Mini-Posts — Legacy Forums — Strolen's Citadel

Mini-Posts

#1

Well, as our new superposter Harvengure has found, I for one tend to vote low on small subs (for better or worse).

My problem is that we are measuring works of epic greatness on the same scale as kernals of gold.

When I consider the amount of work I have put into some of my higher rated subs, I have a hard time giving something 1-2 paragraphs a 5, regardless of it's brilliance. I think subs should be perhaps grouped into two categories - Small and Large. So I could give a 5 for an awesome, but short, sub and feel that I'm not cheapening it.

Thoughts? Am I being petty?

Re: Mini-Posts

#2

I had considered that it might be desirable to rate subs on more than one spectrum. Factors for evaluation might include:

Creativity: How unusual or unique is the submission? Does it contain ideas that might not have occurred to others? (Criterion for a perfect score: "I never would have thought of that!")

Effort: How much work went into the submission? Does it show great detail? Did a lot of research and experience go into it? Has the text been carefully reviewed to eliminate errors and ensure clarity? (Criterion for a perfect score: The text is clear and easy to read, illuminating the subject perfectly, and the information presented is complete and informative, with no room for improvement.)

Utility: How easily could this be applied to a game? Is it something that a GM would add (to the appropriate genre, of course)? When reading it, do you want to find a way to incorporate it into a game? (Criterion for a perfect score: "I'm putting that into my next game!")

Re: Mini-Posts

#3

I think I like this idea, and it sort of fits with something we were talking about involving revamping the voting system. I don't know how hard/easy it would be to implement, but it does make me think.

Re: Mini-Posts

#4

Am ambivalent to somewhat negative on the question, but let's give it a try.

I admit I've been guilty of not giving short subs much due as many others. But there are also rather short submissions that have been widely accepted, but those were few. There were also short pieces that were 'too short', but commenters added bits on background, plot hooks, and so on, effectively making them a larger, worthier submission.

My point is, it's actually hard to make a good (IMO), standalone submission, that is also very short. Most submissions of small size have something very obvious missing. On the other hand, we have a whole category for small ideas - Idea Seeds, and a thread or two collecting such little bits - not not to speak of a wealth of scrolls.

I'm afraid there would very few small _and_ good subs. The rest we can sort out even now.

---

Update: two more posts came in while I had this open.

Multiple votes on one submission... sounds like more work with voting, and more time spent on it. More on this later.

Re: Mini-Posts

#5

Bullseye valadaar!

When I was active this bothered me to no end. The problem is also that sometimes elements of the epic subs are way better than the small subs, but... as a whole it might be worse. That makes big subs really hard to vote on.

Still, at the end of a day I think an author is to be commended when posting an entire adventure module. A short blurb is not as impressive ;)

But I know what you mean.

Perhaps size could be used as a multiplier of some sort, boosting or diminishing the score greatly, depending on quality.

Re: Mini-Posts

#6

But if a score modifyer was used, I think that the numbers should remain low, with bonux XP due to size being limited to something like 1.5 times the basic score. I was a teacher's aide and Mrs. Fisher would purposely leave the spaces for essays on the short side, either you know it or you dont. you dont get six pages to meander about so long that the grader just gives up and scores half credit and moves on.

Quantity is no replacement for Quality.

0 to 2,000 words - no modifier (I imagine the better part of the the Citadel's submissions fall into this word range)

3,000 to 10,000 - XP mod 1.25 (thus the base 44 XP earned by Submission X becomes 55)

10,000 plus words - XP mod 1.50 (There are a few subs that reach this lenght, but not many. Most subs like that take months to write, and are generally staggeringly massive plots.)

Re: Mini-Posts

#7

My concern is not for low-mid quality / high quantity posts, but the high quality - very low quantity posts.

I generally do not give large posts a higher score just because they are big, but I do give small posts a lower score because they are small, because I cannot get over the judgment of 'effort'.

The given rule of thumb is that about 1 hour of work should go into a post - some single and two paragraph subs do not fill this criteria, but are still excellent ideas that can be readily used.

On the other hand, you might have a huge, beautifully crafted and researched sub.

Are both these deservant of a high rating - a 'Well Done'? Yes. In their own 'weight class'.

So, my disagreement with Scrasamax is just the demarkation points of the categories. I would tend to make the 'small' category smaller :) Maybe in the order of 500 words. I would purposely not want the majority of the current subs to satisfy the 'small' category - it is the 'nice but too short' comment I would like to stamp out, even if it just in my own mind.

On the question of meandering subs, perhaps the larger the post, the higher the standard it should be held up to.
For large posts it makes sense to make more of an effort to get feedback earlier on so one does not release a huge sub only to have it slaughtered..

