Review Type Preference Selector in Map Submissions

[egabbac]

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this; this is a more technical suggestion that has little to do with the actual server.

Anyways, I would like to suggest a place for mapmakers to put their review style preference. This could be in the map submission post itself or a preference every user could pick in settings. Mapmakers should be able to pick between specific, non-specific, or no preference (maybe decide amongst yourselves what the best wording is). Now I'll explain why this may be beneficial. To put it simply, I do not think any one way of reviewing is the most effective. We all vary with how we handle criticism. Some of us may want more help and others may want more ambiguity. Personally, I do not like reviews with zero wiggle room; I want to be given a problem and be able to find my own way to solve it. If the problem and solution is all there for me I do not think I would be as satisfied with the final product. However, I understand not everyone likes this approach. I think having these preferences present somewhere is a good way for mapmakers and reviewers to communicate. I also don't see any cons with adding a feature like this. I vaguely remember review preferences being brought up at the board qna and I think this would be a good way to satisfy everyone.

Thanks for considering!

 

[Srentiln]

I like the general premise of the idea, but think it's still in a general thought stage of an idea. Perhaps we can hash out more shape to it. First, we can talk a bit about review styles. You brought up the idea of the "how to fix" aspect of it with a "give me ideas" or "let me figure it out" sides of it. How about the "how I respond" aspect? A map review needs to be able to be harsh if the map status justifies it, so do we want to go with "I am easily discouraged" and "criticism motivates me"? Is there a better form to convey these extremes of that spectrum? Are there other aspects to it that could have a spectrum that should be considered?

 

[zhar]

I think it should be added as another box to fill out along with 'Map Description' and 'Map Goals' maybe called something like "How would you prefer your map be reviewed?". Possibly with some subtext telling creators to let board know if they would prefer more specific feedback or more open ended feedback in the reviews. (very scuffed example of what I mean attached)

 

[egabbac]

I like the general premise of the idea, but think it's still in a general thought stage of an idea. Perhaps we can hash out more shape to it. First, we can talk a bit about review styles. You brought up the idea of the "how to fix" aspect of it with a "give me ideas" or "let me figure it out" sides of it. How about the "how I respond" aspect? A map review needs to be able to be harsh if the map status justifies it, so do we want to go with "I am easily discouraged" and "criticism motivates me"? Is there a better form to convey these extremes of that spectrum? Are there other aspects to it that could have a spectrum that should be considered?

Knowing as much about a mapmaker as possible is very beneficial and I didn't consider other pertinent "meta" information that could be listed in map submissions. This is especially helpful for newer greenies/mapmakers. As for the "how I respond" aspect, I'm not sure that is something that could be solved with a selector or short response box. I think most harsh criticism could be structured to avoid discouraging mapmakers. However, if Board wants to have that information to help set the tone of their reviews, then I think having a scale (maybe 1-5, from "I'm easily discouraged" to "criticism motivates me") for that spectrum would be more effective. Also, for senior mapmakers I think an option to have your preferences automatically set would be good.

As for other spectrums, I'm not sure. I remember mediums for reviews also being brought up in the qna so maybe the medium in which you receive your review could be considered? Like "I would like to voice chat with my reviewer" or "I would like to play through the map with my reviewer" or something else. I don't exactly remember what all was said at the qna so I'm not sure of everything that would be beneficial for the community here. I know @emmdrews took notes at the qna and I'm not sure if those are public yet so I'd appreciate if you could mention anything that would fit here.

I also like zhar's mock-up of what this could look like, thank you for making it

 

[leolazuli]

This was a suggestion that I brought up in the QnA so I’m stoked that this is being discussed again!

Really love Zhar’s mockup where mapmakers can give more info about their review preference with a sentence or two in the context of their map, but I believe it could be easily looped into the map goals section and prompted with "specific concerns or elements that you would like addressed in review" etc. The current phrasing of "hope to achieve" and "tune to your intentions" leads to much more vague and open-ended responses, versus directly asking for that information on inspiration and difficulty. It can be argued that the current phrasing also suggests that Board ultimately should yield to the wishes of mapmakers and their visions.

In terms of how reviews are received, maybe some sort of acknowledgement check in the submission post would be nice saying that for maps by new makers and those aiming for high difficulties are already subjected to more critical reviews. Yes, it's in the master post, but having it right there as a reminder sets the tone at the beginning of the process. It seems more likely than not that these 2 categories of map submissions are the ones that have issues in terms of clashing expectations of maker/Board.

The spectrum idea I love because who knows how many people have gone through a lot of critique before submitting a map here. Adding the "I.." statements is a great way for people to think about how they personally react before submitting if they don't have experience in hearing feedback like this. Not sure how many people would openly admit that they are easily discouraged, so scale could be something along the lines of "I take criticism personally" to "criticism motivates me".

