Recreating top-rated

[Fraxtil]

This would be nice.

Do you think maybe you could install a feature where it shows who rated what? This could help greatly pick out the snipers.

That's been considered for AltArc in the past, and I think people decided that it was bad because it could lead to revenge-sniping and whatnot.

[EdoI]

Arachnid!
In the past few weeks, NUMA has experienced many changes and it has really started improving. Also, suggestions from Uservoice are finally getting implemented. I'm really glad to see something like this happening. Thanks!

[Destiny]

I think the top ten of the week idea is brilliant. Once they enter the list, the positions in it should become permanent until a new list is created the next week. This way, it would discourage sniping due the sniping having no effect.

[the_happy_taco]

I know this may seem like an obvious question, but would you do the week before for the weekly top ten or the week of the review (like post them along the week and then change the next week)?

[Exüberance]

Will the top-ten be retroactive or will it start whenever it is implemented?

[Nexx]

Hi. I have a ton of things to say about this.

1) Original proposal is good. Not only does it provide recent top-rated, but it also serves as a top-rated area in general because it saves each week's top 10. Also, I would agree that once a week is the best frequency.

1A) Organization of your idea seems pretty straightforward. Have a top 10 area (i.e. a new tab in the Maps area) where each week gets 1 page (10 maps). Order should be of rating at the time of being set, because the whole point is to take a snapshot of the week's activity, so to speak. Ratings can change afterwards, but they shouldn't affect the order on this list.

2) Why is recent top-rated not possible? It can't be because of results truncated anymore, can it? I mean, let me put it this way: making the top 10 list every week requires doing the same thing that a recent top-rated does. Why does constant rearrangement pose a problem? (I'd really like an example or something that elaborates on how NUMA handles this stuff - I'm sadly quite unfamiliar with database organization) Or couldn't you make a workaround so that you have one normal index of maps based solely on submission order, and another one with a super-pumped-up float/sink system? Those two together could be new maps and recent top-rated. In any case, I'm not suggesting recent top-rated in lieu of this. I'm suggesting recent top-rated with snapshots every so often.

3) I have other questions/suggestions, but they kind of rely on your answer to #2. I wish we could just sit down and talk, sheesh.

4)

Besides, doesn't the ability to see past top10's eliminate the need for month/year lists anyway? Sure, it wouldn't be a top10 of the month/year, but it would still narrow the number of maps for that time period to a manageable selection.

Well you've definitely got a point. However, month/year lists are definitely easier to browse when condensed automatically. I mean, for a year's worth you're talking about 520 maps. And I think a lot of people would still like an all-time top-rated.

5)

And yes, this post brings me back to the argument for removing Top-Rated in the first place, in that the very top rated maps had minute differences in the rating (by a few thousandths or less). Creating dynamic top-rated pages would probably bring back a lot of the things that were more or less eliminated when the top-rated and top-authors pages were removed.

Sorry southpaw, but this is exactly the stuff I go on about, where people bitched that the old top-rated changed too much, and then go on to say that it needs to be more "dynamic" (in this case). I know that's not quite what you mean by "dynamic", but it kind of is.

IN ANY CASE, people aren't thinking when it comes to reimplementing top-rated! We're not talking about reimplementing the exact same system, because yeah, that system was crappy. All the maps were bunched at the top, as you say, and new maps went to #1 if they got 5/5 from 5 people. Both of those needed changing. That doesn't mean the whole system goes! Who made that brilliant decision?

The best idea I have to offer is a "most popular" listing, where you multiply exact average rating by # of rates and use that number to sort the maps. Basically it's like counting each rating (i.e. a rating of 3 increases a map's popularity by 3, 2 ratings of 4 each increases a map's popularity by 8 total, etc). Thus 5/5 from 5 peeps only has 25, compared to good ol' maps that are 4/5 from 200 people - those'd have a score of 800. And yes, this system is noticeably not "top-rated", but truly more like "most popular", because a ton of 3's can result in a higher score than not as many 4's. I think it would work out well, though it might take a bit of tweaking. But this is all mute if GAE can't process an all-time list. :(

I'm done for now.

[lord_day]

I'm not quite sure how this is going to work. Is the plan to have a list created, say on Sunday, of the top rated maps since the previous Sunday? Or is it going to be a dymanic list that is updated as the week goes on with the top rated maps, until the end of the week, where the list freezes? Either could work, and both have pros and cons asscioated with them.

Also, Avarin, your 'popularity idea' is ridiculous. It means, effectively, that the maps with the most votes are top of the list, and even votes of 2 or 1 will boost its place on the list. Once a map is on the list, it would recieve more votes, as everyone will play it, and therefore it will be stuck on the list forever.

[the_happy_taco]

My guess is that the week before the weeky dedline, the reviewers collect a stash of rated maps made that week. Then maybe sometime during the weekend the reviewers get together and vote for the top ten and show it Monday, repeating the process till the next Monday and the next, and the next, etc.

I think it would be easier that way and there less of a chance of a map being discriminated by one person's veiws.

I don't think it would be to challenging for Arachnid because he has done a fantastic job of giving nmaps.net a makeover for the better.

[Nexx]

Also, Avarin, your 'popularity idea' is ridiculous.

You know, I completely agree that that's a possibility. But sorting just by rating is no way to do it for a this smallish community. Newgrounds can deal with things being off by only 0.1 because their averages are based on 10,000+ votes each. I'm not a member of DeviantArt, but at least on the surface, their "most popular" system seems to work quite well, though I can't quite figure out what it's based on (they don't have a rating system, and it doesn't appear to be most views or most faves). Would something like most faves work for NUMA? Maybe in conjunction with ratings, somehow? I'm just throwing ideas out. One thing is for sure, though - this "most popular" list would provide more buffer room between maps, so that a few new ratings wouldn't change a whole lot (on an all-time list).

It means, effectively, that the maps with the most votes are top of the list

Most votes and a good rating, you mean. Some controversial map that's 3/5 by 40 people isn't actually going to be that high on the all-time list. Also, see my last response, below.

and even votes of 2 or 1 will boost its place on the list.

Yes, things can only move up. Things change by differences in their RATES of upward movement. If the fact that a rate of 1 or 2 increases popularity bothers you, we could make it so that the system shifts the average down by 2.5, so that 0/5, 2.5/5, and 5/5 become -2.5, 0, and 2.5, respectively. Thus 3/5 and 5/5 maps could still compete, but once it's <= 2.5/5, it can never be higher than something that's rated 3+.

Once a map is on the list, it would recieve more votes, as everyone will play it, and therefore it will be stuck on the list forever.

Yes, I see what you're saying in that it seems dumb to sort by "attention received" (so to speak), rather than "this is good, you should play it". However, I again have to point out that it has to be good attention (or simply a lot of attention, though for an all-time list, such maps won't get that far). However, if you try to use this for a recent top-rated, maps that received a lot of not-so-great attention won't be weeded out well enough, so some how new 5/5 by 15 would be lower than a featured new map that didn't go well and has 3/5 by 30. To deal with this, we could tweak the system so that ratings are a bigger factor. For example, we could square the exact rating.

And sorry for hijacking this thread. I'll try to stay more on topic on later posts, but I just wanted to respond to l_d's comments.

[epigone]

I think top rated of the month would be pretty neat, and maybe top rated of the week, but I'm not so sure on that one. Definitely not top-rated of the day. If top-rated of the month was installed as a feature, I think the system needs to be set up so that no one knows which maps are in the running until they are actually released, just as an addition protection for sniping and egos, plus I like a good surprise.

[Exüberance]

Also, maps should have to have been posted a minimum of 24 hours before the end of the week to prevent a map from sneaking into the top 10 with only 5 votes. This would just cause a mess of multiaccounting. It would be pretty obvious cheating, but it would still be better to avoid it entirely.

[Spawn of Yanni]

Also, maps should have to have been posted a minimum of 24 hours before the end of the week to prevent a map from sneaking into the top 10 with only 5 votes. This would just cause a mess of multiaccounting. It would be pretty obvious cheating, but it would still be better to avoid it entirely.

Riiiight, but then that same problem would still apply, just 24 hours earlier. lord_day mentioned earlier whether the list would be a constantly-changing thing until the end of the week, or simply released frozen at the end of the week. I agree with epigone that it should be released without anyone having seen it before, because it's a nice surprise.

There could, though, be some sort of "soft list" which the moderators have access to, to check if there's any abuse. In fact, if you combine it with Exuberance's 24-hours idea, that would give moderators a day before the list is published to check whether anyone's tried to pull anything.

Edit: (Also, if a map has genuinely gotten 5 high votes, say 5 fives, and shoots to the top of the list right before the deadline, chances are it deserves to be on the list anyway, if not at the top.)

[Nexx]

There could, though, be some sort of "soft list" which the moderators have access to, to check if there's any abuse. In fact, if you combine it with Exuberance's 24-hours idea, that would give moderators a day before the list is published to check whether anyone's tried to pull anything.

Sounds like a good setup to me. You just have to remember to count maps from that day when looking at the next week's maps.

[the_happy_taco]

Once again, I think it should be ran like the favorites, moderators collect maps over the week (mon-fri) the on that sat. they vote for the top ten and the restart the process all over again

[lord_day]

Once again, I think it should be ran like the favorites, moderators collect maps over the week (mon-fri) the on that sat. they vote for the top ten and the restart the process all over again

But this is far more effort than an automated process. And by moderators, I assume you mean reviewers?

[unoriginal name]

Once again, I think it should be ran like the favorites, moderators collect maps over the week (mon-fri) the on that sat. they vote for the top ten and the restart the process all over again

Reviewers are human too! ;____________________;

Also, that's not how 'nid's planning it, anyway. It's an automated system, as he is a kind, sane man.

[the_happy_taco]

Yea sorry, I was rushed to make the sentence and didn't have time to rewrite it before someone saw it.

I was just tossing up ideas, I didn't know that.

[epigone]

Once again, I think it should be ran like the favorites, moderators collect maps over the week (mon-fri) the on that sat. they vote for the top ten and the restart the process all over again

That's too much work for the mods/reviewers. And it sort of defeats the purpose of top-rated, instead it's just like the featured maps.

[the_happy_taco]

I guess we"ll see how things flow after Arachnid sets up the system, if things go for the worse, we can bail out back the original.

[Rhekatou]

YES
But maybe 15.
Oh, nevermind. I just remembered the list only holds 10....
Also, could you make a "newest members" list at the top of the home page, like the forum?

[Nexx]

I'm dragging this one out of the deep because it's a good idea. Let's do it. 10 maps per week.

The only suggestion I would make is perhaps consider looking at # of favorites to make the list, or even at some combination of faves and average rating.

[mintnut]

So I assume that the positions will be fixed then?

It will update itself automaticly, the way it should be.

Facts, Opinions...Facts, Opinions....Facts, Opinions..........Small, Far Away......Small, Far Away.......

[blackson]

Let's do it. 10 maps per week.

QFE

*Glances over at Arachnid*

[//Zander]

I think it's grand... just my opinion is rather worthless as I use NUMA Very little now...

[mintnut]

I think top rated of the month would be pretty neat, and maybe top rated of the week, but I'm not so sure on that one. Definitely not top-rated of the day. If top-rated of the month was installed as a feature, I think the system needs to be set up so that no one knows which maps are in the running until they are actually released, just as an addition protection for sniping and egos, plus I like a good surprise.

Epigone knows what's what. Avarin, why are you so desperate for an all-time list? I can't see the appeal, it's a list which the majority of the community will never have access to. The top ten maps of al time in this basis will all be oldies from when the submission rate was much smaller. I can only see this inducing jealous and sniping of maps like The Crazy Miner. Plus, basing a list on number of votes paves the way for n-arts to form a stranglehold on the top places.