Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

I was just reading the somewhat "not really a huge talking point any more but gave me an idea" thread of The Underground Civilisation. What triggered the idea was also the advent of the "distribution coefficient" i.e. that strange symbol which appears near the average user rating (half an Eighth).

How about enforcing someone who votes a "certain distance" from the norm to leave a comment. Could be one particular room, or the general layout but I think it's the harshest/kindest votes which are actually good for feedback and knowing why those votes were cast could help the architect. The comment could always be anonymous of course.

Just a thought.

larrymurk
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1913
Registered: 12-09-2004
IP: Logged

I think most people would agree that the more votes the better AND the more comments the better.

Right now it seems we don't get a real lot of either. I would tend not to go along with your suggestion as it could just add another reason for people not to vote.

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

Good point. Grapevine mentioned rating in-game for TCB so I guess that would solve some issues out anyhows...

agaricus5
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1838
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Syntax wrote:
I was just reading the somewhat "not really a huge talking point any more but gave me an idea" thread of The Underground Civilisation. What triggered the idea was also the advent of the "distribution coefficient" i.e. that strange symbol which appears near the average user rating (half an Eighth).

The symbol is a Greek lower case sigma, and it stands for the standard deviation.

How about enforcing someone who votes a "certain distance" from the norm to leave a comment. Could be one particular room, or the general layout but I think it's the harshest/kindest votes which are actually good for feedback and knowing why those votes were cast could help the architect. The comment could always be anonymous of course.

Hmm.

While this is a nice idea, enforcing comments is restrictive of free speech and choice, I think. What would be a better idea is to allow anonymous comments to be left by anyone who wishes to leave one (the current posting system only allows registered users to comment, and you can't do it anonymously). Of course, Schik should be able to log exactly who has left a comment (via username or IP address) and monitor them or any complaints in order to prevent abuse of the system.

____________________________
Resident Medic/Mycologist

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

I was more thinking of avoiding low votes for reasons other than the hold itself... personality clashes etc

Leaving a comment would reduce the number of these "fake" votes, I think...

[EDIT]

And it could be just as anonymous as the voting itself currently is...

---

[Last edited by Syntax at 11-03-2006 07:01 PM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Do you think that there are more than a handful of totally unjustified votes out there? I know that there are some cases where opinions diverge wildly, but (other than one or two well-publicized cases) do you really think that this is an issue?

And note that in the few cases that I know of that people did vote for what I consider to be illegitimate reasons, they also wanted those reasons to be well-known. Forcing comments will not prevent people who are trying to make some sort of point, since they're likely to be posting anyway. It will prevent silent vandals, but I don't think silent vandalism is really much of an issue.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

jbluestein
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1670
Registered: 12-23-2005
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
It will prevent silent vandals, but I don't think silent vandalism is really much of an issue.

I was tempted to mod you down a bunch and not give any indication why, just for the irony.

But then, well, I agreed with what you were saying.

Foiled again!

____________________________
"Rings and knots of joy and grief, all interlaced and locking." --William Buck

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
Do you think that there are more than a handful of totally unjustified votes out there? I know that there are some cases where opinions diverge wildly, but (other than one or two well-publicized cases) do you really think that this is an issue?

And note that in the few cases that I know of that people did vote for what I consider to be illegitimate reasons, they also wanted those reasons to be well-known. Forcing comments will not prevent people who are trying to make some sort of point, since they're likely to be posting anyway. It will prevent silent vandals, but I don't think silent vandalism is really much of an issue.

I totally agree. Ignore my first post...

Blondbeard
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1486
Registered: 03-31-2005
IP: Logged

Am I the only one who actually think that it's a bad thing to vote for a hold without playing through a large section of it? I would rather see a difficult hold with ten votes from the persons who have played it through than a difficult hold with a hundred votes, where a majority of the voters haven't even compleated the first room. I don't think that "the more votes the better" always applyes.

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

May I chime in here as a new architect who has been affected by this very situation?

Syntax said
. . . but I think it's the harshest/kindest votes which are actually good for feedback and knowing why those votes were cast could help the architect.

