Be a Supporter!

Under Judgment Voting

  • 16,573 Views
  • 251 Replies
Respond to this Topic
WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:34:24 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:25 PM, Iscrulz wrote: Yes now everyone knows about it. pieoncar estimated the amount of delay pretty well. I think since the expeaction of what a good flash is has been raised due current events (professional awards etc) You will still see o.k. flash being blammed, because of this.

Man, I have seen some idiotic statements, but this one is really dumb. Just because we are giving out awards to good Flash doesn't mean people should start blamming anything that isn't incredibly good.


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
Tremour
Tremour
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:37:55 Reply

It's always nice to see you combat the scourage that is unfair voting. Go you, Cruasader Wade.

No, seriously though, more could be done. For one, you could hide the fact that the author has made any other flash. Some people just look down and go "Oh, this guy has gotten [x] flashes past judgement, he must be good, I guess I'll vote high" and vice-versa for people with a grand total of, wait for it, 0 submissions. Another thing you could do is disable access to the author's profile during judgement, as it contains the battling average (or lack of) of the author. Hell, if you wanted to go the whole hog, you could remove all details completely, including the authors name. Only the movie and voting panel would be displayed, meaning there would be no prejudice, what so ever. Well, apart from the preloader.


FUCK

BBS Signature
CreateAndDestroy
CreateAndDestroy
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:41:07 Reply

If anything, this should get more movies protected.

I see a lot of damn good movies get blammed because of a small/very large filesize. This way, authors finally get a chance to be rated fairly and no-one should disagree with that.

New authors especially, they get their movies blammed on the basis of them just being new.

The-Kritic
The-Kritic
  • Member since: Mar. 11, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:41:50 Reply

This prevents me from voting 0 on crap movies that are made to be like 80-100k size. So this could be for some, good and some bad. Like someone makes a movie like 60k I can't immidatly vote 0 on it. about the voting zero on specific authors I don't do that even if its an artist I absoutly HATE. though if this can help the portal keep from over spamming and not thinking about voting on movies I'm alright with this! (Although you might wanna tinker with the times!)

Xeniar
Xeniar
  • Member since: Sep. 27, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:42:17 Reply

That is a good idea because some people try to just vote without looking at the movie, now though, they'll have to wait and while they wait, they'll probably say, "Ah what the hell, I minus will just watch it if I waited this long." Great job! ^___^

( 5

Running up that hill....
": ( number goes here"

BBS Signature
WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:43:24 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:28 PM, -Manic- wrote: IVe just noticed a problem with this system though. With some of the movies I justw atche din the portal that wer eundejudgment the movie was still loading but the BAr had appeared so it might not be as effective as you want it to be :-\ if it does this. It might just be my pc though.

The timer is based on the file size, not your connection, or how much of the entry has loaded. Unfortunately this is the only way we can pull this off at the moment. So if you're on a crappy 56k connection and it takes you 10 minutes to download a 5MB Flash, of course the vote bar will appear well before the entry has loaded.

However, since more and more people are on high speed broadband connections, we don't want to make them all wait 10 minutes before they can vote because of the people who are still on 56k or worse connections.


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
Tremour
Tremour
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:44:20 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:41 PM, The_Kritic wrote: Like someone makes a movie like 60k I can't immidatly vote 0 on it.)

You shouldn't be voting on anything immediatly, no matter what the size is. Don't be a cockbag.


FUCK

BBS Signature
Xeniar
Xeniar
  • Member since: Sep. 27, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:45:02 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:34 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

Just because we are giving out awards to good Flash doesn't mean people should start blamming anything that isn't incredibly good.

Well, just because people should'nt start blamming anything that is'nt real good, doesn'nt mean that they won't so I guess the guy has a point.

( 5

Running up that hill....
": ( number goes here"

BBS Signature
deckheadtottie
deckheadtottie
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 59
Programmer
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:45:37 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:41 PM, The_Kritic wrote: This prevents me from voting 0 on crap movies that are made to be like 80-100k size. So this could be for some, good and some bad. Like someone makes a movie like 60k I can't immidatly vote 0 on it.

