Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
I would agree with MOST of what you propose, with the 'caveat' that ONLY those people who are quite familiar with anything, THEN perform this "duty"! Also, they should be SHOWN as being the "deciders" for such, to then lend credence to what they're doing with whatever. Having "Joe-Schmoe" being the arbiter in regards to something of which they have little to NO "knowledge" concerning this, is certainly NO way to run a "games site", yes?
shake
 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Leuchtenburg
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem with giving GG based on tag agreement for file contents is that the description should be sufficient to guess, 9 times out of 10. If it isn't, then the description is lacking.

If the admins actually are checking out the files in seriousness, they could add something to be checked in the file for the modders to answer. e.g. "What's the third word on the first line of page 3?". This would, however, add more work for admins with the only benefit being allowing other users to determine how much the file is worth.

A better answer might be for a group of users to pool their GG to help reward good file contributions and determine which contributions are good. Yes, they'd effectively be working for nothing, but if we care so much, we should be willing to do so. I'd be willing to help review files, though I'm not going to take the initiative in creating such a group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Aren't tips intended to increase the reward for excellent content (be it an image, strategy article, file or whatever)?

Besides, adding more things to "geekmodding" is likely going to raise more complaints ("why my file/article/etc. wasn't accepted?") and pump the heterogeneousness of what's approved/rejected.
I don't think a slightly better distribution of GG is worth all those extra troubles. Even if I appreciate the idea behind your proposal, I just believe its collateral effects could be worse than its merits (however, I like the idea of a scaling reward based on the number of images already present for a given game).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Davis
Australia
Canberra
flag msg tools
Avatar
Luke the Flaming wrote:
Aren't tips intended to increase the reward for excellent content (be it an image, strategy article, file or whatever)?


And how many peope actually give tips to these things, let alone thumbs up?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An easy way to slowly turn down the reward for images while still allowing maximum is to have the identical scale available but the default value change... start at default at the maximum 1GG for an image for a game with no current images, and take 0.01GG off per existing image for the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, as someone who disagrees with some of your proposals in your Geeklist, I'll post here. First, I could care less what is done with the reward for images, so if that is your main concern, then stop reading. Regarding written contributions, however, I vehemently disagree that the scale of GG rewards should be changed in the areas of reviews, session reports, or strategy articles (which I agree should be added as a separate category, even though I never read them).

If you would give a review zero GG (!), then perhaps you should just decline it and give the contributor a chance to improve and resubmit it.

If anything, I would put a tiny message near the Accept/Decline buttons imploring modders to use the whole scale when rewarding. These things take a lot of work! Show some love to your fellow geeks who put in the time to write a nice review or session report.

Additionally, it was suggested in the Geeklist that the reward for articles should somehow be based on the number of existing articles for that game. That smacks of exclusivity, particularly (and unintentionally, I realize) at newer geeks who are just picking up the most recommended games at this point. Which leads to the other point, that newer geeks tend to rely on session reports as a way of contributing and participating here (and making GG toward that avatar). The idea of reviewing a game or writing a strategy article in the face of so many "experts" can be somewhat daunting.

So double thumbs down to any changes to the rewards system for written contributions, except to encourage more generous rewarding of good articles.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Grouch
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Intersting ideas. I'd make the base for sessions and strategy 2 GG and the base for files 3 GG.

Alternatively, as I once suggested long ago (too lazy to find the thread, though), people could be rewarded 0.01 GG for each file download instead of changing the base file reward.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
The entire discussion about revising gg rewards is POINTLESS, I repeat POINTLESS, without taking into account what the gg is used for.

There are a few things you can use gg for:
- avatar (30 gg)
- geekbadge (50 gg)
- übergeekbadge (50 gg)
- microbadges (15 gg)
- adblocking (1 to 20 gg)
- auctions (0 - many hundreds of gg)
- rewarding other users (0.01 - tens of gg)

I have no information what the most popular destination of gg is; I suspect that the avatar is at the top, then the badges in whatever combination, and then, far below, the auctions and adblocking. Rewarding other users is considered a 'noble' cause, but I doubt there are people contributing content solely so they have currency with which to tip others. (You may read that as 'thumbs are cheap'.)

Most new people will be quite surprised to find out that you actually have to work here in order to get an avatar, and if it weren't for that fact, I wouldn't have uploaded and contributed as much as I did. Avatars are incredibly useful for quick visual identification of who wrote a particular text, as well as making you stand out from the formless crowd. (That's why I think there should be a rule that people don't change their avatar (much), but that's an entirely different can of worms.) Even the tiny microbadges already aid a bit in this process, but they're not as good as the avatar because they're too small and too similar.

