The Future of the MRG

[Nexx]

I like my Map-Rating Group. It gets people playing each others maps, which is good both for the community and for generating rates. But I see two "flaws" with it:

Primary: Author attention is brief and irregular.
Secondary: Comments aren't required.

So I've been thinking of making a secondary group where people both give and receive RCE's every week. It would still be the "if you participated the week before, then you get the benefit the next week" system (otherwise there'd be a loophole). As for who decides what map is played, I figure it would basically run like the map-rating group does now, where authors can make suggestions but ultimately it's the player's choice.

I also like the idea of this group, but it relies heavily on the regular participation of members, and I just don't know if the group could sustain itself, especially since the Map-Rating Group would be competing with it. I was thinking that perhaps this group could be an optional "above and beyond" part of the Map-Rating Group, but that gets very complicated. Alternatively, maybe we should try just doing a little more with the Map Rating Group, either requiring comments or upping the # of authors picked per week or something. There is, of course, nothing wrong with running both groups side-by-side.

So that's where this poll comes in. How would you like to see this group appear, if at all?

EDIT: You can change your vote in this poll anytime you want.

[Radium]

Ooo this is a tough decision. I voted keep the two running simultaneously. I think combining the two just wouldn't flow very well. On the other hand, managing two threads would be pretty challenging.

[MattKestrel]

Hooray for foresight. I think the current idea is too extreme, theres no way that large group would be incentivised to rate over 9 maps just to get 1 rating. Then again, the current MRG isnt effective enough. Its an interesting dilemma, and tbh I cant find an immediate solution. I think merging the ideas would be the best idea.

[Nexx]

I think the current idea is too extreme, theres no way that large group would be incentivised to rate over 9 maps just to get 1 rating.

No no, it's a round-robin setup. You play a map by everyone else, and everyone else plays a map by you. The distribution is equal. Yes, 9 for 1 would be crazy.

And GTM, what about the MRG would you personally like to see changed?

[MattKestrel]

*wipes sweat off brow*

But wouldnt the round robin approach be slightly harder to manage? Imo, increasing the author selection percentage on the current thread might be useful, say, to 40% up from 30%?

[Nexx]

*wipes sweat off brow*

But wouldnt the round robin approach be slightly harder to manage? Imo, increasing the author selection percentage on the current thread might be useful, say, to 40% up from 30%?

Actually, the round robin approach would be easier to manage since I wouldn't have to deal with all the lottery stuff. If you submitted rates, you'd be in, and that's that. 40% would be nicer though. What about comments? I remember you once made a comment in passing that the MRG should be the MCG.

And Radium, since you voted for both, would you participate in both? Because the problem with running both is that participating in both would be a lot of rates per week, and it seems more likely that users will pick one or the other thread and stick with that one most of the time, thereby splitting the 13 members into like 6 and 7, which would be bad.

Hmmm, wait a minute. Perhaps there IS a feasible hybrid that would still operate on round robin. What if, every week, I randomly split members into 2 groups, and then people did a round-robin within those two groups? So if there's 13 members, there'd be one group of 6 and one of 7, and each member in those groups would rate 5 or 6 maps, respectively. How's that sound?

I'm still not sure about the whole comments thing myself. There's only a few members who don't leave comments regularly, and I don't know how they'd react to such a requirement.

[toasters]

I think the RCE part should just be integrated into the MRG, making a MRCEG. Longer and cooler acronyms are always good.
Personally all the times that I've participated so far I've picked a person's map, played it, commented, then rated. So it's not a big change for me. I don't see the need for an entirely new group just for commenting, if people managed to rate maps on time, they can manage to take another few minutes to make a comment. Most comments just end up being "nice map, rocket was fun, 3.5^" anyway. Some people do try and make useful comments, but they're a pretty small minority.

[Radium]

I revise my opinion.

I concur with toasters; the MRG should turn into a MRCEG. Also, the comments should NOT be, "cool map 4/5". I believe they should contain more depth.

[Nexx]

I think the RCE part should just be integrated into the MRG, making a MRCEG. Longer and cooler acronyms are always good.

That's good to know. But what of the primary issue?

To be absolutely clear, my main issue is that I'd like to see a group where all participants both give and receive rates EVERY WEEK. The comments issue is important too, as I'm a big fan of those, but they're secondary, to be sure.

I really like my split round robins idea (and if the # of members exceed 14, it could be split into 3 separate round robins). I told myself I wasn't going to vote, but I find myself liking this idea so much that I'm voting for the hybrid thread.

[yungerkid]

i think that the old Map Rating Group should be changed into a new setup. the new setup should include a system where each week, each individual rates everyone else's maps, and everyone else rates its maps. i think that would be nice. although it might be a bit intensive. hmm....now that i start thinking about it, keeping the less intensive old MRG thread up would be nice for more lazy people as well...

[toasters]

I think the RCE part should just be integrated into the MRG, making a MRCEG. Longer and cooler acronyms are always good.

That's good to know. But what of the primary issue?

To be absolutely clear, my main issue is that I'd like to see a group where all participants both give and receive rates EVERY WEEK. The comments issue is important too, as I'm a big fan of those, but they're secondary, to be sure.

I really like my split round robins idea (and if the # of members exceed 14, it could be split into 3 separate round robins). I told myself I wasn't going to vote, but I find myself liking this idea so much that I'm voting for the hybrid thread.

I'm not quite getting the concept. I understand that for every rate a person gets, they should rate another's in equal proportion, but could you explain how people are going to know whose maps to rate? You may have already said this, but I think a good idea would be to just divvy up the group into pairs, maybe three's when you have to, and then those groups decide how many RCE's to hand out. And if say you log on and, surprise, you have 3 new comments and rates, then you would be obliged to return the favor.

