Changes in The Dink Network's Files and Reviews
I was going to post a news item... but the board seems like a better place, as most of the changes I'm going to detail haven't been started yet.
But I have done the following so far:
* The Rankings page is back up. It updates at least every 24 hours, not every time you view the page.
* The New Files/Reviews box on the main page updates every hour, not every time you view it.
* The File Listings have changed slightly; before there were 4 icons and a file had one icon, and could have no more and no less. Now there are two icons (thanks to SuperWolfman for making them), and a file can have both, one, or none. I also removed the Mirror column from the table, as there are hardly any outside mirrors anymore, and WCNET mirrors virtually everywhere.
* The File Info Pages have also changed; thanks to everyone who commented when I put up the test, I decided to move Links and stuff in the left column and leave only the Screenshots in the right. I also reverted back to the old Review format; I didn't really like the black bar one either.
Upcoming Changes:
* A standardized review scoring system. At first I didn't think this was necessary... but with Uber-Reviewers (like DethLord and imacrazyguy) developing their own scoring systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
7.0 - 8.9 = Good
5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
There will also be a theme with each scoring category; for example, horrible files will have skulls and bones and vines on their file-info-page, whereas Exceptional files will have gold hearts and potions and such.
* A crack-down on files submitted by a Dinker, but created by someone else. Examples include most of the midi packs (with a few exceptions), a couple of the Tile packs, and so on. There are a few possibilities... there might be a 'red-list' tag, where if the file is tagged then the submitter doesn't get any points for the file, but still gets credit. I'm also thinking of just dumping the submitter's names off of the files, putting the true author, and putting 'Submitted by' in the Description or something.
* Highlight good files. I'm trying to think of a way to showcase the best files (9.0 and above) in each files category. I want to make it so when you click on Downloads-D-Mods, the best D-Mods pop-up right away... I did mess with making it automatically sort by rating for a couple hours the other day, but then trilogies and sequels are out of order and such. So I might try some other things.
But I have done the following so far:
* The Rankings page is back up. It updates at least every 24 hours, not every time you view the page.
* The New Files/Reviews box on the main page updates every hour, not every time you view it.
* The File Listings have changed slightly; before there were 4 icons and a file had one icon, and could have no more and no less. Now there are two icons (thanks to SuperWolfman for making them), and a file can have both, one, or none. I also removed the Mirror column from the table, as there are hardly any outside mirrors anymore, and WCNET mirrors virtually everywhere.
* The File Info Pages have also changed; thanks to everyone who commented when I put up the test, I decided to move Links and stuff in the left column and leave only the Screenshots in the right. I also reverted back to the old Review format; I didn't really like the black bar one either.
Upcoming Changes:
* A standardized review scoring system. At first I didn't think this was necessary... but with Uber-Reviewers (like DethLord and imacrazyguy) developing their own scoring systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
7.0 - 8.9 = Good
5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
There will also be a theme with each scoring category; for example, horrible files will have skulls and bones and vines on their file-info-page, whereas Exceptional files will have gold hearts and potions and such.
* A crack-down on files submitted by a Dinker, but created by someone else. Examples include most of the midi packs (with a few exceptions), a couple of the Tile packs, and so on. There are a few possibilities... there might be a 'red-list' tag, where if the file is tagged then the submitter doesn't get any points for the file, but still gets credit. I'm also thinking of just dumping the submitter's names off of the files, putting the true author, and putting 'Submitted by' in the Description or something.
* Highlight good files. I'm trying to think of a way to showcase the best files (9.0 and above) in each files category. I want to make it so when you click on Downloads-D-Mods, the best D-Mods pop-up right away... I did mess with making it automatically sort by rating for a couple hours the other day, but then trilogies and sequels are out of order and such. So I might try some other things.
3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
Not
3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
Not
3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
: 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: Not
: 3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
nice one.. i like the "sull and crossbones" thingy... hmmm....i hope you will still listen to individual opinions tho. and not "ths reveiw is so diffeetn from allt he others, it must be invalidated!!" cos that would be statistically.... wrong
: Not
: 3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
nice one.. i like the "sull and crossbones" thingy... hmmm....i hope you will still listen to individual opinions tho. and not "ths reveiw is so diffeetn from allt he others, it must be invalidated!!" cos that would be statistically.... wrong
systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
: 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
: 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
: systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
: : 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: : 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: : 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: : 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: : 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
: But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?
But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
: : 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: : 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: : 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: : 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: : 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
: But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?
But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
: Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?
: But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
It's good to know that I can still stun with my dazzling vocabulary
How about "fair"? That amounts to danging with faint praise, I'd say, and would fit the score line pretty well.
: But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
It's good to know that I can still stun with my dazzling vocabulary
How about "fair"? That amounts to danging with faint praise, I'd say, and would fit the score line pretty well.
: : systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
: : : 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: : : 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: : : 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: : : 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: : : 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: : Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
: : But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
: Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?
: But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
:
::average = moderate or middling ? >^..^<
: : : 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: : : 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: : : 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: : : 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable
: : : 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: : Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.
: : But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.
: Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?
: But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre. I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.
:
::average = moderate or middling ? >^..^<
: I was going to post a news item... but the board seems like a better place, as most of the changes I'm going to detail haven't been started yet.
: But I have done the following so far:
: * The Rankings page is back up. It updates at least every 24 hours, not every time you view the page.
: * The New Files/Reviews box on the main page updates every hour, not every time you view it.
: * The File Listings have changed slightly; before there were 4 icons and a file had one icon, and could have no more and no less. Now there are two icons (thanks to SuperWolfman for making them), and a file can have both, one, or none. I also removed the Mirror column from the table, as there are hardly any outside mirrors anymore, and WCNET mirrors virtually everywhere.
: * The File Info Pages have also changed; thanks to everyone who commented when I put up the test, I decided to move Links and stuff in the left column and leave only the Screenshots in the right. I also reverted back to the old Review format; I didn't really like the black bar one either.
: Upcoming Changes:
: * A standardized review scoring system. At first I didn't think this was necessary... but with Uber-Reviewers (like DethLord and imacrazyguy) developing their own scoring systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
: 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: 3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
: 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: There will also be a theme with each scoring category; for example, horrible files will have skulls and bones and vines on their file-info-page, whereas Exceptional files will have gold hearts and potions and such.
: * A crack-down on files submitted by a Dinker, but created by someone else. Examples include most of the midi packs (with a few exceptions), a couple of the Tile packs, and so on. There are a few possibilities... there might be a 'red-list' tag, where if the file is tagged then the submitter doesn't get any points for the file, but still gets credit. I'm also thinking of just dumping the submitter's names off of the files, putting the true author, and putting 'Submitted by' in the Description or something.
: * Highlight good files. I'm trying to think of a way to showcase the best files (9.0 and above) in each files category. I want to make it so when you click on Downloads-D-Mods, the best D-Mods pop-up right away... I did mess with making it automatically sort by rating for a couple hours the other day, but then trilogies and sequels are out of order and such. So I might try some other things.
The new "awarded" and "screenshot available" don't work in user information pages yet.
Anyway, i've got a new idea: Reviewing dink sites. you could build that into the links page.
: But I have done the following so far:
: * The Rankings page is back up. It updates at least every 24 hours, not every time you view the page.
: * The New Files/Reviews box on the main page updates every hour, not every time you view it.
: * The File Listings have changed slightly; before there were 4 icons and a file had one icon, and could have no more and no less. Now there are two icons (thanks to SuperWolfman for making them), and a file can have both, one, or none. I also removed the Mirror column from the table, as there are hardly any outside mirrors anymore, and WCNET mirrors virtually everywhere.
: * The File Info Pages have also changed; thanks to everyone who commented when I put up the test, I decided to move Links and stuff in the left column and leave only the Screenshots in the right. I also reverted back to the old Review format; I didn't really like the black bar one either.
: Upcoming Changes:
: * A standardized review scoring system. At first I didn't think this was necessary... but with Uber-Reviewers (like DethLord and imacrazyguy) developing their own scoring systems... I realized that it was. Here is what I have planned:
: 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional
: 7.0 - 8.9 = Good
: 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre
: 3.0 - 2.9 = Tolerable
: 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible
: There will also be a theme with each scoring category; for example, horrible files will have skulls and bones and vines on their file-info-page, whereas Exceptional files will have gold hearts and potions and such.
: * A crack-down on files submitted by a Dinker, but created by someone else. Examples include most of the midi packs (with a few exceptions), a couple of the Tile packs, and so on. There are a few possibilities... there might be a 'red-list' tag, where if the file is tagged then the submitter doesn't get any points for the file, but still gets credit. I'm also thinking of just dumping the submitter's names off of the files, putting the true author, and putting 'Submitted by' in the Description or something.
: * Highlight good files. I'm trying to think of a way to showcase the best files (9.0 and above) in each files category. I want to make it so when you click on Downloads-D-Mods, the best D-Mods pop-up right away... I did mess with making it automatically sort by rating for a couple hours the other day, but then trilogies and sequels are out of order and such. So I might try some other things.
The new "awarded" and "screenshot available" don't work in user information pages yet.
Anyway, i've got a new idea: Reviewing dink sites. you could build that into the links page.
