Huh? I have suggested a slightly more lenient set of rules in the J2O Admin's Forum. I do my best to improve. Not that it matters; it's not like you get to vote for admins and need to weigh the best candidate choice.

More accurately, it was a misunderstanding, not an accident.

I do not want to sound rude, but I am beginning to believe you are simply pretending to be confused for the purposes of keeping this topic alive and keeping the spotlight on this. What don't you understand? PM me about it unless there is some reason it should be public. This topic deserves death.

The poll isn't going to do anything, no matter where it is. This is the best forum for suggestions, but we can't improve if all that we receive is complaints, not recommendations. If we already knew what was the best method for everything, we would be doing it. However, this has gone way beyond the realm of simple suggestion into the realm of just looking for continued attention.

Thank you.

~ Traft

Warning: The following paragraph will attempt to explain the utterly obvious

What do you mean it did not exist that long ago? The date on the link I provided clearly proves that J2O did exist during the time the review was made. If there was no J2O, how can you write a review for a level that was uploaded to J2O? :cool:

Okay, so back then it was Newspaz who removes poor quality reviews. You said in this thread:

So, now, I know that when you say "repair" you mean, you would leave the reviews that have no use, such as "No Comment" as is, and the only real action you would take is to remove only the ratings.

But, imo, if you wrote a "stupid review," (as you stated) removing the rating and leaving the review as is, does not make the review any less stupid. My recommendation, so that you don't say I just complained, is that when you "repair," you should do something about the "stupid review" itself, not just the rating.

You need to be a J2O Admin and you need to have the special skills needed for mass accidental edits (which even Derby does not have). :lol:

The review is still just as stupid. The repairing part is preventing the review from actually doing anything to the average rating of the upload in question. And Disguise likes seeing old bad reviews, so we just remove the ratings and leave the text (or lack of it).

This topic is getting very confusing, but I think useful discussion can happen. This post is to focus the subject.

There seem to be two discussions happening here. One relating to hypocrisy in edits, and the other relating to review standards. There is no need to continue with the first. People who have problems with Trafton's reviews can talk to him through private messaging.

The second was already discussed previously, but it could possibly continue here. The concern seems to be objective versus subjective reviews.

A subjective review is based on feelings and emotions. For example, "I really liked this level because it was fun when I played it in X's server and it uses my favorite tileset."

An objective review is based on critical analysis: how good it is from a technical perspective. For example, "This level has lots of eyecandy, making full use of Z tileset, and has good flow in a medium-size server but can get crowded at times."

The debate is whether subjective reviews should be allowed to have ratings that affect the average rating. Currently they cannot.

I really hate typing long posts like this. I must stop it.
 

You misunderstand. I was referring to whoever said the review was "three or four years old" (whatever the original quote was.)

No. By repair I mean write good, helpful, informative reviews. Removing the ratings is not the point. Many who knew me well back then that still know me well are quite aware that I have worked very hard to fix the moron I was back then. Rather, to work at fixing it; I am no less moronic than I was back then, but I harness my stupidity and direct it at something, perhaps turning it into a productive element.

As for your suggestion: that's an interesting suggestion indeed, but we don't remove ratings to avoid stupidity. The ratings are removed just because the reviewer doesn't explain themselves enough that it becomes obvious their decision is based on facts, not just some vendetta against the reviewer or a friendship.

The point is not to protect against stupidity, or I would be the one being banned, not being an admin. Rather, it is to make sure no one is cheating on the ratings system and that people who take the time to seriously look at the level and review it get more credibility than someone who just rates someone based on their name.

I recall one day I spent an hour removing 214 reviews from J2O that a certain user had posted, and then deleting twelve accounts he had made to do it. I asked him later why he did it, and he replied "I was bored." I don't like bringing up the "if you don't like it, why don't you do it?" point, which is why I won't. But it's not like we do this job for glory or anything.

The requirements are basically the ability to press an edit button, be at least slightly partial, and show up. The difficult part is not going on an insane banning rampage. ;-P

And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him. Trafton has a problem with Trafton's reviews, especially Trafton of 2001-early 2002's reviews. This is exactly why Trafton wrote 5,000 character reviews daily for several months - because Trafton felt guilty. Once Trafton gets a moment of time, Trafton will be fixing those reviews and never, ever, ever talking in third person ever again.

~ Traft

Then you should have responded to Moonblaze in the first place because he was the one who said:

Long before I made any replies to this thread.