One consequence of this is I'm sure is that most mapmakers would love to be more involved and VC and run maps with reviewers, but that means one thing: Board is more involved. With Board being volunteers and having their own workloads outside, if they knew that a mapmaker wants more detailed reviews before claiming the map, I believe that is a great way to avoid delays or miscommunication during the whole process.

 

[Srentiln]

I think an option to have your preferences automatically set would be good.

Would have to get @Chillers to verify, but I'm not sure that is possible within the framework of the forum system. It is something I *think* I know how to do in a custom forum build, but an off-the-shelf system usually is fairly limited in how you can customize it on the backend without breaking things.

~~~~~~~~~

This was a suggestion that I brought up in the QnA

Please don't hesitate to post them here for better visibility! While there are staff members participating in board, it's easy for these ideas to get lost in all the information needing to be tracked in a voice chat setting. Starting a thread here (maybe saying something along the lines of "I brought this up in the <event> but wanted to make it more visible") makes sure more of us are likely to see it. I know when I see a suggestion I like, I make sure it gets more staff visibility so that we can begin discussing if it is something we have the capacity to implement.

maps by new makers and those aiming for high difficulties are already subjected to more critical reviews

I see the section that talks about higher difficulty maps receiving more criteria to be met, but I am not seeing the section you are referring to that specifies new map creators receive extra criticism. Would you mind pointing it out (the number of times I walk past an item I'm looking for at a store before asking an associate for help and they point to it in front of me...)? This should not be the case, as the only difference between a new map maker and an experienced one *should* be their familiarity with the board process, leading to the experienced creator having a smoother process as a result of them knowing what to expect. Maybe a link to a pop-out window to a not-required "submission checklist" to make sure they have the information to make sure they have the information?

With Board being volunteers and having their own workloads outside

That is, unfortunately, the biggest bottleneck in the board process. It is much better than the initial iteration of the idea where the maps were placed on a board at Fairville and staff would review them when we finally noticed a new one was there (and we had zero standardization, so we required many reviews to be compared to each other, which could take several months), but between life taking priority and randomly loosing board members the review delays only get worse. I fear that requests for VC review would lead to more delay (so maybe add that disclaimer with that option?) since it makes it require more schedule alignment to achieve. requesting to be there for the reviewer run I see as more doable, as people typically can play more often than they can VC.

 

[Chillers]

The choices can be manually selected on the form and can just be checkboxes if it makes it easier, i'm happy to add this option however it would require board and staff signoff. It would be nice to hear people weigh in on this if they feel it's a necessary addition.

 

[Srentiln]

The choices can be manually selected on the form and can just be checkboxes if it makes it easier, i'm happy to add this option however it would require board and staff signoff. It would be nice to hear people weigh in on this if they feel it's a necessary addition.

but could default replies to the form be set per-user?

 

[Chillers]

but could default replies to the form be set per-user?

Not saying it's impossible but it's unlikely. Whats the benefit of having it permanently set when you can select your preference in the form on each instance?

 

[egabbac]

Not saying it's impossible but it's unlikely. Whats the benefit of having it permanently set when you can select your preference in the form on each instance?

Sort of just a QoL thing for people who've already submitted maps before so they don't have to re-check them every time. Definitely not necessary.

~~

ill respond to everything else either later tonight or tomorrow. i just got back from college and I'm a little occupied today !!

 

[leolazuli]

Please don't hesitate to post them here for better visibility!

Yeah I didn't do this because I had been a greenie for approx. 2 weeks before the QnA lol. My voice on the matter wasn't really developed enough to share strong opinions about the board process, and also my map had not gone through the full review process at that point. But now I'm involved enough to follow through with these things.

I am not seeing the section you are referring to that specifies new map creators receive extra criticism.

My wording on this definitely wasn't the best. The Master Post has the written section about red+ maps which I referred to, but the point I was making about new makers is definitely done in practice, despite not being stated outright. Maybe not more critical per se, but for sure a more involved process by Board to get a feel for who people as creators and make sure new makers know the standard practices. This can be negatively interpreted by someone unfamiliar to the process despite good intentions by Board. The Master Post, Map Model, and Comprehensive Guide, etc are all very long pieces of text where it's easy to miss requirements so it can feel like throwing the book at a helpless child. I think reviews for maps by new creators should automatically fall into more suggestion-based comments and asking the creator clarifying questions before moving the process along. I think if more of a discussion was held publicly on the submission post before setting a map to Altering/Reworking/Denied it would take away any doubts that those decisions were made in haste.

Again, it's unfortunate that the QnA doesn't have a transcript but the short section that discussed new makers didn't go far past the lines of "don't be scared to submit maps" and "be more involved". Those definitely don't give off the most welcoming energy which again results in the maker's expectation that if their map isn't 100% polished and fool-proof it will be scrutinized.

--
Balancing expectations in these cases when maps, creators, and board members all vary greatly is an impossible task. At least having a checklist or more in depth prompts in the submission posts would provide the missing information to Board that will make their jobs easier, and also give the creator assurance that their preference is being taken into account before the map is claimed.