• 126 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by snide (2413 posts) -

We've been getting more and more notes from users about the points system and the specific scores users are getting on images vs. descriptions. Our consensus after reading your feedback is not that image uploads should be worth less points, but that large text block additions should be worth more. 

That said there's no reason to penalize certain users that like to submit hella images to the site, because hard or not, that took a decent chunk of time and is exactly what we want peeps to be doing users. Remember too that we have a large non-US/UK/AUS audience that has trouble writing in english, so image uploads are the best way they can help out. That's great and we shouldn't penalize them.

So, before I go and tweak the system, I'd like to do a quick survey.

Assuming one person wrote the full description for the Gears of War 2 page, how many points should they have earned? I'd like this not to be based on how well that page is written, but more on its length. We've got other fun stuff coming soon for judgement of writing skill.
#2 Edited by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -

I submitted about a hundred pictures of in-game barrels to the barrel page and quite frankly I was jipped.

#3 Posted by Lunarbunny (1025 posts) -

I don't understand why user-created content gets zero points while a screenshot-mill can stack up hundreds of points in a flash. Take for example my image for Flat Shading. I only got 12 points for my contribution to that article, while another article I contributed about equally to textually with no added images got 12 points as well (No Scope)

I'm also aware that it's difficult to quickly score for quality but currently the quantity-over-quality scoring sucks.

#4 Posted by AaronBelfast (1491 posts) -

Going to make it brief. For that amount of text he should've got 250 points.

#5 Posted by Lies (3867 posts) -

I'd say that GeOW page deserves at least a couple hundred. That is about as specific as I care to get.

#6 Posted by snide (2413 posts) -
AaronBelfast said:
"Going to make it brief. For that amount of text he should've got 250 points."
You win the prize for actually answering the question. Thanks :)
#7 Posted by Jensonb (1756 posts) -

That page is worth 200 points minimum.

#8 Posted by AaronBelfast (1491 posts) -
Lunarbunny said:
"I don't understand why user-created content gets zero points while a screenshot-mill can stack up hundreds of points in a flash. Take for example my image for Flat Shading. I only got 12 points for my contribution to that article, while another article I contributed about equally to textually with no added images got 12 points as well (No Scope)

I'm also aware that it's difficult to quickly score for quality but currently the quantity-over-quality scoring sucks."
Dude, they're trying to sort this out, you're not helping.
#9 Posted by Lies (3867 posts) -
snide said:
"AaronBelfast said:
"Going to make it brief. For that amount of text he should've got 250 points."
You win the prize for actually answering the question. Thanks :)"
I answer question too! :( I get prize?
#10 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -

Out of curiosity, and perhaps to help me better answer this question, how much would that wiki page be worth now?

From personal experience, perhaps even so much as doubling the amount of points received for text submissions could be appropriate, though I am sure some more exact calculations are in order. =)

As for the Gears 2 page, I would have said a few hundred points for that, between 200 & 300 at least.

#11 Posted by AaronBelfast (1491 posts) -
snide said:
"AaronBelfast said:
"Going to make it brief. For that amount of text he should've got 250 points."
You win the prize for actually answering the question. Thanks :)"
I also created all this controversy and madness, is that good or bad?
#12 Posted by Bass (692 posts) -

I'd say close to 300 points, based strictly on the length.

#13 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -

Descriptive text should get many more points, but there should also be more quality control. Noticable fact, spelling, and grammatical mistakes should be immediately discarded. As far as specific points, I'm not really qualified to say, and don't really care.

#14 Posted by Origina1Penguin (3501 posts) -

250 is a good number for that.  Writing four articles like that should earn a user the right of instant editing (1000).

#15 Edited by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -

I'm revising my previous position, he should get about 400 points.

#16 Posted by ThomasP (1661 posts) -

200-300 points would be justifiable for the Gears of War 2 page.

