case, a good reviewer should cover both the good and the bad, generally. This should be another factor.
.
Agreeability: If 5 people voted a map as being bad, and one person votes it as being good, what then? Well chances are they could just be trying to fraud the score, or perhaps they see something in the map the others didn't and voted accordingly? Or perhaps the OTHERS where frauds, and the one person was legit.
In any case, this could be a factor, but probably not a very reliable one. Over the long term, though, it might even out.
.
Relevance: A melee player probably won't know how to make a good review for an RP map, most likely. Nor would a terrain artist likely know what to make of someone's mod. While that's certainly not always true, a person out of their territory should at least initially be taken with a grain of salt, naturally. Another factor.
You could measure this by keeping track of what catagories their past submissions or reviews fall under (if any).
.
Review Depth: Do they just do a hit and run with 5 stars and a 'lol' or do they leave a description and put some effort? Of course be sure to check more than just the length of their descriptions, so that no page long spamming of 'lol's earns any points for the culprit.
.
Breadth: Are they just reviewing only the popular maps or do they bother looking at the more obscure stuff? We already know popular maps are popular, so a good reviewer should be available to tell us if there's any less popular maps that are any good as well. And besides, not all popular maps are even good, really.
A definite important factor.
.
Peer Reputation: This should definitely be the most important factor. This would of course require a system for members to "rate" other members, though. If a good rated member makes a review, their review should count higher than a bad rated member. And in turn, if a bad rated member rates another map poorly, their review for that person (just like their review of the map) would count little, thus protecting members and submissions from abusive ratings.
This however risks creating elitism, so counter balancing it with the above mentioned factors would still be important.
So there you have it. It's not perfect, but it covers most of the bases.
One thing that bugs me is that existing entries get scored in the dumbest ways from people's votes (or lack thereof). One thing I think we should have is a way to 'estimate' a map's worth, like with an algorithm to measure terrain complexity, unit placement, trigger use, etc. While it's certainly not true that all good maps are necessarily complex ones, the ratio of complexity to quality is generally proportional. Good enough for a baseline, at least.
With the baseline, accurate or not, you can get people who'd not bother downloading a map unless it had a 'good' rating to at least see someone's map (which might otherwise have no rating or some inaccurate one), and potentially be able to correct the ratings themselves.
Solution #2:
Another thing we should do, for DLDB entries with their own seperate release threads, is to connect those entries to their threads. Most of a map's reviews and feedback take place in its 'official' thread anyway (or at least most of the quality ones), so linking them together would definitely help. Like a field to specify the thread or webpage to substitute for the map's "description", or perhaps to use to forward to for that description with the download link embedded into it.
Solution #3:
People are notoriously irresponsible in how they rate maps, that is true. Electing representatives is on the right track, but I think it needs something more. Since it's still possible for reviewers to end up either in stagnation or become outright overwhelmed, it would make more sense to find a way to harness the public to fill in the blanks.
We need to make an incentive for people to produce quality reviews. That of course requires a means to determine what qualifies as quality reviews, as well as how to reward them.
Rewards: Minerals should work. If the system is better implemented this time around, so that it isn't abusable and had more meaning to it. But I'm thinking more along the lines of reputation. Or perhaps, reputation as how it relates to mineral gain. A person with a good rep can get minerals faster, hence encouraging rep gain over mineral gain. And to get rep...
Quality Reviews: This should be the primary way to get rep. Of course how do you judge who is a good reviewer? Well here's a list of ways that might work, all of which should be programmable with a bit of creativity:
Quantity: A good reviewer might typically be one who makes lots of reviews, right? Obviously though a spammer could achieve that just as easily. Therefore this should probably be a factor, but not the sole one.
.
Diversity: Do they review maps all the same? If not, then they're probably just being lazy and/or spamming. Or else maybe they're only reviewing the select few they like or hate, and giving the same score. In any case, a good reviewer should cover both the good and the bad, generally. This should be another factor.
.
Agreeability: If 5 people voted a map as being bad, and one person votes it as being good, what then? Well chances are they could just be trying to fraud the score, or perhaps they see something in the map the others didn't and voted accordingly? Or perhaps the OTHERS where frauds, and the one person was legit.
In any case, this could be a factor, but probably not a very reliable one. Over the long term, though, it might even out.
.
Relevance: A melee player probably won't know how to make a good review for an RP map, most likely. Nor would a terrain artist likely know what to make of someone's mod. While that's certainly not always true, a person out of their territory should at least initially be taken with a grain of salt, naturally. Another factor.
You could measure this by keeping track of what catagories their past submissions or reviews fall under (if any).
.
Review Depth: Do they just do a hit and run with 5 stars and a 'lol' or do they leave a description and put some effort? Of course be sure to check more than just the length of their descriptions, so that no page long spamming of 'lol's earns any points for the culprit.
.
Breadth: Are they just reviewing only the popular maps or do they bother looking at the more obscure stuff? We already know popular maps are popular, so a good reviewer should be available to tell us if there's any less popular maps that are any good as well. And besides, not all popular maps are even good, really.
A definite important factor.
.
Peer Reputation: This should definitely be the most important factor. This would of course require a system for members to "rate" other members, though. If a good rated member makes a review, their review should count higher than a bad rated member. And in turn, if a bad rated member rates another map poorly, their review for that person (just like their review of the map) would count little, thus protecting members and submissions from abusive ratings.
This however risks creating elitism, so counter balancing it with the above mentioned factors would still be important.
So there you have it. It's not perfect, but it covers most of the bases.
