Initial Plans

[Bytor offline]

[TseTse offline]

[Mr Tagomi offline]

Would it be possible to script an option allowing mappers to filter the 'user reviews' their maps get, so they can remove anything they find isn't constructive criticism. Something about '..it's inclusion to the tribes 2 maps vault makes me vomit...' comes to mind. Does anybody else think this is a good idea?

edit: another idea: to prevent llamas from setting up a new account and posting rubbish in the user reviews sections, could you prevent greenhorns from posting? Just a vetting period for a few posts, to prevent people getting a new email adress and being back on the user reviews seciton posting abuse again in five minutes.

any good

[Nycto offline]

For user reviews, there is always the possibility of Metamoderating. As in people post user reviews of the map, and then other people rate the rate the user reviews (Fair, Unfair, Neutral) and those ratings determine how much of an effect that grade has on the overall score.


Yes, blatantly stolen from slashdot.

[Morgoth_Bauglir offline]

[Roy Fokker offline]

[vXKitiaraXv offline]

[Red Five offline]

[Bytor offline]

New IP is often pretty easy too. Even many broadband providers don't give you the same IP for more than a day or so.

As for the metamoderating, I don't think so. It will be a ton of work to set up, and wouldn't really help much. It could still be very abused.

Mr Tagomi, allowing mappers to filter their reviews is way too open to abuse. Unfortunately, many mappers would remove low grades (even if the ratings are well-written and fair) just to get higher on the lists.

However, your idea of only allowing non-greenhorns to rate maps is a good idea. It will prevent non-mappers (people that don't frequent the forums) from leaving ratings though, and I'm not sure I like that.

What do other people think about that idea?

[Hacker[SOW] offline]

Perhaps a shorter Greenhorn period?

Not too much though.

[dr boom offline]

How about a rating system where there is a form that people must fill out (all electronic, like a poll). The form could be divided into sections, much like an actual review. The reviewer could give a thumbs up or down to how they think of the map in that area and results are tabulated anonymously and electronically. That way when you look at a map you see (for example) gameplay (thumbs up), style (thumbs down), object placement (thumbs up), etc... The extra work needed and lack of ability to flame may discourage peeps from throwing a bad grade, there would be no personal flames, etc... Just ratings on how a map stands in regard to actual elements of mapping. You could use a percentage system, thumbs up/down, whatever. The point is to make it unappealing to the casual browser to flame/make stupid uninformed comments while still giving them the ability to rate a map if they really want to. They may even learn a little about all the various elements involved by going through a rating form like that.

[Kore offline]

With the greenhorm waiting period deal how about something like this. Have like two classes of ratings. One class would be from those that hang out in the forums a lot, and the other class would be the "greenhorn/just came to rate" types. You would then see three ratings, mapper (I dunno), greenhorn, combined.

This way a mapper could ignore the second rating if they wanted to if they think people are just messing with it. It's possible this could be seen as elitist though which isn't necessarily a good thing.

I dunno, I don't think I'm explaining it very well. I know what I mean but that doesn't help if no one else knows what I mean.

[Roy Fokker offline]

[Bytor offline]

The site will be very accessible to newcomers. Just the rating feature will be reserved for relative regulars.

Kore, I understand what you're describing, but I fear that having multiple ratings from different groups is a little too complex for newcomers to understand "at a glance."

Roy, making sure they downloaded the map is problematic ... I would have to require people to log in before they can download a map, or use a cookie tracking system. That just isn't gonna happen. Also, they could just initiate the download and not finish it, or not install it, or not play it. There's just no reliable way to enforce a "must play the map first" rule.

I'm still leaning towards requiring a minimum word count, after filtering out duplicate words. Another idea, in combination with the minimum words, is a language filter that checks for certain terms like swear words or "crap" or "sucks" etc. These ratings would still be allowed, but they would be flagged for review by a site moderator. If the rating is unfair or just bogus, then it gets deleted.

Dr Boom, I like the idea of multiple categories for the ratings, instead of an overall grade. That, in combination with a textual mini-review with a minimum word count, might work nice.

Let's keep this conversation going ... we're getting some good ideas here.

[vXKitiaraXv offline]