#17 Edited by MattyFTM (14416 posts) -

I know this would probably be hard to implement into the site, but I think it would be the best solution if possible:

Have separate "Image points" points. This would be best because in the current system a person can upload a bunch of images to the site and get to 1000 points. They might then decide that they want to edit the text of an article, but they might not be that good at writing, and end up adding a really badly written page, and it won't need to go through moderation because they have over 1000 points. Separating points earned for image uploads, and edits to the rest of the wiki would solve this problem, since someone won't earn full edit access to the wiki for uploading images, they'll only earn the privilege to not have their images go through moderation. And it would work the other way round too, since someone who is a good writer and writes lots of good pages for the wiki might not know about not uploading images with watermarks on them.

Edit: as for the Gears 2 article, maybe 400-500 points.

Moderator
#18 Posted by HazBazz (1901 posts) -

If somebody wrote tha whole Gears Of War article, I'd say something up to 400 could be justifiable. It would take a really long time to write something like that, and it should be rewarded

#19 Posted by Cymatics (90 posts) -

Somewhere between 250-300 points.

#20 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

I'd say about 300 points. However without all the formatting to make it nice and readable, about 200.

#21 Posted by MasterOfPenguins_Zell (2093 posts) -
ThomasP said:
"200-300 points would be justifiable for the Gears of War 2 page."
That's what I was thinking.
#22 Posted by Milkman (17001 posts) -

I would say that page is worth at least a few hundred. Like 300-500 maybe.

#23 Posted by albedos_shadow (1485 posts) -

Definitely 200 points minimum.

Online
#24 Edited by tokyochicken (849 posts) -
albedos_shadow said:
"Definitely 200 points minimum."
ya definetly this and maybe like 350 or 400 for max i think would work for a good long page like this.
#25 Posted by StarFoxA (5160 posts) -

I think that 150 to 250 should have been rewarded for that Gears of War 2 page.

#26 Posted by Foil_Charizard (345 posts) -

400

#27 Edited by breton (1437 posts) -

Hmm. With some fuzzy math based on character count and points rewarded on other articles, this page is actually worth about 200 points - what everyone has been suggesting. And yet, here we are, discussing a change for the system. You say you don't want to penalize image uploaders, but whether you inflate text points and leave image points, or deflate image points and leave text points, you'll have the same result.

I think people are basing their decisions on the 1000 and 5000 point reward barriers. Not an image to text ratio. 30 game images = 90 points(Uru). 3000 characters = 50 points(Atrus) So If I want my Atrus article to be worth more than my image spam, small image spam, on Uru, I'd say 3000 characters would be worth about.. 150..180?

That translates to the GoW page being worth about 670 points. Should that be my answer, 670 points?

#28 Edited by Endogene (4741 posts) -
edit: misread breton's post hence this edit

I think the GoW page should get around 200 points
#29 Posted by serbsta (1867 posts) -

250-350 points would be fair.

#30 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -

I would say around 400 points...and I am basing that opinion on a system where 5 words = 1 point, but a system like that could be massively exploited much like images. If I were just looking at the article and deciding out of opinion I would say 250-300 points is a good amount for that specific page.

#31 Posted by Steve_C (1756 posts) -

I'd say between 200 and 300 points.

#32 Edited by Daniel_Newton (1166 posts) -

Like others have said, I think seperating the wiki points and image points is a good idea. Articles should definetly be worth more than they are at the moment though, or it would take far too long to get to 1000. Looking at the length of the GoW2 page, with the links and thumb nails included, I think it should be worth atleast 350 points, if not somewhat more than that.

Heres a little mockup I did of how I think points could work if they were to be seperated.

Mockup

The same point barriers could be used but seperately for the wiki stuff and the images, so 1000 image points = images don't need to be moderated. But untill the user has 1000 wiki points, the edits they do to wiki pages still have to be moderated.
Oh and I just threw image mod points in there for fun, still waiting to see what the deal is with those ^_^
#33 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -
Newten said:
"Like others have said, I think seperating the wiki points and image points is a good idea. Articles should definetly be worth more than they are at the moment though, or it would take far too long to get to 1000. Looking at the length of the GoW2 page, with the links and thumb nails included, I think it should be worth atleast 350 points, if not somewhat more than that.