I don't know where to start with what you just said...

Look, if the filesize is only 100k, you only have to wait a second before the voting panel comes up.
And anyway, you shouldn't even be voting zero immediately, you should wait and watch it. Especially if the filesize is only 100k!


#coys

BBS Signature
Headcase88
Headcase88
  • Member since: Jun. 25, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Gamer
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:45:38 Reply

I was thinking it might also be cool to make it so larger submissions require slightly fewer votes before they reach the checkpoints (1,2, and 3). It sucks when a 5mb piece of crap has to go through at least 100 votes even if the first 50 average 0.20. Just thinking of NG's bandwidth ;)

Tri-Nitro-Toluene
Tri-Nitro-Toluene
  • Member since: Jul. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:46:18 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:43 PM, WadeFulp wrote: The timer is based on the file size, not your connection, or how much of the entry has loaded. Unfortunately this is the only way we can pull this off at the moment. So if you're on a crappy 56k connection and it takes you 10 minutes to download a 5MB Flash, of course the vote bar will appear well before the entry has loaded.

It wasn't by much but the bar still appeared whilst the movie was loading but that few secodns could be the chance some IllwillPRess fan or whoeevr wnats to pass a movie just cause of the author or whatever. But hey I appreciate that you can't do everything.

However, since more and more people are on high speed broadband connections, we don't want to make them all wait 10 minutes before they can vote because of the people who are still on 56k or worse connections.

Fair enough. im actually on Broadband its just i noticed this and thought it might be worth mentioning seeing as it could be a factor in how effective it is overall.

WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:46:27 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:37 PM, Tremour wrote: No, seriously though, more could be done. For one, you could hide the fact that the author has made any other flash. Some people just look down and go "Oh, this guy has gotten [x] flashes past judgement, he must be good, I guess I'll vote high" and vice-versa for people with a grand total of, wait for it, 0 submissions. Another thing you could do is disable access to the author's profile during judgement, as it contains the battling average (or lack of) of the author. Hell, if you wanted to go the whole hog, you could remove all details completely, including the authors name. Only the movie and voting panel would be displayed, meaning there would be no prejudice, what so ever. Well, apart from the preloader.

Well, if we hide to much information it makes it impossible for people to figure out if the entry is stolen or not. Hopefully now that people are forced to wait, they won't bother looking at the profile and will just spend the time watching the entry and basing their decision on that.


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
PureLionHeart
PureLionHeart
  • Member since: Jun. 25, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:47:05 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:31 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Some very good entries start off with a silly intro that is supposed to look like crap. If you rushed to vote, you may never watch it long enough to see the great entry that follows the intro.

Well, those are rare(In my experience), but you're right, I've seen 'em. I will admit, I have rushed to vote before(Used to do it a bit too much, long, long ago) but when it comes to stick fights and whatnot, I try to wait for the loop in the animation, as that usually happens with such entries.

On the other hand, some users have been submitting content with a nice preloader and intro, but then it's just a blank screen with a 4-5MB audio file. If people watched a few seconds longer they would have realized it was crap and blammed it, instead of protecting it.

Yeah, I have run a muck of quite a few of them, voted them down, only to see later that they passed Judgement. Hopefully with the new system, this'll change.

People really need to watch through as much as possible.

Definatly agree with you there.


King Of Fighters '98: The Slugfest
"Nothing Is Perfect, Therefore Perfection Is Flawed." - Adam Lewis

BBS Signature
AapoJoki
AapoJoki
  • Member since: Feb. 27, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Gamer
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:47:57 Reply

It's funny. I didn't even realize the change until I saw the thread in the WI/HT? forum. Probably because I'm such an honest voter. =) Well, later I noticed it was pretty obvious when I saw some larger files under judgement.

