Staredit Network

Disclaimer: Sorry I hate writing bigass posts in the middle of multipage threads (they tend not to get read). Plus I have a few new ideas here that we should probably look into seperately anyway. Feel free to merge this if you mods think it's necessary, though.



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:

1. 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.
   .
2. 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.
   .
3. 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.
   .
4. 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).
   .
5. 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.
   .
6. 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.
   .
7. 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.

I'll have to agree with tuxedo about 90% of it ^_^ other 10% most likely me doing that crap lol ^_^

I like solution 3 quite a bit (and not only because I suggested the representation idea).

Solution 1 relies more on complexities being better when really you can have a great simple map. Its a good idea, but that would mean people would have to make everything more complex than it needs to be to even be considered.

Solution 2 is great, though I don't see how that affects the "premium maps" idea. It would be nice to have those links anyway, regardless of whether or not they're "premium."

Oh and if "karma" was brought back, then the "peer reputation" wouldn't be hard to pull off.

Nice idea. And most of its true. If people see a map with a bad rating, well, uh they ignore it. Also, a map may be good, but the quality can suck. Such as a good idea and gameplay, but everything else doesn't fit properly.

Anyway, I agree with ya. (Didn't read number three. Just woke up >.>')

This solves nothing actually.

#1, a rarher simple but orriginal map can be way more "premium" than a complex map.

#2, I don't how it's related to the problem. But I usually do it.

#3, I think that map author should not matter at all.

Bah, it's really public that determinates either the map is premium or not. There are complex maps that are really crap. As well as known mapmakers sometimes make crappy maps. Public doesn't forgive flaws in maps that the "judges" might forgive. And premium maps can't have those flaws.

So we will end up letting public to vote anyway. If you want it all to be fair.

Or we can just let moose lead all the show. This way we will have a place wehere we can download maps made by certain people. Like fictional "premium" maps.

So if you are a bad rated member, how could you ever get to be a good rated member?

I think that's where the original "karma" idea would kick in. The more helpful and meaningful posts you make, the greater your reputation grows. So theoretically you could be an ass for a long time and have a bad rep, then make a complete change and redeem yourself.

I kind of like the review idea, I think we can perfectly combine it with a public vote and a group of judges/ or karma. When a map gets potentiolised (how? no idea yet) a 'review poll' would start. It will not have a standard poll, everyone who wants to vote should write his review about the map. Serious reviews count as a vote, non-serious ones do not.

So who will judge the reviews? Two options:
1) The group of judges do it
2) The Karma system is brought back, you need a specific amount (or %) of Karma for your review to count

If you ask me, it's all the way around. Public has a lot of noobs that are changed by their likes/dislikes.

Bringing back the Karma system and using that as a judging factor seems like the best option...

Maybe (U)Bolt_Head, Tuxedo-Templar, and MillenniumArmy would end up having a lot of premium maps because... they make good maps? Aside from that, I have no idea how you would know what maps I consider good.
Either way... I probably wouldn't want to do it all alone. I don't have time to play through every map in the DLDB, so we'd definitely need some kind of system.
Tux's idea would be a good concept as a whole seperate thing - a Reviews database.

I also think that people should have to demonstrate that they know how to map (well) to become a judge. I think that they tend to be more responsible on this site.

Naw. They shouldn't need prereqs to judge. But having them makes their judgements count more. Or should, at least (as I described above).

Maybe they could code it so that you have to leave a comment in order to vote for the rating. That could reduce the random votes problem significantly.

And that's why the nomination idea came to mind. People would suggest maps that should be considered "Premium" and then the rest is up to those "judges" with any power on the matter. Otherwise we'd need a ton of trusted individuals to go through all 2,000+ maps and pick whihc ones would need to shown off - not including those maps that aren't even on SEN already.

Maybe have a system for the reviews that's similar to posting, i.e. minerals.

Have a report system and such, so that if someone has a review that says "lol" or has a whole page full of them they get deleted, minerals, participation and reputation should be displayed. If you post spam, then you should lose minerals and reputation.

A better review system would help because one person gave my map a 2 star, and noone will dl it.

We could have reviews.... and review reviewers (talk about redundancy)... and well written reviews would earn you some minerals.

I seriously doubt anyone cares about the "ratings" for each map. I know I never look at them, at least.


Though redundant, it seems like the best option. Hey what ever happened to the reviews anyway? I noticed that the "reviewers" either got lazy or just stopped caring to review maps altogether.

I would be willing to write reviews, if it ever happened.

There should definitely be a public review system like GameFAQs.

My review of MillenniumArmy:

He makes good eggs. And he has the best face 3v4r!

Then ofcourse, someone would have to review me.

---

Would'nt the best solution just be HAVING THE DLDB KEEPERS DECIDE WHICH MAPS ARE QUALITY.

Wiki-like reviews would be cool then, in that case. What if each map had its own review page that could be edited to include new reviews and such. Though now I think this is turning from a discussion on "Premium Maps" to a discussion on effectively reviewing maps.


We should bring back the original "Map Spotlight" then. Its nice that its used for the monthly contests, but it should be updated weekly by the DLDB keepers (or some one else).

Reviews isn't just about facts and things. It is also about things like atomsphere, gameplay and storyline which everyone experiences differently, etc.

Agreed, I think it would be a great idea if the Map Spotlight would be updated more frequently.

About the reviewers thing. While it may or may not have something to do with my Premium Map suggestion, I still think it is a good idea to support and encourage people to write reviews by rewarding them. Having a solid review 'group' will be great I think, thumbs up!

Yeah, reviews are great. I think I even applied to be a reviewer here on SEN for the "reviews section" but needless to say, never got the job.

Maybe if the review section was updated more frequently as well, that would be nice. Do we need new reviewers? It may just be me but from the look of it, MA isn't very active with his reviews per se.

Actually, according to the reviews system thing, no one's requested a review in a long, long time.