Heres a little mockup I did of how I think points could work if they were to be seperated.
Mockup

The same point barriers could be used but seperately for the wiki stuff and the images, so 1000 image points = images don't need to be moderated. But untill the user has 1000 wiki points, the edits they do to wiki pages still have to be moderated.
Oh and I just threw image mod points in there for fun, still waiting to see what the deal is with those ^_^"
I actually think this could be the way to go. I definitely like it, a lot, and it would help some of the issues people have between wiki and image points.

...and after saying I thought the Gears page was worth around 300 points, I have changed my mind a little, to thinking it should be worth more.
#34 Posted by Daniel_Newton (1166 posts) -

Thanks Shasam, I think it always helps to show a mockup. I think the GoW2 page is actually quite long, so I'm sticking with what I said, especially if a point system like my mockup was implemented.

#35 Posted by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -

Maybe around 320-400 points, that page is somewhat lengthy.

#36 Posted by brukaoru (5079 posts) -
Newten said:
"Like others have said, I think seperating the wiki points and image points is a good idea. Articles should definetly be worth more than they are at the moment though, or it would take far too long to get to 1000. Looking at the length of the GoW2 page, with the links and thumb nails included, I think it should be worth atleast 350 points, if not somewhat more than that.

Heres a little mockup I did of how I think points could work if they were to be seperated.
Mockup

The same point barriers could be used but seperately for the wiki stuff and the images, so 1000 image points = images don't need to be moderated. But untill the user has 1000 wiki points, the edits they do to wiki pages still have to be moderated.
Oh and I just threw image mod points in there for fun, still waiting to see what the deal is with those ^_^"
I'd love to see something like this implemented on wiki pages too, as someone suggested before, something like a bar graph on the wiki pages to show who contributed images and who contributed wiki information.

Great mockup, I really like that.

I'd say the Gears of War 2 page deserves about 300 points. I'm really glad that you guys have taken notice of complaints, and aren't going to make images worth less, but making text worth more. :)
#37 Posted by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -
breton said:
"Hmm. With some fuzzy math based on character count and points rewarded on other articles, this page is actually worth about 200 points - what everyone has been suggesting. And yet, here we are, discussing a change for the system. You say you don't want to penalize image uploaders, but whether you inflate text points and leave image points, or deflate image points and leave text points, you'll have the same result.

I think people are basing their decisions on the 1000 and 5000 point reward barriers. Not an image to text ratio. 30 game images = 90 points(Uru). 3000 characters = 50 points(Atrus) So If I want my Atrus article to be worth more than my image spam, small image spam, on Uru, I'd say 3000 characters would be worth about.. 150..180?

That translates to the GoW page being worth about 670 points. Should that be my answer, 670 points?"
Actually, most people are suggesting something like a 30% increase in the amount of points for the article.
#38 Posted by Gorillawhat (1259 posts) -

The GOW should have received about 250 points, while whoever uploaded effton of images should get 1 point for ever 2nd image... actually that might be too complicated... nevermind.

Will people stop making "Point system broken threads" now?
#39 Posted by TheGamerGeek (2499 posts) -

The Gears page deserves around 250-350 points.

#40 Posted by breton (1437 posts) -
Jayge said:
"Actually, most people are suggesting something like a 30% increase in the amount of points for the article."
15 people have voted 300 or lower(with a majority of 200 or 250), and 13 people have voted 300 or higher(with the majority maxing at 400). I'm the only one that ballparked it.

