Originally Posted by Spaztic

Actually what I was trying to say is maybe there was some way to specify how much that person did by giving a sort of percentage. Like you have maybe 5 rows, each with two text fields. For each row you put in one box their J2O username and in the other how much they contributed. For instance:

You upload a pack of 3 CTF levels. you made one myself. Bob made another one entirely by himself, and the third was half made by Bob and half by Jim. In the fields I put the following

Bob 49
Jim 16

Bob gets 49 because he made 1 of the 3 levels (33%) and he made 1/2 of another 1 of the 3 levels (33 divided by 2 is 16.5%). 16.5% + 33% is 49.5% and rounded down to 49%.

Jim made 1/2 of 1 of the 3 levels, so he gets 1/2 of 33%, which is 16.5%, rounded down to 16%.

You do not have to specify how much you yourself made because that can be calculated according to the total of above. So 100 - (49 + 16) = 35%. There is of course a margin of error since you are getting 2% extra, but that won't effect your total percentage much.

Now, lets say your average rating is a 6.625 with the following:

8.6
7.5
5.5
4.9

The CTF level pack is uploaded and gets an 8.9. You get 35% of this to help your average. Now is the tricky part, and I'm not sure if this makes sense or anything.

8.6
7.5
5.5
4.9
8.9 (35%)

You add up all the regular whole numbers, and then instead of adding in 8.9, you take 35% of 8.9 and add that in (29.615 is that total). And then, instead of dividing for the average by 5, you take 35% of 1 and add it onto the 4 regular one (4.35 for you geniuses) and use that as a divisor for the total.

29.615 / 4.35 = 6.808

Your average becomes 6.808. It was a 6.625. So logically the higher score of 8.9 increased your rating, but you only got 35% of it so it only increased it very slightly.

I have no idea if this was accurate and haven't really tried to apply it to anything else, but I think it just might work. I really just came up with it on the spot. There are probably errors. Perhaps there is another way to do it. I don't know.

And of course, abuse is still possible. Maybe there could be some sort of validation thing..?

OMG it will not objective!

Just a thought.
If they are good enough to make a good level that would get a good rating, would they be the type who would share the rating with a friend? If someone DOES share a rating, who cares? And I don't think they would, because the layout would show every author.

And pageclaim.

`N0

This is changing the subject slightly, but I don't think it's been mentioned before. FQuist and I were talking this morning and the subject of articles came up. It seems that a lot of bad\non-useful articles are taking up space in the articles section.

One option is to have rating of articles, just like levels. But that poses a problem because it is much harder to rate articles. Do you rate on how well-written it is? How useful it is? How thorough it is? It may be a very informative article but it only applies to some people so others would rate it lower because of that. Or it could be very informative but written by someone who doesn't know English very well, also lowering the rating.

This is why rating of articles isn't a good solution. Something I thought of was instead having an approval process. Unlike levels, articles almost become part of the site content and should all be good. With an approval process, articles would be submitted by anyone but wouldn't automatically appear. They would need to be read by someone on the J2O staff who would evaluate the quality and usefulness, and maybe make minor changes to it.

This way, article clutter would be kept at a minimum, and it would ensure that good articles still get included even if they do not apply to many people or have readability problems while still being informative.

Thoughts?

I think that is a very good idea.

However, the implementation of it might be rather tricky, or at least more work for the j2ov2 team. That's their decision though. For what it's worth, I think that is a good idea.

I also would like to suggest something else. A sort of 'recent updates' side panel thing on the front page, perhaps, that just sort of shows some of the new stuff that has been changed, added. For example, I often don't bother looking at the Articles section because I don't want to sort through them all looking for the newest stuff. It could also have links to downloads that have gotten an 8.0+ rating recently.

That, of course, would be more of a convenience than something essential.

I think Link's idea is a good one. I would like to add a few things:

1. What to do with the old articles? Should we remove the non-top quality ones?
2. If we have an approval process the admins might also get the option to fix grammar/spice up the article layout.
3. We could have "admin approved" articles which show up, with the option to show the other, non-approved(or old and bad) ones also.

Originally Posted by Spaztic

I think that is a very good idea.

However, the implementation of it might be rather tricky, or at least more work for the j2ov2 team. That's their decision though. For what it's worth, I think that is a good idea.

Well, J2Ov2 has a super-moderator-ish user status(called 'newsposter' and 'download admin' sadly) which allows us to appoint special people for it. I have built in options even for a permission system(like, this regular user can edit articles, etc) but it doesn't work yet. It's no priority.

