At 1/12/15 09:48 AM, vartan wrote:
Another issue with the whole notion of XP guiding the incentive to review is that after a user hits 10 reviews on a day, or 20 on the weekend, they no longer have any guided incentive to continue reviewing. This also doesn't really cement the incentive to create quality reviews, rather, just reviews. Instead, I think one good idea would be to take a cue from Reddit on this particular issue and make the number or percentage of "People find this review helpful!" votes on a particular review determine the effect of the review on the user's XP and entirely remove the XP cap. The result would be that users would have an inherent incentive to: a) write reviews, but also b) write quality reviews. The total helpful reviews the user makes could be a statistic on their profile as well.
A 'helpful reviews' stat on user profiles sounds like an awesome idea! Just that would be a great incentive. I don't like the idea of not being able to gain EXP by traditional methods though, and users who have previously been active in at least voting might be chased away when there's no longer a simple way to gain EXP. Not everyone has a way or will with words...
At 1/13/15 11:39 PM, RealFaction wrote:
Make a minimum for amount of characters you have to enter like 5 words or something, that'll change that.
...which is the same way I feel about minimum character amounts on reviews. Though I usually don't type very short reviews myself, there are those rare moments when a certain single word seems to suffice; perfectly summarize my views on that submission. And why discourage people from commenting, even if they are just posting single words?
I'm not convinced a character limit would actually make everyone put more effort into their comments. It might cause some people not to comment (even a useless comment is better than no comment IMO), or add arbitrary characters/words to get around the limitation. Like cooooooooooool instead of cool, or, if the limit applies to words rather than characters: coo ooo ooo oool. Could make for some good whistle points fo rizzle, but I think it'd work better without any limitation longer than a few characters. Better reward users if they do something better (like above), than restrict them from doing something in the first place. Is how I reason anyway.
At 1/13/15 10:48 PM, King-Duckford wrote:
Concerns too extensive for quotation.
If the change can be made, and socks kept out of manipulation, than perhaps this is the solution we really do need. By taking out the abusive voters, we can all take scores more seriously, and those that counter vote abusive voters can rest easy. But I fear it could create a more corrupt system than what we currently see.
All very valid points. I do hope bots/alts don't become a big problem with the new system, where they're no longer as easy for regular users to combat...
At 1/15/15 11:08 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:
You should just make "0" votes include a forced review.
So submissions that are usually blammed without much notice would be the ones getting the most reviews all of a sudden? Extensive feedback written for short 1 second tests with stick figures waving an arm or a blank screen with a 'VOTE 5 PLZ' scrawled in scribbly pencil text, which disappears along with the submission? Doesn't sound very motivating from a reviewer perspective. Worse case scenario: people would stop voting 0, and such submissions would pass, making the current B/P system completely redundant and flooding the portal with a stream of shitty content! It's a good intention, but I don't see it working very well in practice.
Like think about what a "0" vote actually means. it literally means "this does not belong in the portal".
For something to be rated that absolutely low you'd need a good, constructive reason, otherwise it's just shameless ego-bashing on artists.
Assuming said work is actually being submitted by an aspiring artist, not a troll, spammer, etc.
At 1/19/15 09:40 AM, IvanTuroc wrote:
Now if you could somehow fix it where we could report stolen material again without abuse being a problem. In the portal like old times.
I do miss that feature!
At 1/19/15 01:54 AM, RealFaction wrote:
I hope this doesn't mean votes will be hidden, zero bombers will be all over that :/ I won't be happy till we smoke them out and people stop 5'ing their own songs, this would squash that and bring balance.
Don't mean to counter-comment all your comments here, but personally I do hope votes won't ever start being displayed (unless you leave a review; intend to make it public). Could make people awfully self-conscious of how their voting patterns make them look; make people vote higher per-automatic just so they don't get bashed, etc. Or vice versa, just to get a reaction. Though maybe you mean you hope it won't be hidden from the staff? In that case I'm all for it! They could filter out abuse, find patterns where certain accounts vote high on submissions by certain authors (potential alts), etc.... if they don't already have logs like that hmm. Long as votes don't become a superficial thing it's all good.
At 1/19/15 09:54 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:
Also users should not be allowed to vote on their own entries. I've accidentally zero-bombed my own pieces when I'm clicking too fast. Herp.
With the ability to edit your votes that won't be a problem. :) I've always liked being able to vote on my own work, not trying to get into rankings or anything but I suppose it feels like a quick reward, having a top score if only for a second... with a one vote/user limit it doesn't seem like it'd be possible to abuse either. You're quickly outnumbered by other voters regardless of content form.
At 1/19/15 06:45 PM, CypressDahlia wrote:
Having an Alt account doesn't change your IP address, though.
It's easy to connect via a different IP. Proxies, VPNs, dynamic IPs, separate networks, cellphones, public computers... sooo many possibilities!
At 1/20/15 09:34 AM, CypressDahlia wrote:
These are kind of outlandish scenarios. And those places would only get one vote, too. Even if a person were to use 3 different access points to vote on their own work...it would only amount to 3 permanent votes. And think about the effort you'd have to go through just to make 3 votes. And your friend or brother or whatever probably isn't going to feel penalized for being unable to vote on something on Newgrounds. One person being unable to vote on one submission is not going to ruin a community, but our current voting system if un-changed just might.
The problem here is the people with a motive to abuse the system would probably be the ones with more access points, for example groups of people up-voting their own work, or shovelware developers with small studios/multiple devices/IPs. Least that's the threat I imagine... but I guess as long as the community is active the number of authentic votes should automatically clear out any potential abuse. This one-vote per user system definitely seems less abuse-prone than the current one anyway, all a change for the better.
At 1/15/15 12:43 PM, B1KMusic wrote:
I dunno, what do you guys think of my suggestion(s)?
Sounds good! I'm getting more and more convinced that an edit history with reviews would be the best/easiest way to go about them. Could be it'd be easy to restore revisions for a certain user prior to a certain date if ever their account's compromised too, would solve that potential issue with an option to delete reviews being abused.
As for requiring reviews along with votes, though, I think that'd cause a lot of users to drop out from the voting process, maybe messing up the judgment phase in the process, maybe driving in fewer new users to the site. Better somehow motivate people to write more reviews then force it upon them if they'd rather just press a button, all for freedom; easy of use!