According to my estimates, which admittedly are very fuzzy, but probably land pretty close to the mark, it's already around 200, and you're only suggesting a 30% increase.. is that really going to make an impact for writers? Looking at the ratio of image points to text points, 30% seems to be pretty miniscule, and incentives will still heavily support mass uploading instead of nice articles. I can't see complaints subsiding because of such an inflation. This whole thing is brought up because writers aren't getting their due - and now we're voting exactly for what it already is.
#41 Posted by Daniel_Newton (1166 posts) -

Thats why I threw my idea up here, mix it up a bit. It clearly needs to change if Snide made a thread for us. Anybody else like my idea (scroll up) to seperate the points?

#42 Edited by Mushir (2389 posts) -

350 seems quite good for that article.

#43 Posted by Daniel_Newton (1166 posts) -

Thats funny... I could have sworn your post said "280 seems quite good for that article" last time I looked... hmm, shifty...

#44 Posted by Aaox (1657 posts) -

About 200-500. If you can be bothered to write that much good stuff, and then be willing to do another one of the same quality, shouldn't they be justified to the 1000 pont no-moderation mark? Makes sense to me. Maybe you should do a point reduct- wait. No, that's a horrible idea.

#45 Posted by Martyr (34 posts) -

300 points for that GOW2 page

#46 Posted by BinaryDragon (638 posts) -
breton said:
"Hmm. With some fuzzy math based on character count and points rewarded on other articles, this page is actually worth about 200 points - what everyone has been suggesting. And yet, here we are, discussing a change for the system. You say you don't want to penalize image uploaders, but whether you inflate text points and leave image points, or deflate image points and leave text points, you'll have the same result.

I think people are basing their decisions on the 1000 and 5000 point reward barriers. Not an image to text ratio. 30 game images = 90 points(Uru). 3000 characters = 50 points(Atrus) So If I want my Atrus article to be worth more than my image spam, small image spam, on Uru, I'd say 3000 characters would be worth about.. 150..180?

That translates to the GoW page being worth about 670 points. Should that be my answer, 670 points?"
This guy is right, I vote about 600 points. Hard work should be rewarded.
#47 Posted by BinaryDragon (638 posts) -
breton said:
"Hmm. With some fuzzy math based on character count and points rewarded on other articles, this page is actually worth about 200 points - what everyone has been suggesting. And yet, here we are, discussing a change for the system. You say you don't want to penalize image uploaders, but whether you inflate text points and leave image points, or deflate image points and leave text points, you'll have the same result.

I think people are basing their decisions on the 1000 and 5000 point reward barriers. Not an image to text ratio. 30 game images = 90 points(Uru). 3000 characters = 50 points(Atrus) So If I want my Atrus article to be worth more than my image spam, small image spam, on Uru, I'd say 3000 characters would be worth about.. 150..180?

That translates to the GoW page being worth about 670 points. Should that be my answer, 670 points?"
This guy is right, I vote about 600 points. Hard work should be rewarded.
#48 Posted by sarahsdad (1108 posts) -
Somewhere in the 300-400 range seems fair for an article like that, assuming it can be confirmed that it wasn't just copy-pasted from a couple of other sources.

I like what Newten suggested; having the image and text points separate would be an easy way to essentially break the current argument. As long as all the points go into the same bucket, the people who can sit down and bang out a few hundred words during a lunch break are probably always going to harbor some ill will towards someone who played their favorite game for an hour, and hit printscreen every five minutes (or set up some autocapture program).

And maybe I'm going too far out on a limb here, but it's because no matter how long it took to get those images, it was pretty much all technical know-how and simple application of time. Unless I've missed a press release somewhere, there's no program that writes a review or game page text for you.
#49 Edited by StarFoxA (5160 posts) -
Knives said:
"Descriptive text should get many more points, but there should also be more quality control. Noticable fact, spelling, and grammatical mistakes should be immediately discarded. As far as specific points, I'm not really qualified to say, and don't really care."
Ah, sweet, cold irony.

Sorry, I just wanted to point that out. :P
#50 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -
Newten said:
"Thats funny... I could have sworn your post said "280 seems quite good for that article" last time I looked... hmm, shifty..."
According to his profile that's indeed what he said. Maybe he rethought it and changed his mind.