Ah, okay, so I guess this means by repair, you will change reviews that are less than useless (i.e. "No comment" and other extremely short and uninformative reviews like the one danyjel found) to something better.

First, let me clarify, this was my recommendation:

When I said "repair," I was talking about "reparing" your own reviews, not the reviews of others. You already cleared this up though because you said you meant that you will "write good, helpful, informative reviews."

Unknown said that there was an "ACCIDENT" and Ninja asked how 200 levels could accidentally be edited. Ninja's question was not answered by me (as I gave only a senseless reply) but neither was it answered by you. His implied question, to reiterate, is how does one accidentally edit over 200 different levels?

You can't do that unless you are an admin or you are someone who has uploaded 200+ levels under different accounts and created more accounts to create different reviews for each of his\her levels. The former is easier to do than the latter.

So, by saying "And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him." are you using a euphemism to tell people that they shouldn't send you private messages or inform you in any way of the deficiencies of your reviews? Or in layman's terms: "Lay off my reviews?"

Lama: As someone (I forget who) said, the word is more "Misunderstanding" than "Accident". I simply assumed that since removing bad reviews was my job, I should remove bad reviews.

I only don't like that you perceive it only when you have power to delete it...

Danyjel, I no longer have any idea what you're talking about. Try using fewer pronouns.

Unknown Rabbit already correct himself. He misunderstood; it wasn't an "accident." I gather you are nitpicking over the terms.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If you mean something involving reviewing with double accounts, we have IP tracking, yes. I don't know of anyone uploading 200 levels...

No, if I was trying to say "lay off my reviews," I would say "lay off my reviews." I am trying to say that there is no point in contacting me, because I myself am going to edit them back. I have no right to tell other people what they need to do. I meant that as "I can find my own reviews, dislike my older reviews, and plan to edit them back as soon as I can" and nothing more.

~ Traft

I agree with Link. If you want to quibble over word use or if you want to flame eachother you can use private messages. If you want constructive debate this is not the way to do it.

Now, a reply to Link:

That's not my understanding. Well, at least, in the big topic about the subject the debate was mainly about allowing short reviews which don't specify a clear reason for rating vs. only allowing reviews that give clear reasons to stay. In this it was mainly what I call a soft power vs hard power argument: I wanted people to have a lot of freedom in what they did and that allowing those things doesn't mean encouraging them, you can still discourage them using other methods. Derby wanted the things which were not recommendable activity to be disallowed. In short, the argument was: should everything not great be disallowed or only be discouraged?

But the debate, including my posts, seems afterward to be pretty vague to me, I think we kind of stopped looking at eachother's points clearly.

Bobby and me, the main admins, pretty much agreed that admin policy should be more lenient towards reviews that are not really clear. Like things like "I give this level an 8 because the eyecandy is really good" should not be disallowed, just be discouraged. One proposal from Bobby was to have a minimum character amount on reviews, for example 200 chars. (not retroactively of course)

Well in this topic specifically Danyjel seemed concerned about objectivity vs subjectivity. But anyway, I agree with Fquist. Short reviews should be allowed, but detailed ones should be encouraged. J2Ov2 will have a system to encourage detailed reviews.

As for ratings, there are two types: objective and subjective. A level can be rated for its technical merit, or simply how much fun it was to play. Anybody who has played the level could come up with a rating for it. The current system in J2O though is that ratings can only be given if supported by a review.

My thought is that a rating can be just how much someone likes a level. After all, people make levels so that other people can play and enjoy them. How good a level is technically is related to how enjoyable it is, but not directly correlated. Most people use "Will I like this level" as their primary criterion for deciding whether to download it. Allowing ratings based on how much someone liked a level would be a better guide to potential downloaders than ratings based on technicalities. It would also encourage more people to rate levels, giving a more accurate average rating. Using J2Ov2's encouragement system, a secondary average rating could be calculated only from detailed\objective reviews.

It's an interesting point to which I'll probably respond later. It's a good thing to think about - so long as you remind yourself reviews are also there for the author of the level.

[update: I'll respond when schoolwork has calmed down a bit and when I have internet access, too]

How would you respond to me if what I say is different from what I mean?

Still, I am going to take your advice and stop "quibbling over word use" as I realize I will not profit from it anyway. If I want to have a flame war with Trafton, I will do it via private messages. :cool:

But it will not objective when only l33ters will be allowed to do reviews for something...

Who said we wanted that kind of system?

Quite a debate this is, F.Quist devotes all his time posting on the fourms to tis topic. And will never bother to check my topics in this forum I suppose.

so we know our opinions...