Re: Mini-Posts

#8

Huge subs don't get slaughtered, they get ignored :o

Re: Mini-Posts

#9

And that is a _different_ discussion.... :)

Re: Mini-Posts

#10

So, a reworking of Scras's suggestion, that'd make you feel better about voting a 5 on a small sub would be to have them only get 0.75?

So...

0-500 = .75
501-2000 = 1.00
ect.

Seems fair enough to me, for more reasons than just the one you mentioned first, but also small subs are easier to read, and thus people are probably more likely to read them. While GIGNORMOUS subs are more likely to gather dust as people try to stumble through them.

Re: Mini-Posts

#11

I am going to throw out a few disjointed comments that hopefully will come together somehow. This long vs short needs to be discussed a little in order to make a good decision on how to handle it so as some things are a different discussion, they are all really intertwined and should be looked at before any large changes are made, and XP and voting systems are somewhat large changes.

The current code rewards larger posts with a few token XP for length. (only 2 extra at the moment for a longer post though)

The voting phrasology will change. I need to reengage Moon now that I am back as we had some stuff worked out to make the voting descriptions more apporpriate to the vote being cast.

The site's core is the ideas in whatever package they come in. If some wear coveralls and others wear nice wedding gowns it still boils down to the core of it all and that is the idea contained therein.

Scras is right that the long ones get ignored, I am guilty of that myself and have to bookmark a post and set time aside in order to get to it. When I am at my computer I have TONS of things to do and as much as I would love to read every submission, it is just not realistic for me. I would wager that this is true of most visitors coming here. A first visit if they hit a few epic posts, it may turn them off of the site. If they hit a bunch of small to medium, quick reads with good ideas, it is immediate satisfaction and that is what most people want.

If I had a wish granted, I would wish that the long posts that are beautifully written with awesome prose had cliff notes so I can get the meat without having to read the entire post. Then if I was really interested in the idea contained, I could read it to get atmosphere and some other subtleties that are added with the writing. Otherwise I could read the cliff note synopsis of the idea and vote on that. I just don't have time to read the long posts and seeing them almost acts as an inhibitor for me and I avoid them. I know I am missing some great stuff because of this. Just trying to be honest because if I feel this way I can guarantee many others do to. Our time is valuable and unless we are going to use something or know we are going to enjoy something it is hard to invest a chunk of time into it. (for me it is all time, I am sure I would enjoy most all of the subs here! Really!) Better summaries, at the very least, would immensely help that. Some cryptic summaries do not even peak my interest or give me any idea what to expect which doesn't help. My summaries are just as guilty, just an observation.

Anyway, I can understand the frustration of putting so much work into a submission and working so hard on it only to get the same amount of points as another great idea put into only a few paragraphs. I am all for rewarding people for doing such grand work. When it comes down to it though, it is the idea that matters. Just like "content is king" for the net, the "idea is king" for the site and that is what we are voting on. So I would lean more towards some more extra XP on initial submission for longer posts (not necessarily a multiplier) that will reward the extra prose and then let the votes remain a vote for the idea itself. The initial better XP bonus for length would sort of take the place of Wulf's "effort" voting category and then the vote would still encompass the utility and creativity parts.

Still, a dry idea (like any of my old ones) would get mediocre points for just being an idea and if I was to edit them and explain them better, they would probably get an up in votes. That is appropriate as far as I am concerned and if you can't "sell" it and explain all the parts of it, then it will flounder. The presentation is a big part of it. So I don't think you should feel guilty for giving lesser votes to smaller subs if you don't get much of the information that makes it useable, but they also shouldn't be penalized for being shorter. If it is a small sub, has all the information, and you have an easy understanding on what it is and how to use it, then just because it isn't full of story doesn't mean it should be voted down.

I am also anti any more voting categories because it just turns into too much. A single vote makes sense, is easy, and is just plain uncomplicated so it is comfortable. More votes add to complexity, more thought is needed for each vote, and it would, honestly, just open up more voting system problems and difficulties on how people vote. We already have a lot of discussions about the current voting (obviously) but adding even more votes would just compound these discussions.

As always, my opinion is just that and I will always bend to the consensus. This is YOUR site and you prove it everyday, all I do is make sure it is running how YOU want it. I just play the devil's advocate in many cases...well, because I am loco diablo!

Re: Mini-Posts

#12

Did that really kill this?

Re: Mini-Posts

#13

Heh, I still prefer the idea of weight classes myself :)

Re: Mini-Posts

#14

Main question: How would a break up into more categories benefit people browsing?

Right now the argument seems to be for more XP for bigger posts. I can agree with that and do and I can implement that...but what would new weight classes give us besides even more complexity?

I just need a convincing argument to sway me and I don't feel I got it yet.