QUOTE(DEAD)
I have an idea how to start the original idea about having premium maps. This unlike other ideas, recuires no coding at all and we won't have to wait till v5. This idea recuires no judges, so there's no elitism. With this idea, nobody will have to play over every single map in the DLDB.
Ok, here is the plan.
We create a new forum called "premium maps". This is where people will nominate maps for premium status.
Assign 3+ DLDB keepers or people who has access to DLDB CP to moderate the new forum. These should be the most trusted and fair keepers.
Now when we have a forum, we create a new category in DLDB called "Premium maps". This is where all the good maps will be placed.
People will nominate a map by posting a topic(poll) in the new forum. When posting the map you should provide the topic with links to download. And post a good description about the map. Like in showcase.
Members will post reviews and discuss either the map should or should not be in "premium maps" category. The poll is to count the total possitive and negative votes.
To get this premium status, map will have to get certain amount of possitive votes, like 10 or 20. And a number of good references and reviews. Good grounded reviews will count more than just yes or no.
The keepers assigned to "premium maps" forum will have to read these topics and accept or denie premium status to the map. Once a map is accepted it will be moved to the new category.
The forum rules should be 1 topic per member at a time. If a member spams his own maps at the same time he can be simply banned to access "premuim maps" forum. The same goes to members who post false reviews and stuff.
It's simple and possible on v4 without any coding. Let's give it a try.
2)MA's idea for improving the Map Reviews.Ok, here is the plan.
We create a new forum called "premium maps". This is where people will nominate maps for premium status.
Assign 3+ DLDB keepers or people who has access to DLDB CP to moderate the new forum. These should be the most trusted and fair keepers.
Now when we have a forum, we create a new category in DLDB called "Premium maps". This is where all the good maps will be placed.
People will nominate a map by posting a topic(poll) in the new forum. When posting the map you should provide the topic with links to download. And post a good description about the map. Like in showcase.
Members will post reviews and discuss either the map should or should not be in "premium maps" category. The poll is to count the total possitive and negative votes.
To get this premium status, map will have to get certain amount of possitive votes, like 10 or 20. And a number of good references and reviews. Good grounded reviews will count more than just yes or no.
The keepers assigned to "premium maps" forum will have to read these topics and accept or denie premium status to the map. Once a map is accepted it will be moved to the new category.
The forum rules should be 1 topic per member at a time. If a member spams his own maps at the same time he can be simply banned to access "premuim maps" forum. The same goes to members who post false reviews and stuff.
It's simple and possible on v4 without any coding. Let's give it a try.
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy)
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.
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.
3)Moose's Idea of combining parts of 1 and 2, and with mineral benefits.
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707)
Then just post a topic in StarEdit Related... "What is a good RPG map?" or something.
Anyway, here's how I'm envisioning a system:
1. Any registered member can write a review for a map and give it an overall rating of one through ten.
2. Some review rater takes a look at the review to decide if it is valid. He can either delete the review or accept it. 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?
3. Once a map gets two or three reviews it becomes eligible for "premium" status, but it must have an average rating by the reviewers of at least seven or eight. Then somewhere there's a big fat list of all these maps.
Anyway, here's how I'm envisioning a system:
1. Any registered member can write a review for a map and give it an overall rating of one through ten.
2. Some review rater takes a look at the review to decide if it is valid. He can either delete the review or accept it. 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?
3. Once a map gets two or three reviews it becomes eligible for "premium" status, but it must have an average rating by the reviewers of at least seven or eight. Then somewhere there's a big fat list of all these maps.
The public (in particular, Battle.Net) doesn't really judge a map's quality by its quality level. They determine it by its replayability, game balance, and fun. No amount of "Premium Maps" or good reviews can change this (Battle.Net has been corrupted for a long time), it will only promote elitism and eventually heavily change the ways that SeN does in mapmaking: "Not for fun, but for fame." Nobody cares who makes the map (usually). Unless we actually get paid real money (or tons of minerals), I see this as a waste of time.
All three have their good points too, though IMO, all we need is the Map Spotlight and the Recommend & Reviews Forum/Map Reviews active again.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-06 at 12:00:52
KEKEKE, nothing is good enough for perfect tux, moose, MA...
Public is bunch of popularity retards.
Judges are corrupted elitist detestable human beinges.
People are to lazy to write good reviews.
Premium maps kill the database.
Can't even define what a good map is.
The only solution is to do nothing and keep sinking into lazyness...
Public is bunch of popularity retards.
Judges are corrupted elitist detestable human beinges.
People are to lazy to write good reviews.
Premium maps kill the database.
Can't even define what a good map is.
The only solution is to do nothing and keep sinking into lazyness...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-09-06 at 17:33:20
QUOTE(DEAD @ Sep 6 2006, 11:00 AM)
The only solution is to do nothing and keep sinking into lazyness...
[right][snapback]556476[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]556476[/snapback][/right]
This is sort of what i wanted in the first place. We're not missing out on any good maps as of the moment aren't we?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-09-06 at 17:35:07
How can we be sure? 
Supposedly the biggest positive of this is to get excellent yet lesser known maps more exposure.
Supposedly the biggest positive of this is to get excellent yet lesser known maps more exposure.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-07 at 12:19:10
Minimoose, you're still for the "v5" idea ?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-09-07 at 12:24:38
v5 ideas aren't real. All the things told to "wait till v5" are just theory. Nobody is making anything of that onto v5 now. I doubt that IP will either.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-09-07 at 13:29:59
I know, that's why I'm asking - does the idea of premium maps has a chance, or it's all decided.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-09-07 at 13:52:44
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707)
No