NMaps.net Reviewer Surplus

[Radium]

I think there are too many reviewers on NUMA now. 25? That seems a bit excessive. I believe we should remove the inactive reviewers such as miyoser and woser45.

Alternatively, I think we should close applications for reviewing.

Thoughts?

[Turtle]

We can have more than one review up in a day, can't we?
If people want to review, and if they are doing a good job, then why not?

[KinGAleX]

I agree with Turtle. This really is a bit nitpicky. However, the inactive ones could be removed to little furor.

[a happy song]

I was wondering about this. I'll leave it open to debate for a while before I decide.

I'm going to go through and revoke the status for those who are terribly inactive, though.

[blue_tetris]

Topic title changed. In the future, make your topic titles specific, so people can find those topics more easily.

[notsteve]

it would be good if the inactive ones were removed

but even with this many reviewers, there is still a lack of maps that are in the featured queue, either the reviewers are not very active in finding old maps to be featured, or there are no more good maps

i also think some of the reviewers should "lose" their "title"

[numa_ninja]

There is definetly too many reviewers here at the moment, compaired to the amount of maps being reviewed. Since we have so many of them, we could've changed the review roster back to every 12 hours, but since the current one doesn't seem likely to change soon, then we should get rid of some of the inactive reviewers.

[aids]

how's this: either 15 reviewers, community-chosen, each with 4 reviews a month, for 60 a month and 2 a day, or 20 reviewers, community-chosen, with 3 reviews a month, for 60 a month and two a day. very logical and regular. anyone who misses their 3/4 reviews will be demoted, so only true reviewers will be left. sound good?

also, would I be a good reviewer? because I feel there are reviewers that don't deserve the position (nothing against him, but godenAtor comes to mind), so I was wondering how I'd be.

[epigone]

I think we should trim down the number of reviewers as well. Perhaps some sort of a forum-wide vote (or numa-wide) to decide which reviewers to get rid of?

[George]

Perhaps you might want to set a function on NUMA that automatically demotes reviewers who don't feature a new map every 60 or days?

Or you may consider having an 'active/inactive' reviewers section.

[a happy song]

Perhaps you might want to set a function on NUMA that automatically demotes reviewers who don't feature a new map every 60 or days?

Or you may consider having an 'active/inactive' reviewers section.

Theres' no need for the above, It's really not a massive effort for me to browse the list and remove those inactive.

The inactive reviewer page just reads like clutter.

Life's idea is convoluted and anyway, community appointed reviewers is just a bad idea.

I used to campaign for the 12 hour update, but really 24 hours is needed for each map to have a fair time on the front page.

You can hark on all you like about reviewers who don't deserve the position, but each of these users were chosen by either Arachnid or myself based on their ability to recognize a great map (subjective - please don't start down this road..) and translate that love to a review of a certain standard. Reviewers don't have to be Shakespeare, and while some of the writers are better than others, I'm happy with the overall standard.

Inactive reviewers having their status removed is not open to discussion, I'll be sorting this sometime today.

[Lenny]

I think it's possibly not a bad idea to have several reviewers. It means that there will almost always be a map in the review queue, which is really good. Wouldn't want to have too few reviewers, I reckon.

[Evil_Sire]

Hmm, that map at the bottom of the queue by green_ghost has been there for a while

Atob, any chance you can move it up in the list?

[epigone]

Hmm, that map at the bottom of the queue by green_ghost has been there for a while

Atob, any chance you can move it up in the list?

In the future, just PM Atob or one of the other NUMA administrators with a question like this. Also, remember that only reviewers know what maps are in the future featured maps, so be careful about the spoilers.

[a happy song]

Hmm, that map at the bottom of the queue by green_ghost has been there for a while

Atob, any chance you can move it up in the list?

Unfortunately, the system isn't working as it should. I've entered the fix as an idea on the Uservoice suggestions page. Feel free to stack your votes to make it a priority.

[Ad]

Er... I posted that 5 days ago. :D

[a happy song]

well that wasn't very productive, it's a dupe!.PNG

My bad, Ad. I've marked mine as duplicatre and transfered my vote over to yours. Soz for the confusion.