Originally Posted by Spaztic

I also would like to suggest something else. A sort of 'recent updates' side panel thing on the front page, perhaps, that just sort of shows some of the new stuff that has been changed, added. For example, I often don't bother looking at the Articles section because I don't want to sort through them all looking for the newest stuff. It could also have links to downloads that have gotten an 8.0+ rating recently.

That, of course, would be more of a convenience than something essential.

Something like that has been in the work with the 'nodes', the content part of the site(you know, the characters, about, partymode thing). We could adapt it for the other things too. It's has priority though, i'll put it on the wishlist like many other things suggested in this thread.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

If someone DOES share a rating, who cares? And I don't think they would, because the layout would show every author.

`N0

Well, apparently people see the average downloads rating for people as important. I've never thought of that when i added it, it was more like a small gadget, but it almost seems like a 'cult'(bad word for it), so i guess people *would* care about abuse.

Triple post, yay.

Just to give people a small teaser, here's an old changelog for the site:

FQuist

Thursday
Feature:: List reviews is about finished or finished.
Feature:: Added menu to inc.menu.php to accompany NS's great work on the 'Levels' section.
Feature:: Tweaked some things in the 'Party Mode' nodes and menu.

Saturday:
Feature: News archives finished.
Progress: downloads/"List reviews for user
"(listReviews.php) 75% done.

Friday:
Fix: Fixed stupid bug in news/news.php.

(snip)

Wednesday
(snip)

Tuesday
Progress: Worked on news/archives.php

iCeD

Saturday
Feature: Edit Article script is finished and (hopefully) works.
Fix: Fixed categories being displayed multiple times in the articles.

Sunday
Feature: Delete Article script added.

Ok, I have an Idea with a capital "I". Instead of letting just anyone rate uploads, we could have a team of raters who we know will rate the levels fairly. They would give the offical rating to the level, and then there could be the unoffical rating where anyone could rate it and give a comment. That way we don't have the seriously screwed rating problem, where everyone is complaining about how overrated everything is.

I know that Trafton and Violet usealy have a very well put together review, so maybe they could be a part of the team, too. Disguise is very experinced with Tilesets, and, well, just look for the people who reveiw nicely and add them to the team.

I for one wouldn't mind giving up the ability to officialy rate levels in turn for a more fair rating.

Oh, and we need a section to upload JJ1 levels. I have a pack started, and will need a place to upload it soon.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Ok, I have an Idea with a capital "I". Instead of letting just anyone rate uploads, we could have a team of raters who we know will rate the levels fairly. They would give the offical rating to the level, and then there could be the unoffical rating where anyone could rate it and give a comment. That way we don't have the seriously screwed rating problem, where everyone is complaining about how overrated everything is.

I know that Trafton and Violet usealy have a very well put together review, so maybe they could be a part of the team, too. Disguise is very experinced with Tilesets, and, well, just look for the people who reveiw nicely and add them to the team.

I for one wouldn't mind giving up the ability to officialy rate levels in turn for a more fair rating.

Oh, and we need a section to upload JJ1 levels. I have a pack started, and will need a place to upload it soon.

The first idea has been suggested before; the conclusion was that it is simply unfair to chose level raters over others in that manner. The second one is not bad at all.

~ Traft

Well, you could do it like with the articles: "Admin approved" reviewers and n00bs other reviewers, with the options to show both or only the "approved" ones.

Originally Posted by Fl@$h

Well, you could do it like with the articles: "Admin approved" reviewers and n00bs other reviewers, with the options to show both or only the "approved" ones.

This has been suggested many, many, many times before. The problem is, it is not exactly fair for us to decide which reviewers are "approved." That might hurt the feeling of someone who is perhaps not as good with English as someone else.

~ Traft

... how about have a "favorite reviewers" option. Say I liked fquist, trafton and stripe's reviews and nobody elses. I could set it so that only their reviews would show up and the scores would be reflected that way (of course it would display the "true" score simultaenously along with the composite score from fquist traft + stripe)

Yes please. You see, when I upload something I worked on for days I can get quite angry about a review like "lol I suck at rating tilesets i give this an 8 lol". I almost start thinking they are just going for a higher reviewer rank. Wait, maybe they are.