Personally, I think that for such an important forum element, the avatar is way too expensive, especially for new users: they begin here with a distinct disadvantage. They don't know the system, they are likely to know much less than others about what games are out there, they are not likely to play lots of rare games we would like to see new content of, and so on. There are a few rare cases who manage to acquire their avatar when they're still endowed with the 'New User' badge, but these are very far and very few between. (I've seen two or three since I became active here 3 years ago.) More damning is the fact that there is already a lot of content iin the popular games where we don't really want more. Many obvious Geeklist topics have already been used.

Now factor in the suggestion to introduce a sliding reward scale for images, without a doubt the most important source of income for all users. You will improve picture quality with it, sure. You will also make it nearly impossible for the majority of enthusiastic new users to add the necessary avatar to their name so that people have an easier time recognising them. In other words, you want to encourage people to contribute, but at the same time you must make sure that the carrot is not dangling on the other side of the world. And I fear that's exactly what's going to happen if the rewards are altered just like that.

So my first suggestion is: if you change the rewards for the images, you must substantially lower the price of at least one useful item you can spend the gg on, preferably the avatar. Whether the sliding reward is instated, or simply a lower amount for each image is a matter of taste. In addition, one can increase the price of the other items, so that they are reserved for people who genuinely made a big contribution to BGG.

On to the rewards for files. I am NOT in favour of running the files through a geekmodding process after the admins have approved it. Consider the following case: a simple file consisting of just text explaining a variant to fix broken rules and a completely photoshopped but utterly worthless player aid. The text file is much more worthwhile than the player aid. Unfortunately, people have a nasty tendency to appreciate the latter more than the former because of the better appearance---just take a look at the computer games which come out these days. All graphics and cool special effects, but lousy game play. In my opinion, you therefore cannot ask random people to judge the quality of such files, especially if they don't know the game in question. It is too cumbersome to call into being 'trusted' users who look at files for a particular game. The amount of thumbs for files can also not be a measure of its quality, since files are rarely thumbed to begin with. Tags---suggested above---require yet a third round of human intervention before the file is posted and the poster and referees get their reward; given how long it already takes for the admins to process the first step that's just retarded.

Therefore, my second suggestion: put the rewards for files at a fixed, but higher than current amount of gg. Files are more difficult to make than pictures and therefore should be rewarded as such; at the same time we have to accept that there is no way geekmodding can produce fair results because of the complexity and diversity of the material. Sad but true, so apply the KISS-principe: Keep It Simple & Stupid.

As for the rest---links, reviews, and so forth---I'm in agreement with what was suggested.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
bill_andel wrote:
Alternatively, as I once suggested long ago (too lazy to find the thread, though), people could be rewarded 0.01 GG for each file download instead of changing the base file reward.

Not a good idea, because it couples the reward to the popularity of the game in question.

Lajos wrote:
However, I still think there should be some kind of sliding scale reward for files, but you made it sufficiently clear that more thought about how to do that is necessary.

Coupled with the above, if you must introduce a sliding reward for files, one idea would be to create two rewards. One is fixed at, say, 2 GG. The other one is a bonus which is awarded after the file has been in the system for a few weeks. The height of that bonus is awarded through geekmodding, but is in between, say, 0 and 3 GG. When the file is posted, it is announced at the same time when it can be modded; modding is allowed for a few days to make sure everyone who wants to vote, gets to vote. If a file gets too few votes (not entirely impossible, unfortunately), an 'average bonus' of, say, 0.5 to 1 GG is rewarded by the system. Some simple tags could be implemented to alert admins that there is something wrong with the file prompting investigation.

This relieves the admins from doing a third round of checking the files, with just a few spot checks in case of (suspected) problems. It allows people to judge content in practice. The person making the file gets a reasonable base reward, and is sure to get something extra later on, which is dependent on how well his efforts are liked by everyone. It is significantly higher than the 1 GG awarded now, at the time of writing. Timing requirements for modding are relaxed because files are harder to judge than images or reviews. Unfortunately, there is no avoiding a certain amount of influence of the popularity of the game, but at least its effect is somewhat less than in a system where the reward is based on the amount of downloads.

Possible loophole: if a user submits a file for an unknown game containing useless information, he will get 2 GG up front, and if too few people participate in the vote, another extra as bonus. It's hard to pull off, though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lajos wrote:

It seems to me that we're in agreement much more than you think.


That may be. I think, after reading some of your responses here, that I better understand what you're after, and I generally support the sentiment. My biggest concern is the base reward for written articles, particularly session reports, because many idiotic modders devil seem to just hit the accept button and move on without considering the scale. So if you set the baseline at zero, most people will vote "zero", regardless of quality, and move on. However, your wording in the following sentence..

Lajos wrote:
I suggested that for session reports and strategy articles a 0 GG reward vote would be an option...