[Nexx]

I used to campaign for the 12 hour update, but really 24 hours is needed for each map to have a fair time on the front page.

I agree with the 24 hour turnover, but why can't two maps be featured for that 24 hours? I'm sure a lot of users would like that system (myself included), but only if the turnover rate actually needed to be upped.

Also, there are conflicting reports about the reviewed map queue in this thread, so I'll just ask outright: is it backed-up or is it in deficit?

[a happy song]

I used to campaign for the 12 hour update, but really 24 hours is needed for each map to have a fair time on the front page.

I agree with the 24 hour turnover, but why can't two maps be featured for that 24 hours? I'm sure a lot of users would like that system (myself included), but only if the turnover rate actually needed to be upped.

A bad idea. The entire point for the single 24 feature is for the map to have the maximum chance of exposure. the two map feature would most likely see one map of the two stealing the attention away.

Also, there are conflicting reports about the reviewed map queue in this thread, so I'll just ask outright: is it backed-up or is it in deficit?

Sometimes there are 10 maps backed up, other times there are 1-2 maps in the queue. There's always a couple waiting, though, that's the entire point. That some maps spend longer on the front page than they should is a system glitch, not a lack of queued submissions.

[MattKestrel]

I suppose this was a bit of a bad time to apply as a reviewer? :S I sent my application, and despite my lack of experience I think I know enough about what does and doesnt make a map feature worthy.

[blackson]

About three or four people have asked about their status as a reviewer on this thread. That's not what this thread is about. They will return emails when they have time, they are busy people.

I think there are too many reviewers, and take down the inactive ones. Blah Blah Blah.

[Pikman]

Perhaps you might want to set a function on NUMA that automatically demotes reviewers who don't feature a new map every 60 or days?

Or you may consider having an 'active/inactive' reviewers section.

I knew it. Quotes don't work. (Now they do. You forgot to uncheck the 'Disable BBCode box'. -George)
I agree with an inactive reviewers section. Possibly, a reviewer who is leaving for a while would like to be placed on the inactive list so they aren't removed from the list while they're gone and they can't do anything about it. But like atob said, we don't need an automatic demotion system.

I agree with the 24 hour turnover, but why can't two maps be featured for that 24 hours? I'm sure a lot of users would like that system (myself included), but only if the turnover rate actually needed to be upped.

Also, there are conflicting reports about the reviewed map queue in this thread, so I'll just ask outright: is it backed-up or is it in deficit?

That first point was something I had asked about before. I don't think stealing attention would be a problem, as most people know that any map featured must be of a higher quality than the normal fare. In other words, they would play both.
The reviewed map queue system is flawed. Maps at the back of the queue are being pushed further back as new maps jump in the middle of the queue. For example, when the system was starting out, mrgy05 wrote a review. It was at the end of the queue. Until the speed of featuring was upgraded, it was stuck there. The review aired 6/30/08, a month later. The review airing system also has its fair share of problems. It airs new maps every twelve hours occasionally (9/12/08) and sometimes skips days (no review for 9/2/08 and 9/19/08). So the biggest cause for the issue is queue backlog.
Also, I never was removed from the reviewer list. I resigned. I explained that on the old forums, somewhere.

[mintnut]

Hmm, I don't see much problem with the number of reviewers, it offers a broad range of tastes, especially when you have people who play maps for different reasons all reviewing - highscorers etc.

Also, I will probaby not be reviewing any maps until about christmas time, as Uni is taking up my life rather a lot. But I don't realy want to ose my reviewer status, as I really rather enjoy trying to get some sort of meaningful comment out there about good maps.

[T3chno]

Hmm, I don't see much problem with the number of reviewers, it offers a broad range of tastes, especially when you have people who play maps for different reasons all reviewing - highscorers etc.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there are too many inactive reviewers.

[a happy song]

That's not the problem. The problem is that there are too many inactive reviewers.

I've removed al the inactive reviewers. Did it a few days ago. If ytou can find me any that haven't submitted a review for a month or more, let me know via pm here.

The number of reviewers is perfectly fine, imo, Mintnut said it well.