Re: Mini-Posts

#15

Before I say anything, this is where I'm getting most of my opinion from.

Summary: you can't really measure the value of the work knowledge workers do mechanically, with a worksheet or programming code.

I honestly just don't think the idea of giving size bonuses to subs will work. Whenever you try to mechanically assign bonuses and whatnot like that, people will end up working the system. Why introduce the problem when we've got a system already in place to rate submissions? Votes are individualized by their nature. If one person finds short submissions to be of less value, then let them vote low. The general consensus of the Citadel will give the final verdict on whether a submission, whether long or short, is good or not.

I say don't bother trying to assign modifiers and everything else to submissions. An author will get more xp from a short good quality submission than a long, worthless sub any day.

Re: Mini-Posts

#16

If I had a wish granted, I would wish that the long posts that are beautifully written with awesome prose had cliff notes so I can get the meat without having to read the entire post.

Amen to that.

Perhaps the solution lies with those of us that write long essays. If we split the idea from the presentation, people can vote on the idea itself, for at the end of the day we ARE the "Idea Guild". We do ideas.

******************************************

Example:
Idea synopsis, max 600 words

Re: Mini-Posts

#17

One question, are these not Stubs? Are stubs worth no eps at all? (or was it set to 1xp) and since they were unvotable, there was no cascade of xp.

The modification of xp per post size is not a bad idea. (Actually punting XP is a good idea in my mind). Just need some clarification here.

Now you can ignore everything from this point down.... (or we discuss this out of this thread)

IMO:
And I don't think the problem is actually with the system, but with us. Larger is not neccisarily better.

Haven;t you ever complained about a game book having too much fluff? Too many pieces of odd fiction? Too many off tangent pieces? Huge amounts of padded description? Haven't you felt cheated that you plunked down all that money and you just got nine pages of material rather than the 64 you thought you were buying?

Larger is not better.

Haiku. Think about that. Short yet very functional. Artistry in 19 words/ sylables.

Who needs extra? (Icelanders do, but their rules of poetry are obscene... unable to repeat the same phrase of description .... ever)

Larger is not better.

We have had some epic sized subs that were fairly.. average or below average.. and they were rated insanely high by guide of their sheer volume. There were some beautiful shorter subs or small subs of great utility that were rated lower, just because they are small. This is a knee jerk reactions by us and by people who are rating something without actually reading it. ("I don't understand it but it is great").

Size or homemade-ness does not matter. Once you have passed the hurdle for comprehension, it is usefulness that should rule. Art is a modifier rather than a driver for a rating. Something that is sheer art but can't be used in a game has what kind of usefulness on a game site? Usefulness should be our main guide, modified by artistic merit.

So the problem is not with the posts. The problem is with us.

Re: Mini-Posts

#18

I won't make any feature changes to force a synopsis. I won't be dictating what kind of submission somebody should write, nor the size, and forcing somebody to write a synopsis (although I would appreciate it) may not be something the author would enjoy doing. If the author enjoys writing, write away and share it with it! There are plenty that enjoy reading it and are bored stiff with anything utilitarian...and versa-vice.

The variety is good and I am fine with giving a sliding reward, to a certain point, for the long ones because they do require much effort to write...good idea contained or bad.

I don't see it being unfair for somebody to get a few more XP for a long, bad idea. It will be offset by votes if it is truly bad but there was still much effort involved in it. Short posts may require little effort even if they are a great idea. If the idea is good, then low effort and low initial XP will be made up in votes. If it is bad idea and low effort, then they get what they deserve without the length buffer.

Re: Mini-Posts

#19

I guess what I am advocating is the ability to make a small, votable sub which is not held up to the same level of completness as the normal sized subs - we can take Large subs out of discussion as that never was my intent. It was small posts that had me thinking.

With the number of good, 1-2 page subs -not Epics - which rightly deserve 5/5 ratings, a sub with 1-2 paragraphs will simply not stand up unless it is of extreme brilliance. If short subs were held up only to each other, I would definately be giving more 5/5s and less

Re: Mini-Posts

#20

I suppose the question then might be something like, "What's to keep people from writing up a short piece that they're too lazy to flesh out more, and then using the 'short' category as a crutch for their laziness?"

Re: Mini-Posts

#21

Another would be, besides being a physical separation of categories (short and long), would you now have the Citadel divided then into short and long submissions? If not, then a separation in voting wouldn't matter anyway. High voted shorts will be among high voted longs so the long/short thing would not do much. I suppose there could be a manual way to view only longs or shorts, but would anybody use it enough to make it worth it?

Re: Mini-Posts

#22

With these observations, I'll have to concede this point.. :)

Re: Mini-Posts

#23

It is a valid question that requires debate occassionally. I appreciate the discussion as it did bring up many excellent points.