I couldn’t agree more with that statement. There is nothing worse in architecture terms than being given a low score and not having any idea why. May I give an example? The first bit of architecture I tried was the maze for Ezlo’s Labyrinth contest. Now I am the first to admit it was not by any means outstanding architecture - I was feeling my way tentatively into unknown software - and I didn’t expect to get anywhere in terms of placing within the contest, but it was fun trying out this completely new skill and I felt that the result wasn’t too bad for a first attempt. However, someone voted “1” for my maze. Now he/she is quite entitled to do that and may well hold the legitimate opinion that my maze was pretty much worthless, but I have no idea to this day WHY he/she thought that. It would have been much more use to me as a novice architect if that person had been required, either by enforcing of a rule, or by obligation of etiquette, to explain to me the reason behind the very low vote. If I don’t know what I have done to deserve such censure, then there is no chance of me being able to correct it.

eytanz said
Do you think that there are more than a handful of totally unjustified votes out there? I know that there are some cases where opinions diverge wildly, but (other than one or two well-publicized cases) do you really think that this is an issue?

Of course it isn’t much of an issue for those not involved, but yes it is for the person on the receiving end, for the reason I have given above. If I have done something wrong in my architecture I would want kindly advice to that effect (Hikari was particularly good at that) not just to be slammed by a very low vote.

It will prevent silent vandals, but I don't think silent vandalism is really much of an issue.

- ditto!

I agree with agaricus that 'enforcing' can come across as a bit heavy handed, but I feel that some way has to be found to encourage low voters (or indeed excessively high voters) to offer some kind of explanation, particularly to new architects who may be rather more vulnerable than established, respected ones.

Elfstone.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

Tahnan
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2459
Registered: 11-14-2005
IP: Logged

Elfstone wrote:
It would have been much more use to me as a novice architect if that person had been required, either by enforcing of a rule, or by obligation of etiquette, to explain to me the reason behind the very low vote. [emphasis added]

Ah, but now there's the rub. I agree 100% that people should be required by obligation of etiquette to comment when their votes are significantly far from the mean--I won't deny that I, too, have been eyeing the fact that someone voted "2" and someone voted "3" for each of my two favorite holds in the current contest (and, OK, one of those holds is mine, but one isn't), and thinking, "Really? But, why?"

But introducing a rule? That I don't think is a good idea. (My general rule of thumb: avoid technological solutions to sociological problems.) I think people should hold doors for other people--it's good etiquette--but I'd hate to see a law requiring it, or worse, police officers ticketing anyone who doesn't.

Similarly here. If someone wants to breach etiquette by voting significantly low without offering explanations or opinions, so be it--they shouldn't, but I don't want to try to implement anything to stop them.

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

Unfortunately, sabotage usually doesn't have much etiquette...

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5064
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

agaricus5 wrote:
While this is a nice idea, enforcing comments is restrictive of free speech and choice, I think.

This is a non-issue. Caravel has no obligation to allow free speech or otherwise doing whatever you want on its forum.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Well, whether or not there is an obligation is one thing. Whether or not it is a good idea is another.

Caravel has no obligation to allow free speech, but it is in the best interests of the Caravel community to allow free speech as the default state, only disallowing it when there is a real need. It seems to me that Wesley raises a valid consideration. Not one that cannot be overridden, but that doesn't make it a non-issue by any means.


____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

agaricus5
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1838
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:

agaricus5 wrote:
While this is a nice idea, enforcing comments is restrictive of free speech and choice, I think.

This is a non-issue. Caravel has no obligation to allow free speech or otherwise doing whatever you want on its forum.

Just for the record, when I said that, I didn't actually mean that Caravel should be obligated to allowing free speech and choice of action. What I meant to say was that...

...enforcing comments is restrictive of free speech and choice, which would have an impact on the way people can vote, and so could cause more inaccuracies than it tidies up.

(I couldn't resist; "the the" is finally getting to me again)

Sorry for the confusi on,

____________________________
Resident Medic/Mycologist

---

[Last edited by agaricus5 at 11-04-2006 03:53 PM]

Kevin_P86
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 535
Registered: 06-28-2005
IP: Logged

It seems to me that if the rater was forced to leave comments, there would be no way to enforce actual comments as opposed to just something to fill up the text box (or whatever it is). In other words, the rater can still choose not to leave any comments.

____________________________
+++++[>+++++<-]>[>+++>++++>+++++<<<-]>.>+.>-------.<++++.+++++.