AAANNNNDDD I want voicecontrol.. that i don't need my keyboard : P

or at least that everytime i go to the site a hot bunny says "welcome you ve got 'two' unread messages and '1'review on your latest upload"

and then she walks sexy away mmmmm
nah serious make it possible that you can delet your pictures on your own and not just by the admins..

Originally Posted by SteelTalon

... how about have a "favorite reviewers" option. Say I liked fquist, trafton and stripe's reviews and nobody elses. I could set it so that only their reviews would show up and the scores would be reflected that way (of course it would display the "true" score simultaenously along with the composite score from fquist traft + stripe)

Originally Posted by Fl@$h

Yes please. You see, when I upload something I worked on for days I can get quite angry about a review like "lol I suck at rating tilesets i give this an 8 lol". I almost start thinking they are just going for a higher reviewer rank. Wait, maybe they are.

I think that is reasonable and would probably work. Then, the users could have their own opinions about who their favorite reviewers are.

Originally Posted by mirrow

AAANNNNDDD I want voicecontrol.. that i don't need my keyboard : P

...Probably not. A bit too hard for coding and would take up way too much bandwidth. In fact, I do not think I have ever seen a site that supports that. ;-P

Originally Posted by mirrow

or at least that everytime i go to the site a hot bunny says "welcome you ve got 'two' unread messages and '1'review on your latest upload"

and then she walks sexy away mmmmm

Originally Posted by Reply by Trafton omg

...

Originally Posted by mirrow

nah serious make it possible that you can delet your pictures on your own and not just by the admins..

If the pictures section still exists (questionable), I think that will probably be a feature. Again, if it exists still.

~ Traft

FIX THE LINK TO JCSREF!

I think you can already do that now, even if J2Ov2 isn't finished. The "jcs" button still links to http://www.jazz2online.com/~jcsref while it should be http://www.jazz2online.com/jcsref

Umm...let us update our info? I accidentally entered something that is not *that* public....and whenever I try to edit it, I get a message that the operation failed.

How about letting people rate reviews? Something like "Good" or "Bad", which would affect the influence of that review on the total score. A highly appreciated review would be "worth more" that way, partially solving the problem of over- and underrating.

Originally Posted by Dusk

How about letting people rate reviews? Something like "Good" or "Bad", which would affect the influence of that review on the total score. A highly appreciated review would be "worth more" that way, partially solving the problem of over- and underrating.

Unfortunately, that would seriously influence cheating; additionally, an author could rate a positive review well. Moderating these review ratings would also be extremely difficult.

~ Traft

I gave reviewing some more serious thought and I have an idea which I am particularily fond of right now. I'd like to know what your opinions on this are.

Each review can be commented on by every other person on the site. Along with a comment, it can include a rating something like(good/bad, 1-10, bad/okay/great, justified/not justified) the specifics of that can be worked out later.

Now, the ratings that you get from your comments will not affect the overall score of the level, but the review ratings would affect a reviewer quality number which would always be displayed by your name for download section purposes. This way, everyone would always be able to see their quality and could work towards keeping it high.

Now, along with this, if you get a number of bad reviews for a review of a level and you then later go and edit this review changing the rating and the comments that you gave the person, all of the comments made on your previous review would lose their rating (revert to NA) and those people would be notified that you have changed your rating and that they should re-evaluate your review. It would promote a constant cycle of helpful comments and feedback on reviewing.

That only effects people who care, and I was under the impression the problem was people who don't.

There also may be people who will purposely lower the reviewer's stats (for instance, pretend Violet reviewed someone's level, a sucky overrated level, and gave it a 4.5, while most of the other reviewers, presumably friends of the author of the level, gave it ratings like 7.5 or 8. The author of the level may get frustrated with Violets review because it brought down the rating that he/she will rate it a 1 for being bad. Even though Violet's is the most accurate review, it won't be rated as well because of the low rating it gave towards the level).


I probably confused everyone with this post, but oh well.

Derby: Abused content removal.

Originally Posted by Blackraptor

There also may be people who will purposely lower the reviewer's stats (for instance, pretend Violet reviewed someone's level, a sucky overrated level, and gave it a 4.5, while most of the other reviewers, presumably friends of the author of the level, gave it ratings like 7.5 or 8. The author of the level may get frustrated with Violets review because it brought down the rating that he/she will rate it a 1 for being bad. Even though Violet's is the most accurate review, it won't be rated as well because of the low rating it gave towards the level).


I probably confused everyone with this post, but oh well.