...may be an acceptable alternative. If you leave the baseline at one, but offer an option of zero, I might not complain so much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Bazynski
Poland
warsaw
mazowieckie
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
re: lowering price for an avatar

instead of lowering the price, make a new item 'low quality avatar' for say 10 that has 5kb file size limit
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carsten ◄► Wesel
Germany
Pinneberg-Quellental
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lajos wrote:
However, I still think there should be some kind of sliding scale reward for files, but you made it sufficiently clear that more thought about how to do that is necessary.

Maybe the getting of for a file can be moved to somewhere later.
Maybe each user, who has downloaded the file get a special link in his profil to vote for the high of the reward. Then, if there are enough user, who have voted for - like in geek modding - the reward could be payed.

Maybe you have to vote for a file you have downloaded within a fix amount of days and can't download any further files if you don't do so.

Just my 2 cents.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Stever
United States
Bainbridge Island
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lajos wrote:
I propose a minimum reward of 0 and a maximum of 2 GG.
Geekmodders can choose between the automatically generated base value reward or a reward of 0 / 0.5 / 1 / 1.5 / 2 GG. If a geekmodder does not specify a reward, he/she automatically votes for the base value reward.
The base value reward is calculated by the system. It is 1.5 for the first 10 images; 1 for nrs 11 to 50; 0,5 for nrs. 51 to 100; and 0 GG for images 101 and further.


This will simply reduce the number of images uploaded. I don't think that's the goal. Anything with a value of zero should simply be declined.

I guess I'm in the same camp as other posters, if it's not broke, why are you trying to fix it? I see only two things that I consider worth spending time tuning up:

1. Lots of lousy images get approved. A reduction in GG to the people that upload the most images will not solve the problem. People uploading lots of bad/marginal images will simply double their input. I'm a tough grader, I guess. I see about 25% of images coming through as completely duplicative of images already on board. Solution? A tougher grading standard. Another potential solution? Only allow geekers who have uploaded 25 images successfully to geekmod, creating a certain esprit de corp.

2. The rewards for files should be variable. I've put far more work into the files I've uploaded than images or session reports. I primarily put them up to share the fruits of my labor. It would be nice if they were rewarded with GG to reflect the work effort. Perhaps more importantly, I'd like to see the good files I've downloaded more richly rewarded so that more are created and uploaded.

Is the "problem" is too much GG in circulation? Nah.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slowcorner wrote:
If anything, I would put a tiny message near the Accept/Decline buttons imploring modders to use the whole scale when rewarding. These things take a lot of work! Show some love to your fellow geeks who put in the time to write a nice review or session report.


This is so important and is really killing especially the motivation for session reports if one is looking for geekgold and not doing it out of their own generous heart. And if anything, I think it shows how the geekMODDING system is not working. I look at the GG of my own session reports and others session reports that I've geekmodded and been approved and it becomes extremely obvious that for every session report there is generally one person giving it a suitable score for the quality of the session report (often 3 or 4, there are some great session reports being produced) but that everyone else is just blindly hitting approve and giving one geekgold, massively devaluing session reports.

Something definitely needs to be done about images. Currently the system is becoming a huge problem. All you need to do is look at the lists that "elite" geeks are making about geekmodding, where they basically set up their own criteria for acceptance on games with large galleries to see it isn't working--when the inmates start setting up their own rules for the asylum things aren't going well. I see a lot of images I geekmod by the letter of the law we are given by Aldie being automatically rejected because of a harsh self policing process being implemented by many other geekmodders. Geekmodders have gone so far as to say that they, for example, will no longer accept pictures of your game group or your games anymore if there are a lot of images of other peoples games in the gallery--leaving basically only art pictures and funny pictures for those games. There is nothing in the imagemodding directions to indicate this course of action should be taken but some people feel that the galleries of many large euros need to be protected, from especially new users trying to get geekgold. They have put alternate systems in place (which seem to be "working" moderately well based on what I've seen from imagemodding results) to do this.

No matter what, there *must* be an official response soon, things are not working for imagemodding.

Unfortunately the system you outlined means that every Tom Dick and Harry in the world is going to struggle to find the most minor games off the side of happy meal or whatever and submit them and take 40 pictures of them. Though I don't like this, I think it's a small price to pay for more sanity and leeway in the system.

edit: grammar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Karp
United States
Rockville
Maryland
flag msg tools
admin
Developin' Developin" Developin!!
badge
100 geekgold for OverText, and all I got was this stupid sentence.
Avatar
mbmb
I've suggested to Aldie that instead of a pull-down selector for geekgold amount, it be changed to a radio selector. This way, there is no default amount. I think it is just a matter of him getting the time to make the changes--you have no idea how many different and all very important things he has to do on the site every day.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.