Bitesizing Petition

[NicNac14]

Bitesize me (count me in on this)!!

[Destiny]

PUT ME ON THAT LIST

[maya]

Add me

O.o

[vankusss]

support

[EdoI]

Guys, I wasn't at NUMA when bitesizing existed, can someone explain me what it really is? Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it some kind of featuring with good maps beeing tagged as 'bitesized'? I don't see the point of two systems working in the same time, other maps would get even less attention...
If there was a petition for not implementing this, I'm signing that one.

[blackson]

Guys, I wasn't at NUMA when bitesizing existed, can someone explain me what it really is? Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it some kind of featuring with good maps beeing tagged as 'bitesized'? I don't see the point of two systems working in the same time, other maps would get even less attention...
If there was a petition for not implementing this, I'm signing that one.

Bitesizing was handled by a group of about 25 people. If they liked a map, they could bitesize it. Doing this, it would be given the bitesized tag, and would appear on a page with other maps. The thing that made this system great it that they could do it for any reason, didn't have to give one, and more then one map could be bitesized a day. It was like a healthy stream of quality maps. You also didn't know who bitesized a map if they didn't say.

[BNW]

Sign me up!

[SlappyMcGee]

Bitesizing is a ridiculous idea. The featured maps function does just fine, and having both seems unnecessary. Furthermore, the bitesizers would likely be an extremely similar group to reviewers, for social as well as logical reasons. So, the entire idea seems redundant. :/

[Jiggerjaw]

Bitesizing is a ridiculous idea. The featured maps function does just fine, and having both seems unnecessary. Furthermore, the bitesizers would likely be an extremely similar group to reviewers, for social as well as logical reasons. So, the entire idea seems redundant. :/

Agreed, 100%. I liked bitesizing when it originally hit Numa. But at some point, it seemed everyone was allowed to bitesize. And every map that had some semblance of possibility and tile structure was 5avesized. I think it led Numa in a bad direction, and, while I think today's Numa is pretty awful, I much prefer the featuring system to the bitesizing system.

[blackson]

But at some point, it seemed everyone was allowed to bitesize. And every map that had some semblance of possibility and tile structure was 5avesized.

That can easily be fixed. First off, nobody should be on both the featuring and bitesizing committe (if it would be a dual system). Second, make the roster exclusive. Only those who have a vast knowledge of N should be allowed to bitesize. This would keep the quality of the maps up, and it wouldn't get out of hand because there wouldn't be so many people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think bitesizing should be brought back now, and especially now, for a few reasons.

The main reason is the recent spike in the map submissions. Good maps are going unnoticed, and for them to go on a separate page, would be a great thing to encourage people to make better maps, and hopefully get some maps on the other page. Now I know what you're thinking, people would only look at the bitesizing page, and nobody would see the mediocre maps. That is not the case, I'll address that later.

Bitesizing's main perk over featuring is that you get a handful of maps every day. I much prefer this over one map, you simply get tired of it! Also, bitesizing is always modern. While featuring is supposed to shine light on maps that need attention, bitesizing's sole and main purpose is to get the GOOD, RECENT maps. Only a few maps should be bitsized a day, due to the highly exclusive roster, and the number of people on it.

Now I know what you're thinking, people would only look at the bitesizing page, and nobody would see the mediocre maps.

Due to the fact that not too many maps would be bitesized a day, I think that a balance would be maintained. The bitesizing page would contain just a few quality maps, for when you get tired of the hotmaps page.

Now let me ask you, would you prefer one map a day, that you have a average chance at liking, or would you rather have 5 or 6 maps, that you'll end up liking at least 3 or 4 of them?

[SkyRay]

Don't think about it, just sign the petition.. jesus.
Nothing like a little experimentation.

[TribulatioN]

I'd like it back. I mean it could always be removed if it gets out of hand having both bitesizing and featuring.

[SlappyMcGee]

All right, I'll try my best to address my counters to each of the things you brought up.

-Some of the top N players today are already on the review committee. To say that the two groups must be exclusive means that at least one of the groups will suffer; in my opinion, we do not have enough active members that are both discriminate and who play enough maps that we can have two solid teams for this project.

-To whom comes the decision on who is part of the team? A democratic thing would be messy and would end up with inactive members as well as members whose popularity eclipses their knowledge of n. Therefore, there would only seem to be to possible things we could do; put somebody (or a committee, but this once again complicates things.) in charge of choosing the bitesizers, in which case we might have a bias based on people who are more social rather than those involved in n, not to mention that we'd also have to decide who is unbiased enough to determine bitesizers (or another committee job. :/). The second option is to choose former or current authors, but the activity of former authors tend to be light at best, and current authors will wank-fest, because you're electing people to bitesize maps that deserve to be bitesized.

-A spike in map submissions mean that there is an increased number of maps to enjoy. That means that instead of enjoying a few of a small sample, you're enjoying a larger few of a larger sample. A spike in mapmaking does not necessarily denote an increase in the percentage of bad maps, but rather an increase in the volume of bad maps, but with that also comes an increase in good maps. Which means that now, more than ever, we need to be playing through more maps so that we can discover new authors.