That is basically the same problem I said about it; also, having reviews-for-reviews just sounds weird. I suggested that perhaps there would be a way to give a one-line reason for the rating. The level maker and reviewer could not rate the review. Additionally, reviewer's ratings and reasons are logged for appropriateness. At the bottom, it will display a percent who found it helpful. This will also affect an average in the reviewer's profile, but not the rating. Perhaps an anonymous rating function would be available, that only administration can see the author of. Obviously, these ratings would go by the same rules as any other rating. Also, I suggest on a coding level that there is a control panel where you can see, dated, the latest reviews.

I also have a second suggestion: The date of when a review is posted should be displayed in the review. I'm surprised that no one (at least no one whom I can find) has suggested this previously.

Any suggestions?

~ Traft

Derby: Previous quotation edit.

Trafton: I had already removed the abused content in the quotation.

Maybe allowing people to vote levels, so they don't have to write a review. Those votes can be worth less than a review's rating, but it might make it a little more honest because clicking a button that says "3 - I like it" or something is easier than writing a review.

One vote for each user, not including the author of the level and writing a review would undo your vote.

Just an idea.

No, we are trying to get rid of the ratings without explanation, not make them common and accepted.

Get rid of the "This review has been edited by" message, or make it less... flashy :P It doesn't have to be red.

Originally Posted by Fl@$h

Get rid of the "This review has been edited by" message, or make it less... flashy :P It doesn't have to be red.

I agree. And make the top logo link to the main jcf homepage, not to the forum homepage.

JCF and the forums are the same thing.

Hmmm...they probably meant Jazz2Online.

Instead of private messaging Trafton all the time, I probably should start posting in here. How about making more categories. This would probably making browing the J2O levels section more fun and easier.

--Suggestions--
~Games
~Hotels
~Tests/Puzzles
~The Essential JJ2 Utilites, i.e. 1.23 registered patch, JJ2 uninstall aid
--------------------
How about changing the levels button at the top of the site, to downloads.
--------------------
Adding site music?
--------------------
Delete the dead sections
----------------------
Add more sections like Site Map
------------------------
Maybe somehow making the site allow you to change the theme like this board
------------------------
How adding some Flash to the site?

JCF and the forums are the same thing.

Someone, help me!
As, always, you don't read what im saying. Since JCF is J2O's forum, it should have a link to J2O, just as J2O has a link to JCF

^^^

I think it does, if you change the forum's look to J2O or something. That's a great idea though. I wouldn't really say that this is J20's forum, I don't think anybody thinks of this place like that, I don't. I think of this more as the forum for JJ2. JMMB (Jazz Mega Message Board) was the former JJ2 board, until it died around 3 years ago.

What do you mean when you say site music?

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Adding site music?

NO.

Delete the dead sections

As far as I know, the only dead section is Characters, and it's all done in J2Ov2.

Add more sections like Site Map

What's the point? It's not like there are lots of sub sections - pretty much everything is linked to off of any given page.

Maybe somehow making the site allow you to change the theme like this board

That already exists, though it is broken. Rest assured you will be able to do this in J2Ov2.

How adding some Flash to the site?

Why fix what isn't broken? This discussion has been done before, and nobody could come up with any reasons flash would be needed.

Neo: There's a link to J2O at the bottom of every JCF page.

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

Violet: NO.

Tublear: Apparently you've never heard of STOPPING SITE MUSIC, by pushing te dark SQUARE button..
---
Violet: What's the point? It's not like there are lots of sub sections - pretty much everything is linked to off of any given page.

Tublear: I got that idea from J2C, and if you visit J2C, you would notice the type of sub-sections I mean
---
Violet: Why fix what isn't broken? This discussion has been done before, and nobody could come up with any reasons flash would be needed.

Tublear: What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about things not working when talking about flash. I was simply mentioning it would look cool. For example, Overlord did a hell of a great job with his site. It would attract more people to J2O.

^^^
My feedback in the quote...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally Posted by RSPSS FR

What do you mean when you say site music?

I'm talking about music that can be played with the site, also can be paused-stopped-etc... Like a control panel. THe music can be anything, or can be chosen from a list. Or a radio could be added. Or music that is official or uploaded by people, like the midi's uploaded to J2O.

A JJ music radio station type thing could begin.

Even if the music is stopped, you would still have to load it. While that isn't a problem with people with fast connections like me, it might be for people who don't. Expecially since that kind of stuff is annoying to most people.