Here's a nice example of how this works. It was a clock crew submissions, it had three or so authors, all of whom had previous submissions, and the file size was well over one meg. It was utter shit; it only had some flashing images and lasted probably 4 seconds. The score was horribly overrated, but it did get blammed. Had it not been for this new timer, it might have been protected because of the authors' reputation. However, this is just a unique case, so we'll have to see how it works out later on.

I think the delay is a bit too short though. By that, I don't mean I want to wait several minutes for the voting panel to appear. However, if the file size is small, the timer could be set to 2 or 3 seconds per 100kb.

Lord-Sonx
Lord-Sonx
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:48:01 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:19 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

a 5MB entry would result in the vote bar being hidden for about 50 seconds. If the entry is 10k, the vote bar will appear almost instantly after the movie/game window is launched. We may play around and adjust the length of time the vote bar is delayed.

Depends on how long the actual window takes to load.. sometime < on nmy crappy 56k> the mvoie window refuses to load.. and i cna only load 2 movies at once... sometimes it takes ages to load a preloader.. so maybe taking these thigns into accont would help!?

yea, my net sucks so much... i watch the mvoies before voting anyway so i think this system is cool! but what if a movie is 5mb but.. like 10 seoncds long?!

Headcase88
Headcase88
  • Member since: Jun. 25, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Gamer
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:48:01 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:44 PM, Tremour wrote:
At 3/23/05 03:41 PM, The_Kritic wrote: Like someone makes a movie like 60k I can't immidatly vote 0 on it.)
You shouldn't be voting on anything immediatly, no matter what the size is. Don't be a cockbag.

It should also be of note that there are quite a few submissions (especially games) that are great and are greater because of the low filesize. I recall a Kirby game that was like 20kb and a high score.

So yeah... don't be a cockbag.

WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:48:30 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:41 PM, The_Kritic wrote: This prevents me from voting 0 on crap movies that are made to be like 80-100k size. So this could be for some, good and some bad. Like someone makes a movie like 60k I can't immidatly vote 0 on it. about the voting zero on specific authors I don't do that even if its an artist I absoutly HATE. though if this can help the portal keep from over spamming and not thinking about voting on movies I'm alright with this! (Although you might wanna tinker with the times!)

File size should never be a factor in voting. Some people have submitting some very creative Flash in a very small file size. Better Flash artists can pack more into a small file if they properly optimize everything. WATCH THE FUCKING FLASH.


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
CreateAndDestroy
CreateAndDestroy
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:50:15 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:45 PM, GregHead wrote: It sucks when a 5mb piece of crap has to go through at least 100 votes even if the first 50 average 0.20. Just thinking of NG's bandwidth ;)

But you don't know it's shit until you've watch it!

The amount of bandwidth used should still be the same, technically.

carmelhadinosaur
carmelhadinosaur
  • Member since: Jun. 23, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:50:16 Reply

I noticed it as soon as it began!
Eventhough this will sure to help to some, i think that it won't do too much.
I mean, almost all of the submissions, except mass voted ones, have the correct score. But this will help more to make (almost) everyone view the entries :)

I need to submit a flash, a good one finally, but i seems to always stops one and start another O_o


BBS Signature
WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:52:48 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:45 PM, DaSadGirl wrote: Well, just because people should'nt start blamming anything that is'nt real good, doesn'nt mean that they won't so I guess the guy has a point.

Well, I don't think good Flash that was getting protected a few months ago would get blammed today. At least I hope not. I don't think the introduction of cash awards will result in everyone raising their standards. We may see more and more high quality Flash coming in, but that just means more 5's will be handed out. On the "good" Flash that was "good" a few months ago, people will hopefully continue to vote 2, 3, 4, etc.

We want everyone to know we'd rather see more things protected as long as they don't break the rules and aren't obvious crap. If something had some effort and thought put into it it should pass. That's what "2" is for. If you say "This won't win an award" it shouldn't mean you then go vote 0. You want to think "Is this person trying? Does this break any rules? Could this person improve over time?" and you answer Yes, No, and Yes, you should try and protect it.

Many of our great Flash artists had a rough start. It would be a shame if they had been discouraged years ago and quit Flash.


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
TheShrike
TheShrike
  • Member since: Jan. 5, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 39
Gamer
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:54:48 Reply

I've noticed that there seems to be a problem with this new system for Mac users who surf with Safari. The voting panel just never shows up at all. Ever. Even after a long wait. I've observed this under Mac OSX (10.2+), Safari (1.0+).

It works fine in Mozilla and Firefox, just not Safari. This will be blocking a lot of Mac users from voting at all, since Safari is the dominant browser for Mac. It needs a solution.


"A witty quote proves nothing."
~Voltaire

BBS Signature
authenticsimpson
authenticsimpson
  • Member since: Oct. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:55:12 Reply

Thanks Wade. To be honest, I had just started to get a bad habit of voting on stuff before I watched the movie completely, or at least long enough to get a proper vote. Well now I should be voting on stuff correctly now.

FatherVenom
FatherVenom
  • Member since: Feb. 21, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 15:56:07 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:28 PM, WadeFulp wrote: I'm a little late huh?

Chill. It was a statement of fact not meant to be invective.

Maybe we didn't want to make an official announcement until we had some feedback from the regulars.

Ok. Fine.

So I can't make a front page post to inform a larger % of our audience about a new feature because someone else already posted about it on our forums where a very, VERY, small % of our audience may read about it?

Um, I thanked you for doing that? Seriously man, what's the deal. One innocent comment further defined based on tone and intent by following statements and you jump on me for the first one? Bah, whatever. I'm chastised for something I didn't do and I'll just leave it. It's not cool, but you're the boss.

NewtDawg
NewtDawg
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:01:42 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:19 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

:: We still have problems with people not watching new content

Wade i hear ya buddy, just yesterday i watched some stupid movie that was really nothing at all. i voted to blam it but it survived. i can't recall the title of it but the authour wrote in their comments:

"This passed.
You people don't watch movies.
AHHAHAHAH"

the author didn't even think it should have made it, i watched the movie, i blammed it i believe i deserved the blam point. i could just be mad because i'm only getting started and have so few. but still. watch the damn movies. we don't need anymore useless crap. make room for the quality shit

dustyh
dustyh
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:07:36 Reply

this is a GREAT idea. maybe more flashes deserving acceptance to the portal will make it now.

Maus
Maus
  • Member since: Apr. 22, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:14:35 Reply

A 5MB flash that is a piece of shit will easily be blammed because people will grow more and more pissed waiting for the vote bar to load. Perhaps it will teach that optimising your audio is important. A 1MB flash that is rad will be saved, because people will be forced to actually watch part of it. So I see no problems.

Hooray for change!

bakaman93
bakaman93
  • Member since: Oct. 24, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:15:45 Reply

Hmm. That is a very good idea.

WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:23:25 Reply

At 3/23/05 03:56 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Um, I thanked you for doing that? Seriously man, what's the deal. One innocent comment further defined based on tone and intent by following statements and you jump on me for the first one? Bah, whatever. I'm chastised for something I didn't do and I'll just leave it. It's not cool, but you're the boss.

"You're a little late. There have been some threads on this already, but thanks for making it prominent"

How am I supposed to react to that? You're telling me I'm a little late? If you weren't trying to be a smart ass, you sure came across that way.

For the record I was going to make a post about this feature immediately upon it's release, but I was told to wait to see if any problems developed.

Your statement is kinda like "Thanks for the old news dummy! There are aleady threads about this, so why are you making another one? But thanks anyway, dummy."


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
baconjester
baconjester
  • Member since: Feb. 18, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:24:43 Reply

HOORAY

Zach
Zach
  • Member since: Dec. 4, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Under Judgment Voting 2005-03-23 16:24:48 Reply

Isnt there a way you can use sessions so that when the movie window is opened a session var is set with the current time, then on the vote page it compares the time the var was set to the current time. That could be used for when people deposit as well, to see if people just vote on 5 movies quickly to get the experience