-The way that I think featuring works is that it guaruntees you one good map each day. You can play the other maps, and enjoy or despise them, but you are guarenteed one good one. This is an effective system because many people can't play many maps in a day. With bitesizing, we will see a series of maps that are thought of as good by an unknown person. For instance, Yahoozy and I don't have the same taste in maps, per say; I can look at a map reviewed by him and say that I might not like to play it. On the other hand, if he bitesized it, I wouldn't know -who- bitesized it, or why.

-And I haven't read if you've suggested any plans for limiting your bitesizery in a day, but if you limit it too much, you risk cloning featured maps (with modern maps.) and if the limit is too broad, than you risk losing some of the sample.


On the other hand, I do agree with the idea that we need something to feature modern maps that are doing well. So, my suggestion is this: Hot Active Authors. We set up a criteria such as, authors who have made at least five maps in the last month and have an average of four or higher on these maps will have all of their maps listed on this page. That way, authors that are young but getting a good buzz about them will be highlighted, as well as old timers like Yahoozy who continue to make maps. This covers the modernism that you desire, as well as eliminates the chance for bias.

[Pixon]

I'd love to see Bitesizing alongside the featuring system.

I sign.

[blackson]

-Some of the top N players today are already on the review committee. To say that the two groups must be exclusive means that at least one of the groups will suffer; in my opinion, we do not have enough active members that are both discriminate and who play enough maps that we can have two solid teams for this project.

After thinking about it, I agree. I hate to just say what everyone else is saying, but too many people have left.

-A spike in map submissions mean that there is an increased number of maps to enjoy. That means that instead of enjoying a few of a small sample, you're enjoying a larger few of a larger sample. A spike in mapmaking does not necessarily denote an increase in the percentage of bad maps, but rather an increase in the volume of bad maps, but with that also comes an increase in good maps. Which means that now, more than ever, we need to be playing through more maps so that we can discover new authors.

This recent spike has come after many new people have found the site. Beit from N+, or whatever, the majority of maps that are being submitted these days are from inexperienced new people. Unfortunately, that means that the maps are of lesser quality. These authors WILL get better with comments andn time, and they deserve the chance to. Now, I'm not clinging to bitesizing, I just want there to be a system that will collectively drive the quality of maps on NUMA up as a whole, and give good maps an opportunity to be showcased. I personally think that bitesizing does a better job than featuring.

The way that I think featuring works is that it guaruntees you one good map each day.

I find myself liking the map about half the time, if there were two maps featured a day, I think it would be much better.

-And I haven't read if you've suggested any plans for limiting your bitesizery in a day, but if you limit it too much, you risk cloning featured maps (with modern maps.) and if the limit is too broad, than you risk losing some of the sample.

I agree, that would defeat the purpose.



Now, as I said earlier in this post, I'm not trying to just blindly support bitesizing, I just want a system that will help showcase maps, and encourage younger mappers to make better maps. Bitesizing seems to be the best current system, as the current system ceartinly isn't working! Maybe we can all get together and think of a working system that would at the same time get newer users comments, and give good maps a chance to be seen?

[victim]

I loved Bitesize. I'm all for bring it back.

[T3chno]

All that will mean is that a large swathe of the users will never look at hot maps again, and just rely on bitesize's instead.

i never wanna see the hot maps page ever again. rarely do i ever see a map worth playing on the hot maps page these days.

PUT ME IN BLACKSON!

[29403]

All that will mean is that a large swathe of the users will never look at hot maps again, and just rely on bitesize's instead.

Not necessarily.

As an ex-bitesizer, I'm in.

[mintnut]

Not necessarily? In what way.

They have a choice of a near guaranteed selection of all the good maps, or those same good maps, but with the poor-average maps mixed in. I know which I would choose. Giving this kind of choice is bad for the development of new authors.

A million times no in my opinion.

[Seneschal]

I'm behind Slappy and Mintnut on this one.
I just don't think bitesizing and featuring could be operated simultaneously, and while featuring does perhaps limit maps brought to public attention, at least the majority of features are worth playing.
I think a better system would be 2 features per day, one relatively old and one relatively new.

[Fraxtil]

Add me to the list.

[OneSevenNine]

I want this back.

If nothing else, it takes a lot less effort to bitesize a map than it does to write a review; considering that the time between featured maps has gotten inconsistent as of late, I think bitesizing will at least provide a more steady stream of new maps that deserve attention.

[Minion_of_Pi]

I joined after Bitesizing was through, but I'd like to see it come back. Add me to the list, please.

[Alex777]

Sure I'll sign. seems like a great idea.

[origami_alligator]

Not necessarily? In what way.

They have a choice of a near guaranteed selection of all the good maps, or those same good maps, but with the poor-average maps mixed in. I know which I would choose. Giving this kind of choice is bad for the development of new authors.

A million times no in my opinion.

Like I said already, if Bitesized maps were removed from the Hot Maps page I'd probably be okay with this.
If I remember correctly, both the Newest and Bitesized pages were looked at a fair amount on the old NUMA. I don't think bringing back Bitesize NUMA will have much effect on the already apparent problem of unrated maps on the Hot Maps page. If anything it'll get all the more enjoyable maps into a single page and allow people to leave more feedback for newer authors. There are only so many Bitesizable maps in a day.

The only downside I can see to bringing back Bitesize NUMA is that Featured Maps will somehow be less important and that massive sniping will happen again.