Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/19/03 04:51 PM, ParagonX9 wrote:

WOW!!! TODAY IS THE DAY THAT I'VE REACHED THE
PLATINUM MP3 with 'Danger Ahead'!!!!

Congratulations.

At 7/9/03 02:03 PM, TomFulp wrote:

You have probably noticed by now that we updated the Portal frontpage! Big up to Stamper once again! What are your thoughts?

I'm already feeling a tad nostalgic for the school bus
but the new flash is good in its own right.

At 7/2/03 04:53 PM, TomFulp wrote: Once the new frontpage has been launched, respond to this thread with your comments! What do you think of the new look? It is our first overhaul in a long time now!

It's nice. Definitely more techno than what it was
this morning. Kudos to the designer.

Here's a question for those who know more than i do:

right now there's something in the portal called
sound track 1.1
Basically, it's an entire, commercial rock CD that's
been converted to a graphic format. It's not a stolen
flash movie so far as i know, but it seems to me to
be a copyright infringement as for as the music is
concerned.
Soooo....does one blow the whistle on it or not?

waiting to be enlightened,
mortalcoil

At 6/20/03 10:01 AM, jake-jeckel wrote: but i havent blow the whistle and my whistle is garbage whys that????

That implies that the whistle level is determined
by more than whether someone blows the whistle.

So i'm guessing that either you wrote reviews that
somebody considers 'abusive' and/or "whistle level" is
at least in part determined by the way you vote on
new movies. I seem to recall one of the Fulp brothers
mentioning that there is a "shit list" for people who,
in somebody's opinion, blams too many movies. People
on the shit list forfeit the experience points they
would have otherwise accumulated. I'm not entirely
sure how it works (and i don't believe it's ever been
fully explained), but the gist of what i was reading
is that they wished they could find a better way to
penalize people who blam alot. My guess is that the
whistle rating is an attempt to find another way to
penalize the blammers. But like i say, it's a guess-
i don't know for sure.

Anyone else out there who has never blown the whistle
but has a "garbage" rating?

At 6/19/03 09:17 PM, gfoxcook wrote: It takes more than one user blowing the whistle to IMMEDIATELY take down the movie (so that a page that says the movie has been removed pops up instead of the movie info).

Thanks for the clarification.

That is what Joe is complaining about. Quite often, one whistle may happen on a movie, but the movie is still there, no one else whistles it, and it gets protected.

But...don't the administrators review a
movie that's been flagged when they *do* get online?
Isn't there a queue for flagged movies? Even after a
movie has passed the judgement phase and becomes a
rated movie in the portal, i don't understand why it
is a moderator can't remove a flagged movie that is
stolen or hardcore porn or otherwise clearly verboten.

Does the flag get erased when the automated passage
out of being 'in judgement' occurs?

At 6/20/03 01:39 AM, Recon_Rebel wrote:

Hahaha! Wasn't it garbage day today? Hey Hycran, I believe you can also lose points for marking a review abusive that doesn't get removed.

So in other words, one gets penalized if one's
opinion about a review doesn't match the
administrator's? IF that's the case, it might be nice
to see a webpage that clearly outlines what is and is
not considered an abusive review....just so people
don't waste an administrator's time by flagging
reviews inappropriately.

At 6/19/03 08:52 PM, Newgrundling wrote: - but how is a "helpful" review established?

My guess is that a "helpful" review makes suggestions
as to how to make a better movie- things to do
differently- and that it would not have any
ad hominem attacks in it.

Does this sound reasonable?

At 6/19/03 08:00 PM, TheJoe324 wrote:

Yeah, That has happened a lot before, I'd see something that is stolen, KNOW its stolen, have a link to where they stole it from, tell other people to blow the whistle after giving them the link, and not enough people do so it gets past judgement.

Ummm....if *you* know it's stolen and know the link to
the site it was stolen from, why don't *you* blow the
whistle? It only takes one flag on the movie to have
the administrators review it. Or so i'm told.

At 5/30/03 10:01 AM, TomFulp wrote:

Sorry I have been so quiet lately... I just moved back from Atlanta to Philadelphia. Driving a UHAUL for 14 hours SUCKS!

At least you didn't have to drive it from central
Illinois to Northern California. That took me 4-5
days...with nobody to share the driving. Glad you
made it to Philly in one piece.

It's great that Jim the Cat is going to be on TV.

At 5/24/03 03:27 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/23/03 11:53 PM, TheShrike wrote:
What if there were an option to mark the content "unrelated", and authors who got enough of these "unrelated" marks would be barred from responding to requests?

What do you think about that? Too complicated? Or can it be done?

See, that's a big problem here! Each time something requires people to use it wisely (voting, posting, reviewing), we need rules to prevent abuse. I'd be all for that! Auto-ban them for a whole damn month!

And that's part of why i think it would be more useful
to thoroughly catagorize material than to set up a
voting/reviewing system. That way, people would have
a (hopefully) easier time finding what they're looking
for, rather than relying on other peoples' tastes.

Perhaps the purpose of the audio portal would need
to be more clearly defined. My impression has been
that it serves as a repository of royalty-free sound
files that flash animators can use in their creations.
AS SUCH, the goal would be to make it easier for the
animators to find sound files that would work well
with what they are creating, and the animator would
have a much better idea as to what he/she is looking
for than anyone else unless the animator was very
articulate as to what was wanted, and then you have
to assume that the people who respond to the
request of the animator really understand what is
being asked for. I'm deliberately not even considering
the cases where someone lamely recommends their own
sound files, regardless of whether they are relevant
to what the animator wants. My point is that even
with good intentions on both sides, it's still possible
to not find what one wants if one has to rely on what
other people *think* the animator wants.

If, on the other hand,
the purpose of the audio portal is to give people a
place to showcase their audio creations and share them
with other people for their own sake (much like the
flash portal), then, yes, it might be more appropriate
to set up a rating/voting/review system. About the
only think i can think of that would merit blamming,
though, are the files that are so muddy that they make
AM radio sound like state of the art by comparison.

At 5/23/03 07:46 PM, StrongBad84 wrote: Sounds great. I am kinda wondering what will you do to screen out to many requests about non specific things. like:

"I want some good music"

An introductory paragraph that points out that what
you ask for is what you get would be in order.
Granted, the person asking for input may not agree
that a given file is "good music", but if a person
*wants* specific criteria to be met then the criterion
should be specified, and a person shouldn't gripe if a
request like the one above doesn't yield anything
he/she likes.

At 5/21/03 11:31 AM, TomFulp wrote: James is working on a review system for the Audio Portal, so you can actually write reviews for the loops you download. As far as score criteria, does anyone have suggestions?

It's difficult to say what would be appropriate.
A ten second loop that might sound very tedious if a
reviewer listened to it repeatedly might be the
perfect sound bite for certain segments of a movie.

Rather than scoring a loop, it might be more useful to
further catagorize loops by their qualities (e.g., beats per minute, done in a minor/major scale, etc.).