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.
Points Survey... Help us adjust scores...
I submitted about a hundred pictures of in-game barrels to the barrel page and quite frankly I was jipped.
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.
"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)Dude, they're trying to sort this out, you're not helping.
I'm also aware that it's difficult to quickly score for quality but currently the quantity-over-quality scoring sucks."
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.
"AaronBelfast said:I also created all this controversy and madness, is that good or bad?"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 :)"
250 is a good number for that. Writing four articles like that should earn a user the right of instant editing (1000).
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.
I'd say about 300 points. However without all the formatting to make it nice and readable, about 200.
"200-300 points would be justifiable for the Gears of War 2 page."That's what I was thinking.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ^_^
"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.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.
Heres a little mockup I did of how I think points could work if they were to be seperated.
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 ^_^"
...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.
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.
"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.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.
Heres a little mockup I did of how I think points could work if they were to be seperated.
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 ^_^"
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. :)
"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.Actually, most people are suggesting something like a 30% increase in the amount of points for the article.
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?"
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.
"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.
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?
Thats funny... I could have sworn your post said "280 seems quite good for that article" last time I looked... hmm, shifty...
"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.This guy is right, I vote about 600 points. Hard work should be rewarded.
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?"
"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.This guy is right, I vote about 600 points. Hard work should be rewarded.
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?"
"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
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment