HRFWiki talk:Quality Control

From Homestar Runner Fanstuff Wiki

Contents 1 Policy Ideas 2 Ratings 3 And in the end... 4 IDEAS (A summation of the discussion so far) 5 Question

Policy Ideas

Clearly, we need to keep from going down the same road again. So, quality control ideas? I propose that we find a way to use the reviews tab for this. — ChwokaTalk

I vote for a 'Quality Committee' to be created. – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 04:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Who'd be on this committee? — ChwokaTalk

Iunno. Respected members of the community? o_O – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. It'll be each of our jobs, as respected veterans of the wiki, to patrol recent changes, pick out the bad quality fanstuff, and kindly warn the user to fix it on its talk page. That way, the wiki won't go down the same track it did before and we won't have to keep deleting My Immortal copies. 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality? You ain't got no quality, whitey! I'm outta here! Nah...no Doreauxgard lines...Yeah, this is a good idea. Yes, I'd like to be a part of this. Cyrus 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of the old bad things were stuff that weren't related to Homestar at all. So, we do something for that specifically? - Lazlo319

This is an awful idea. We don't need fun police telling users what they did wrong. Should we suggest how the fanstuff could and should be improved? Absolutely. Should we have a committee whose only purpose is for ego-stroking and immunity from criticism? Not at all. -TheCheese until a sysop changes my name >:((((((

I like it. Plus, I wanna be a critic when I'm older.

Or, we could send each bad fanstuff to the MFT3000 team. SI.com!

Why does this idea sound like it came from an old Dilbert cartoon strip? Anyway, we don't really require a "quality control" other than the standards of the people that go here. Come on, would you guys make bad fanstuff just for the sake of it? Naw, you'll make good fanstuff for the sake of it if you want things like respect, awards and bragging rights! So start workin'. Dennis Dunjinman 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We have made bad fanstuff for the sake of it, many times before, over at the WUW. I'm pretty sure that's proof enough. — ChwokaTalk 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess it's time to grow up, then. Dennis Dunjinman 19:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's a silly mentality but we already went through that whole purge business so we might as well keep running with it. - Joshua 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Joshua: I agree with having a minor amount of quality control here, but seriously? That, right there, is a textbook case of gambler's fallacy. — ChwokaTalk 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm being tongue-and-cheek, still I think we're in a bit of a no-win situation here. An actual quality control thing for a wiki of this nature (expecially one that attracts a young audience) seems like a bad idea that defeats the purpose of having a fun fan-content-based wiki, but if we don't implement any then we admit the purge was silly and pointless (shhhhh it was) and everything resets back to the way it was, we'll look dumb and the wiki probably gets shut down when people start complaining again or dot com notices. - Joshua 02:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should see what happens over the next week. Raiku 07:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking in the next few months, we should consider reinstating an official fanstuff award, to create examples of quality fanstuff. Of course, it's no immediate change, but it may help should we ever get new users hanging around here. As for now, I have to agree with Raiku in seeing how things go in the next few weeks, keep reviews running and monitored, and then making changes as we see fit later on. -- 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I second both Denzel and Raiku. LeCowPaunch (Talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda agreeing with "TheCheese until a sysop changes my name" on this one. He makes a very good point that we don't need some "comittee" to tell users what they did wrong. All this "Bad fanstuff" is just a matter of opinion. Most of the community could think it's bad, but some of the community would think it's decent. Heck, the whole community could hate a fanstuff, but does that mean we need some comittee? We could just have users put up suggestions or things like that. Once again, this "Bad Fanstuff" thing is just an opinion. We don't need a friendly warning from some comittee member on what they think is a bad fanstuff. --Cow Leg 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that quality is subjective but in the old wiki there was a lot of stuff that was objectively horrible. - Super Sam 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then we could just post suggestions on how to improve it. I don't think it's entirley right that fanstuff gets deleted just because some people think it's bad. --Cow Leg 01:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cow Leg, I want to tell me honestly: Is this reaction because you think you're in danger of being under effect of this new policy? — ChwokaTalk

Uh. No. Not at all really. Might I ask why you think that? --Cow Leg 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC

I don't think it's right that fanstuff gets deleted just because people think it's bad. After all, someone might like it. And I might make a fanstuff, and it is likely going to be bad, but I don't want it to be deleted. --Fangoriously! (Chat) 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Crappyness is an opinion, I really like Larry the Cable Guy, all critics think he's crap. doesn't mean he should go away. The McArby! 14:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd hate to stay on the topic of comedians, but I like Dane Cook. A lot of people think he sucks. Cyrus 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fangoriously and The McArby are not a lie. A fanstuff sucking is only an opinion. And it isn't very fair that fanstuff gets deleted or given a 'warning' by some comittee member just because they think it's bad. --Cow Leg 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but like Super Sam said, nothing here is objectionably bad yet, though some fanstuff is hovering towards it. Like everyone else said, let's wait a week or two to see if the fanstuff quality meter improves, then we should take action. 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

no wikihood - Xenophunk 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that everyone here collectively has terrible opinions. If Raiku makes a fanstuff, everyone will immediately jump on the delete button, but if skullb (<3) or bluebry (<3) or someone more universally loved make a fanstuff of the same quality, no one will say a word about it. In conclusion, a Quality Control committee would be terrible and you are all terrible for wanting one (and even more terrible for volunteering yourselves) -TheCheese

And if someone makes a fanstuff but no one notices, is it really made? Dennis Dunjinman 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

personally I think we should focus less on getting rid of the bad stuff, and more on the keeping the good stuff. something like a "fanstuff of the time period" system, except rather than having a winner occur after a set time period, having a winner after a set amount of positive acclaim. so nominations would go on some page (you can't nominate yourself!!) and if enough recognition and appreciation occurs, it gets a gold star or is bolded or appears on a separate list above all the other things on the indexes or a combination of those etc.

we have the "new stuff" list as well as the forum for letting people see what's new around here, so I think the portal pages ought to be used for noting quality as well as listing everything

kapeesh :S -SHADOW SCYTHE 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, fanstuff of the whenever? Like I suggested before the purge? — ChwokaTalk

Why don't we just check the New Stuff page every day so then whenever something new comes on there, we see if its good, then we write in the talk if there is anything bad. Lazlo319

TheCheese makes a great point too. --Cow Leg 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that no-one on the wiki would be capable of being unbiased and fair if they nominated and designated jobs on a committee. However, that being said, I do agree that we'd need to establish a certain format and procedure for sifting fanstuff (in-order for the community to be alerted as to what goes and what stays). – Pertmywert (Talk·Edits) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And we can't use a by-committee system, because last time we had that, Wiki User Email Zoo977 got nominated and won. (No offense, Zoo, but your stuff is bullet-riddled with errors of both composition and storytelling.) So, it'd clearly just turn into another worthless popularity contest, and the pipes would get clogged up instead of running efficiently. Continuing the pipe metaphor:

SUPER SAM, PLUMBER MAN

SUPER SAM: there you go a brand new set of pipes for your sink !!!

{Super Sam leaves}

PERSON 1: {dumps garbage down the sink}

PERSON 1: {wonders why it doesn't work}

{Person 2 rides in, and then gets off his high horse.}

PERSON 2: I wish to use this sink, but it's clogged, so it's useless and I shouldn't care about it or the act of unclogging it.

{The horse turns into a motorcycle, and Person 2 grows sunglasses and drives off.}

PERSON 2: TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL

PERSON 1: {dumps garbage down the sink}

— ChwokaTalk

I just want to point out that the pre-purge rules were very good and concrete, however the problems arose with the lack of enforcement of the rules. This lack of enforcement was only worsened when a fanstuff was deemed rule-breaking, as the average user would go apecrap and just whine, yell, and throw hissy fits. Maybe instead of envisioning some idealistic fanstuff review crew with probably inane standards, we just enforce the previous rules? Homsar44withpie

Email tryouts worked well but I don't know how we could do that with all fanstuff.
(Also committees have never, ever worked in any situation.) Super Sam 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We could easily do that with all fanstuff. It'd have to be changed from "pass it once, good to go" to "each new fanstuff gets a new pass." Are we going to keep the stipulation that it's just checking for rule-breakers, or are we going to let user reviews of quality enter as well? — ChwokaTalk

Quality? Quality of a certain fanstuff is just an opinion, whether or not many users agree on it, it is still an opinion. I don't think we need any form of quality control beyond just posting suggestions for how to improve things in the talkpages. I mean, removing a fanstuff just because some commitee or a large group of users think it's bad is just ridiculous. And so is removing any "bad quality" (OPINION!!) fanstuff just because a large group of users think it's bad. --Cow Leg 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends if the quality you're looking for is humor/wit/plot/etc or spelling/grammar/formating and in the case of sprite comics legibility, no glaring errors with sprite pasting, and png/gif format. - Joshua 11:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

How about we create the option to rate fanstuff from a scale of 1 to 5 stars? Like what Uncyclopedia does. It'd allow people to sort the good stuff from the bad, and not create a particularly Orwellian environment. DonZabu 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

so long as it is not anonymous and will require some sort of reasoning behind each rating SHADOW SCYTHE 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Require people to post a comment if they intend to vote, like with PlanetElderScrolls? DonZabu 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

problem, if we do that we will get comments of just "Sucks" or other things you may find in an ignorant iTunes review. so require a comment of at least one paragraph? -- The McArby! 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there will be anyone on the wiki ignorant enough to do this, as we're a little bit more mature than iTunes lurkers. Even if we weren't, that still wouldn't warrant such an action. 02:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time i'm gonna say this, bad and good fanstuff= OPINION But I do like the idea of a rating system, so long as the fanstuff receives no punishment for common bad ratings (being removed) --Cow Leg 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But, if we have the option to rate fanstuff, pretty much 70% of ratings will be 1 star or 5 stars. Even if it's the slightest good, people will vote 5 when it deserves a 3 or 4. If it sucks just a little, people would rate it 1. So, it would be completely unhonest. Also, people would just vote 5 for their friend's fanstuff, or even their own. LeCowPaunch (Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

1. Rather than have one-to-five stars, we simply have thumbs up and thumbs down.

2. Make the software work in such a way that people can't vote for their own creations.

3. Also make the software so that the mods can delete votes and comments that don't cut it.

And even if ratings are opinion, sorting from consensus-good to consensus-bad still ought to be thought of as useful. Even the ratings of a thousand lobotomized baboons ought to count for something. DonZabu 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that fixes it. So, mods can delete the fanstuff with horrible ratings? That seems alright. LeCowPaunch (Talk) 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nooooo. Mods just delete ratings that don't give a decent justification. DonZabu 20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it, kinda like the rating system at failblog.org-- The McArby! 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the mods deleting fanstuff with the worst ratings would be the best idea to go with the thumbs-up thumbs-down rating system because we wont have to purge the wiki again and wait a couple years. LeCowPaunch (Talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Too Orwellian. As several people have mentioned, opinions are subjective. Besides, bad fanstuff existing would hardly be a problem if people could see the low ratings and avoid it. DonZabu 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was one person, several times.

However, I do think we are moving into the hard-to-implement and I don't even like the idea as much as the more freeform ones — fanstuff tryouts, Fanstuff of The Whenever, heck, I even like the idea of a mysterious council passing infalliable judgment more than this Web 2.0 stuff. — ChwokaTalk 02:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Web 2.0 is what got us here in the first place. The very concept of a wiki is Web 2.0. DonZabu 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, okay? You get my point; we're moving away from simple and elegant solutions to hard-to-implement and actually pretty bad solutions. — ChwokaTalk

that's not what Orwellian means
also please fix your signature it is taking up way too much space in the edit window - Super Sam 14:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And in the end...

...no verdict was reached. DonZabu 07:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

here at the fanstuff wiki we have enough initiative to decide we need to come to a consensus, but not enough decisiveness to actually resolve the issue SHADOW SCYTHE 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Much like Congress. DonZabu 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

i love linkin park too -- Nacho^Talk 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah! --Cow Leg 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IDEAS (A summation of the discussion so far)

• Quality Assurance Comittee
  • Respected Users
    • Who?
  • "Fun Police"
• Quality Patrol
• BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION
• Send Everything Bad To MFT3k
• Easy — don't ever make anything bad ever. Problem solved! Sincerely, Dennis.
• Fanstuff Awards Again
• BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION
• I'm gonna take Dennis' idea and run with it: Let's do absolutely nothing.
• BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION
• GUYS BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION
• Hey maybe a standardized procedure for handling new fanstuff?
• Email Tryouts for everything
  • Make it public-rule based instead of exclusivity-based?
  • Rule-break checks only?
  • Each new fanstuff gets new pass?
  • I thing this is a good idea with enough leniency to please everybody but enough strictness to
• NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNO YOU AREN'T LISTENING BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION
• 5-Star rating system embedded and automatic instead of manual in review tabs
  • Not Anonymous
  • Reasons behind votes
  • People always vote either 1 or 2 anyway.
    • Then just have thumbs up or down
  • Make it hard to implement and be almost entirely original coding! I'm sure IDC is entirely up to doing this task
    • That fixes everything!
• YOU CLEARLY CAN'T HAVE ANY GOOD IDEAS WHEN BAD FANSTUFF IS AN OPINION GUYS LISTEN TO ME I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH GOOD IDEAS

Now time for opinions on the ideas I think are really good!

• Fanstuff Awards
  • Doesn't harm anything bad, only rewards for doing good, which neatly steps around the "bad is an opinion" thing.
• Procedure
  • It's not really fleshed out, but yeah, having some sort of official "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3" procedure, even a one that does effectively nothing, would add to the authoritative voice and force people to think a little bit harder before going into step 1 simply BECAUSE there is a procedure in place.
• Email Tryouts
  • It worked great last time and I see no reason it wouldn't work again. Definitely would need to be modified though. Mob rule, each new fanstuff gets a pass, but I don't think it should be rule breakers only.

What do you guys think are the best ideas put forward?

— ChwokaTalk

I'd hate to think what kind of creative, offbeat ideas are squandered because of the procedure system. DonZabu 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't know how many. We don't know what the procedure is, what it's scanning for, ANYTHING. No need to attack vague concepts. — ChwokaTalk

I must admit, I like 1 and 2, because it kinda works with the whole Bad Fanstuff is an opinion argument. I think the Email Tryouts are a horrible idea because bad fanstuff is an opinion. If it dosen't break the rules and the person would really like to have some of teh wiki users to see it let the do it.—TheMcArby! 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if Tryouts make a comeback, specific judges should be chosen. Maybe 3 or 5. That way, its more organized and an official descison will come quicker. -- Badstar

Tryouts are too Orwellian. I hate to say "opinion", but that's exactly what it is. DonZabu 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know what Orwellian means? I submit that you do not. Even if you've read 1984 you probably don't.

Tryouts are simply a more efficient way of passing opinion on everything. A bottleneck measure that catches everything as it is made, as apposed to a butterfly-net-to-catch-water measure where we judge after it's been created, so that many items end up not being judged at all, and end up being exactly the thing we're trying to rid ourselves of: low-quality one-offs that only 12 people have ever cared to view just sitting there, doing nothing but adding to the general bitterness about the wiki in its own, small way. — ChwokaTalk 00:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anything I say is going to matter at this point, but didn't Benjamin Franklin say that people who trade freedom for security deserve neither? DonZabu 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job setting yourself up as the victim here. That's smooth.— ChwokaTalk 05:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to say "nice job dancing around the issue". I'm afraid I'll sound like as much of a [twees] as you do. DonZabu 03:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to be considering Fanstuff Awards, I say we should also consider awards for the worst fanstuff, like the Golden Raspberries. I mean, it's no more opinionated than regular fanstuff awards, now is it? User:DonZaby/sig 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That completely defeats the purpose of the fanstuff award idea, and is essentially bullying. — ChwokaTalk

I thought there was the "bedst fansutff evar!!!!!11" award a while ago. Cyrus 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

donzabu are you being serious

if you are then that is a horrible idea, we don't want to be jerks and totally make fun of bad fanstuff, that's supposed to be discouraged and any worst fanstuff awards will not only encourage it but endorse it

positive reinforcement guys SHADOW SCYTHE 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not like that kind of stuff doesn't happen anyway. DonZabu 03:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

DonZabu, I am getting really sick of this attitude you're gallivanting around. It does nothing but cause drama and cause all meaningful discussion to grind to a halt as we talk about you and your ideas. Even if you don't mean to make yourself the center here, this is exactly the type of behavior people are liable to fall into if left unchecked. Hell, even I do. It's an unconscious behavior that becomes more dangerous the longer you entertain it.

Now, about what you have actually said, it appears that you will not accept ideas other than modifications on your own ratings idea, and so even while I am trying to get some discussion started on fleshing out the other ideas, you interrupt to discard my ideas out-of-hand. Before you even say that you're "just trying to discuss it" and that I'm "being reactionary/defensive," know that you are not doing the first. You were not trying to help discuss the ideas I laid out, rather, you were hoping to debate them, call attention to yourself, and hopefully win out in the end (or at least come out with an impenetrable wall of ill logic that protects you from arguments.) This is how internet flame wars get started. It's not Us Versus Them or Me Versus You, which unfortunately this talk page has been warped into, it's supposed to be working towards a common goal — quality control. Everybody has contributed meaningfully, even the "bad fanstuff = opinion" people, though I mock them for retreading the same point many times, did cause me and some others to reconsider and retool some of the systems. Inevitably, though, the group discussing systems for quality control divided into two camps; those who thought it best to do nothing, and those who wanted to do something but they weren't sure what, of which I appear to be the only remaining member of because of everybody else being worn down or lost interest in the lack of progress.

DonZabu, you have your little pet system that you refuse to see any flaws in that aren't immediately followed with a solution — the ratings system. It's a pretty good idea, but I do have two fears: 1) It's Dot Com would never bother to implement such a thing, so we might as well have a plan B, and 2) most fanstuff would go completely uncovered. Solving 2 would basically require either apeople dedicated to rating everything they find, like a review patrol like Jicem suggested, or also known as a comittee, or having everybody submit their things for review, or, as it's better known, a try-out if it's open to the public or, again, a comittee if it is a selective group. I could just not be seeing the extra options here, but it feels like that if you feel at all like fixing the second problem, you're going to be combining your ideas with one of the other ideas in a fashion that completely invalidates the benefits of having a starred automatic system in the first place and that we'd be better off cutting out the middleman. And it is a middleman, believe me.

Now, stepping off my high horse for a moment, I realize that I am, as we speak, doing some of the things I'm saying not to do. I'm not proud of this, and hope I never have to participate in another flame war like such as long as I live, but we all know that's not how I function. Now, to grow the metaphorical sunglasses and get on my kickin-sweet Harley motorcycle again, I'm gonna tell you to, please, don't let my ethos color my logos and pathos if you decide to continue this train of thought — which will probably just end up worse on me than it is right now, and this is probably the worst reaction to an incoming flame war I've ever had, so I would strongly advise against you even bringing up this subject much again even, no ESPECIALLY, if you feel that you're in the right and that your just have one more thing to say. If it's not on the topic of possible methods of quality control.... it's hard to explain, but this entire essay I'm writing, right now? This is how my thoughts sound, all the time, adjusted to second person occasionally for the sake of clarity. It's really messed up in here, and me saying it all is a sign that I am so close to snapping it's not even funny. I'm going to bed after this, and by the time I wake up my thoughts will have cooled, and I do not want to wake up to the giant waves this has created. To clarify, if there is anything you want to clarify with me about this, ESPECIALLY in a leading or antagonistic way, do not say it. So much as a "hey wait, if you know you're a big ol' hypocrite, why not edit yourself of those tendecies in this essay?" II have an answer, but I am withholding it so as not to give myself an aneurysm trying to answer all these niggling questions just waiting to be answered and loose ends just waiting to be pulled. This does not mean a cease fire on discussion completely, but please refrain from negative tendencies outlined in the previous paragraphs, and that goes for me too.

Also, learn how to use the word "Orwellian" right.

— ChwokaTalk 05:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Grow some skin men. DonZabu is entitled to an opinion. No need to waste server space on meaningless tl;dr dribble where you repeat yourself several times. Chill, out. Go create some decent fanstuff, instead of biting each-other's heads off. 123.211.199.179 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I've got this right:

Paragraph 1: Understandable concern tempered by the exact behavior you express concern about..

Paragraph 2: Shallow labeling on my part and tuchus-covering doublespeak on your part.

Paragraph 3: Continued promotion of ideas that I have yet to see decent rebuttals to my criticisms over.

Paragraph 4: Empty implicit threats, more doublespeak.

Paragraph 5: "The adjective "Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society." Sure rings true to me. DonZabu 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

perhaps we're trying to solve a non-existant problem here
at any rate I put my FULL CONFIDENCE in chwoka. Feel free to create a fanstuff award system or implement any other good ideas you have. Right now we're just going in circles and the easiest way to figure out whether something works or not is to just do it. - Super Sam 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Boy, did this get out of control. DonZabu 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm never gonna get tired of saying this: Bad fanstuff is an opinion. --Cow Leg 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but, so is good fanstuff. 98.209.8.199 19:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! It's all in opinion. If we add some kind of quality control, then we'd basically be punishing people because of someone else's opinion. And that wouldnt be fair, would it? --Cow Leg 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, its not just somebody's opinion, but a majority of peoples opinions. and if we dont veto bad fanstuff, then another purge would just fire up in the next few years. and that aint a good thing. 98.209.8.199 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhp. You said the magic word! Opinions. Even if they are a great amount of opinions, they are NOTHING but opinions. Mere thoughts, not facts, my stranger friend. --Cow Leg 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with ya, Cow Leg. And it's for precisely that reason that judgment panels are an absolutely wretched idea. DonZabu 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

hrrm, we seem to be confusing "quality" with "how much someone likes it"

quality refers to how much effort was put into something and how well it's presented, given what kinds of things there are to work with, and this does not change from person to person

meanwhile, it's completely possible for some people to like things with less quality over things with more quality, simply because of their own preferences; this is where the opinion comes in

however, this isn't to say that quality isn't nebulous; by nature it can't really be quantified. we can't say "this has more quality than that" very easily at all, because any means of measuring quality is destined to fail

I believe, however, if the community members attempt to stay neutral and keep their own preferences out of quality judgment (and more people judging will likely result in the overall error being less) we can get a fairly accurate measure of what is lovely, what is decent, what is passable, and what needs work.

on the other hand, I'm hesitant to hand the keys to this kind of judgment in the hand of every single person here; the fact of the matter is, some people are pretty blind to what is good and what is not; in fact, most people's judgment on this kind of an issue is clouded, to some extent, by personal preference. as such, leniency is needed as well, though this may defeat the whole purpose of quality judgment

this is why positive reinforcement is desirable over negative; in my opinion, it's easier to tell what's good than it is to pick out what's bad

in closing I'm going nowhere in particular with this SHADOW SCYTHE 03:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

TMBW has a ratings system. I'm not sure sure exactly how it is coded, but maybe someone could get in contact with an admin over there and ask. --— Super Martyo boing! 03:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are people allowed to make their own awards like in the last wiki? I'm not seeing the section for it. I ask here because of the implications user-made awards have on the issue. DonZabu 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

they aren't —TheMcArby! 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Awww. I wanted to see how far I could take the ratings idea without special software. :( DonZabu 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)