EDIT- and it is really pointless to have a radio or something, since those people who want to hear music would most likely have some external music program loaded playing some music that they like.

J2O has, plain and simple, no need for flash. By looking at it, you can see it's not a fancy eyecandy site, anyway - it relies on yellow tables for everything. People who want flash can make their own site or something. And what kind of people would be attracted to a site simply because it has flash? (no offence Fl@sh)

Also, what Risp said.

Originally Posted by RSPSS FR

Even if the music is stopped, you would still have to load it. While that isn't a problem with people with fast connections like me, it might be for people who don't. Expecially since that kind of stuff is annoying to most people.

EDIT- and it is really pointless to have a radio or something, since those people who want to hear music would most likely have some external music program loaded playing some music that they like.

That's not what happens. The music isn't annoying when it comes to loading. If a person had a slow conenction, the music will load slower. Although, it will not have any effect on the loading of the page. The page will still load, and of course faster than the music, but you can still browse the page.

Originally Posted by Violet CLM

J2O has, plain and simple, no need for flash. By looking at it, you can see it's not a fancy eyecandy site, anyway - it relies on yellow tables for everything. People who want flash can make their own site or something. And what kind of people would be attracted to a site simply because it has flash? (no offence Fl@sh)

Also, what Risp said.

Who said anything about flash having to attract people, and stick them only to flash. Unlike DDR which revived arcades, by attracting people to them, and people only playing DDR at arcades (apparently this is what I've heard)..this is different. Flash will more likely than not, and hopefully if people aren't stupid enough, to attrack people to the site, and give them more of an incentive to check out the site.

Basically It's just an advertising thing. And then again, I guess J20 doesn't care about advertising, or it would have a site counter by now,

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Who said anything about flash having to attract people, and stick them only to flash. Unlike DDR which revived arcades, by attracting people to them, and people only playing DDR at arcades (apparently this is what I've heard)..this is different. Flash will more likely than not, and hopefully if people aren't stupid enough, to attrack people to the site, and give them more of an incentive to check out the site.

Basically It's just an advertising thing. And then again, I guess J20 doesn't care about advertising, or it would have a site counter by now,

Your statements here are inaccurate. We want to attract people with content. It may be eye-catching, but the incompatibilities prevent possible viewers and it would require a huge site overhaul.

The advertising statements are odd. Why do we need to advertise? We want to attract people who actually play the game and like it or want to play the game; people who find the site randomly without any friends suggestion and are uninterested in the game will be more likely to abuse it.

We don't use a site counter not because we don't want to advertise (what does a site counter have to do with advertisements?) but because it's ugly and amateurish and I can't think of any need for it. And they break every five minutes, too.

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Instead of private messaging Trafton all the time, I probably should start posting in here. How about making more categories. This would probably making browing the J2O levels section more fun and easier.

--Suggestions--
~Games
~Hotels
~Tests/Puzzles
~The Essential JJ2 Utilites, i.e. 1.23 registered patch, JJ2 uninstall aid

Although I don't think the JJ2 Uninstall Aid is anywhere near an essential utility since the JJ2 uninstall from Add/Remove programs works just fine, I agree and would be glad to see these categories, although I think there will be a seperate "essential downloads" section anyway.

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

How about changing the levels button at the top of the site, to downloads.

This won't even be an issue in J2Ov2. The layout has changed; the buttons aren't there.

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Adding site music?

HOW ABOUT A NICE BAG OF NO?

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Delete the dead sections

Which sections would these be?

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Add more sections like Site Map

Site map? Why?

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

Maybe somehow making the site allow you to change the theme like this board

J2Ov2.

Originally Posted by JJ Tublear

How adding some Flash to the site?

Discussed previously and rejected. I'll try to find the link, but it has been a while.

~ Traft

The last issues were rejected by J2O mods, but here are new issues.

-Ability to delete PMs
-A way that you could review a level more than once, but any additional time over the first review would NOT count toward the review count.

Originally Posted by Trafton

We don't use a site counter not because we don't want to advertise (what does a site counter have to do with advertisements?) but because it's ugly and amateurish and I can't think of any need for it. And they break every five minutes, too.


Although I don't think the JJ2 Uninstall Aid is anywhere near an essential utility since the JJ2 uninstall from Add/Remove programs works just fine, I agree and would be glad to see these categories, although I think there will be a seperate "essential downloads" section anyway.
HOW ABOUT A NICE BAG OF NO?

What you just said, being your bold and italicized statement is amateurish.