[Nexx]

I'm not quite getting the concept. I understand that for every rate a person gets, they should rate another's in equal proportion, but could you explain how people are going to know whose maps to rate?

That's where the thread admin comes in.

Let's just go through an example. Let's say we've got 13 members. I'd randomly assign those members to two groups: group 1 with 6 members, and group 2 with 7 members.

Then I'd send out a PM to all the members of group 1 saying, "Hello, you're in group 1 this week. Please rate at least one map from everyone else in group 1. Here are everyone's suggestions: (name:link, name:link, etc)." I'd do the same for group 2.

Make sense now? Each week the two groups would be formed randomly, so that there would be some rotation.

In fact, since Week 20 of the MRG is coming up, I'm thinking maybe we should try this split round-robin style for Week 20. Then everyone can see it in action and get a sense of how it would work in practice. What would you guys think of that?

[Erik-Player]

I'm not quite getting the concept. I understand that for every rate a person gets, they should rate another's in equal proportion, but could you explain how people are going to know whose maps to rate?

That's where the thread admin comes in.

Let's just go through an example. Let's say we've got 13 members. I'd randomly assign those members to two groups: group 1 with 6 members, and group 2 with 7 members.

Then I'd send out a PM to all the members of group 1 saying, "Hello, you're in group 1 this week. Please rate at least one map from everyone else in group 1. Here are everyone's suggestions: (name:link, name:link, etc)." I'd do the same for group 2.

Make sense now? Each week the two groups would be formed randomly, so that there would be some rotation.

In fact, since Week 20 of the MRG is coming up, I'm thinking maybe we should try this split round-robin style for Week 20. Then everyone can see it in action and get a sense of how it would work in practice. What would you guys think of that?

I think that sounds like a great idea.

[epigone]

Moved on request.

[RandomDigits]

Well, I like the hybrid idea but I sometimes usually find it hard to get the rates in on time. Though I wouldn't mind getting rates every week...

And yeah, I think the subgroups should be kept at around 6 members or so. And that people should try to leave more useful comments than "The name is misspelt. LOL. 5^"

[MattKestrel]

I'm not quite getting the concept. I understand that for every rate a person gets, they should rate another's in equal proportion, but could you explain how people are going to know whose maps to rate?

That's where the thread admin comes in.

Let's just go through an example. Let's say we've got 13 members. I'd randomly assign those members to two groups: group 1 with 6 members, and group 2 with 7 members.

Then I'd send out a PM to all the members of group 1 saying, "Hello, you're in group 1 this week. Please rate at least one map from everyone else in group 1. Here are everyone's suggestions: (name:link, name:link, etc)." I'd do the same for group 2.

Make sense now? Each week the two groups would be formed randomly, so that there would be some rotation.

In fact, since Week 20 of the MRG is coming up, I'm thinking maybe we should try this split round-robin style for Week 20. Then everyone can see it in action and get a sense of how it would work in practice. What would you guys think of that?

Definitely a good idea, maybe instead of 2 definitive groups, why not have groups of 4/5/6 depending on circumstances. Generally smaller amounts of members would have smaller groups, whilst as the number of members increases the size of the groups eventually levels out.

Click if you want to see my mathematical ramblings

4 members: One group of 4
5 members: One group of 5
6 members: One group of 6
8 members: Two groups of 4
9 members: One group of 4 and one group of 5
10 members: Two groups of 5
11 members: One group of 5 and one group of 6
12 members: Two groups of 6
13 members: Two groups of 4 and one group of 5
14 members: Two groups of 5 and one group of 4
15 members: Three groups of 5
16 members: Two groups of 5 and one group of 6
17 members: Two groups of 6 and one group of 5
18 members: Three groups of 6
19 members: Three Groups of 5 and one group of 4
20 members: Four groups of 5
21 members: Three groups of 5 and one group of 6
22 members: Two groups of 5 and two groups of 6
23 members: One group of 5 and three groups of 6
24 members: Four groups of 6
25 members: Five groups of 5
26 members: Four groups of 5 and one group of 6
27 members: Three groups of 5 and two groups of 6

And so on

Of course, Ive blown things way out of proportion here :)

[Nexx]

Well yes, I was planning on splitting it into 3 groups of 5 once 15 was hit.

Here's the dilemma: 7 members per group is a bit much, but on the other hand I also don't like groups of 4. That's just 3 rates per person (given and received). I want to stick with my minimum of 4, which means a minimum of 5 people per group. So what to do in the case of 13 or 14 people? Perhaps a few people could be in two groups at once (they'd have to be trusted people who have volunteered for the role). Then with 13 people you could still form 3 groups of 5.

The other thing is I'd like to add some flexibility if possible. For example, ideally, if 5 members wanted to limit the # of rates they had to do per week, they'd go in their own group of 5, and then the remaining 8 would form another group with more rates per person. Alternatively, I could set up groups so everyone is included once, and then have an additional group for people who want to do more per week. (I imagine all the consistently early posters would volunteer for this)

Anyway, those are my concerns. I'm still mulling over the possibilities.

[RandomDigits]

If someone in the subgroup rated more than one of my maps, would I be obligated to rate more than one of his/her maps?

I hope not.

[Nexx]

If someone in the subgroup rated more than one of my maps, would I be obligated to rate more than one of his/her maps?

I hope not.

Of course not. In the current system, if someone submits multiples rates on your maps, are you obliged to do the same for them? Certainly not. It's the same system, just in network style instead of lottery style.