ANSWERED:New Member Group: Description Approvers

[gistofeverything]

OP has been updated with Dracocharky's suggestion.

[gistofeverything]

*cringes at double post*

 

It's pretty clear that this idea is supported, so are there any suggestions for implementations?

[Pixxelation]

To limit power, maybe approvers could only approve, and instead of reject, have a, "Flag to mod" option so mods can see that an approver rejected it, and make sure it's a valid reason?

[cerimonster]

That is an excellent suggestion, and I know that I would definitely help out if this got accepted +1 support!

[brairtrainer]

To limit power, maybe approvers could only approve, and instead of reject, have a, "Flag to mod" option so mods can see that an approver rejected it, and make sure it's a valid reason?

I think this is a good idea if it is like that with the rp approvers

[gistofeverything]

PMed a global about changing the options.

 

New question:

 

Should Description Approvers have a unique Member Group on the forums?

 

Yes

No

Maybe, if...

[Thuban]

I'm slowly knocking out descriptions. It does help a LOT when you guys leave comments with the descriptions you are reviewing. It lets me know if theres something i may have missed if theres a crit, or what the general feeling is on the thing itself. I often skim the comments before reading the description itself.

 

What slows me down is having to leave a comment for every one that i approve or reject. If i have made a small edit (fixing a cap or something /small/ i have no issues with leaving a comment to let the user know.

 

Sometimes im not sure, and will leave a comment stating i dont know, and am leaving it for another mod to look at.

 

After the holidays, I have plenty of free time to devote to descriptions. I'll start making a point to do 40 or so a day, just to get some knocked out though.

[gistofeverything]

We thank you for your efforts, Thu, however, this backlog has become a widespread issue, and I believe that we need extra staff to help deal with that.

 

What slows me down is having to leave a comment for every one that i approve or reject. If i have made a small edit (fixing a cap or something /small/ i have no issues with leaving a comment to let the user know.

 

Is it necessary to leave a comment after an approval/denial?

Edited December 14, 2012 by gistofeverything

[Obscure_Trash]

Urgh. So I haven't replied to this yet because I'm extremely frustrated - not at you or this suggestion but at myself. This thread keeps popping up and I know I have to be the one who got rid of previous threads, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why I would do that. D<<<

 

Anyway. Basic answer: Pretty much everyone upon everyone agrees description mods would be cool. However, things need done on site before we can get description mods, but hey, there's a lot that needs done on site and only one guy to do it all. We really have everything already worked out and I know, based on comments I see on descriptions, who I would want to apply (well, generally speaking - I can't see who makes comments). At this point (this point being a point like a year or so ago), it's not an argument to convince anybody. It's just a waiting game (and then hoping that the qualified people apply).

 

Description mods only being able to approve - wut. I'm much more worried about approvals than I am rejections. Rejections, the user can resubmit (and fix) and have it re-looked at or discuss on forum and have it approved without changing. There's nothing I can do about accidental approvals. I'll be the first to admit - I've made plenty of mistakes. Realized I had the wrong option selected or submitted and then realized, re-reading it I had accidentally read over something that changed my answer, and then just had to live with it. Also, it's really un-fun to just have to mod rejections. I'd be bummed if description mods got to do all the approvals and then I just had to look over their rejections and agree/disagree.

 

Approval/rejection after certain number of users approve/reject it - no!

Everyone complains about the phantom rejecter and I am am going to complain about the phantom approver. Just as there are people who reject for no reason (or no discernible reason), people definitely do this for approvals.

Sometimes I'm unsure whether (some) people are actually reading the descriptions they're voting on or they're just really afraid of rejecting. I'm pretty sure it's both.

Here are two lists of descriptions that users could have managed to approve/reject even though a mod wouldn't have taken that action:

Descriptions I've seen with both rave reviews and high positive ratings:

-Detailed description of a dragon slaughtering his father and raping his mother

-Cut-off descriptions

-User rants: a recent example: somebody gave me a handful of sentences on being fed up with people asking them why they put numbers in their dragons' names and then said it was because it was cool

-Descriptions littered with errors even though they had at least a dozen comments that covered how to fix all the errors

-Descriptions way not in the era of DC, although they were entertaining

-Non-original descriptions (song lyrics, book quotes), some of which most users recognize the song as stolen from somewhere and some of which only one user did

-Descriptions that only give the meaning of the dragon's name

Descriptions I've seen with low or negative ratings/negative reviews:

-Descriptions that are "too long" even though they don't cut-off

-Descriptions that are "too short" even though they describe the dragon

-Descriptions that are "boring" even though that is not in the guidelines and subjective

As you can tell from my lists, there are tons of things that receive high ratings from users that are not appropriate for a DC description. If we changed descriptions to be simply user-based, it would make more sense to just remove the whole moderation system (which is rather tempting, lol).

[brairtrainer]

Urgh. So I haven't replied to this yet because I'm extremely frustrated - not at you or this suggestion but at myself. This thread keeps popping up and I know I have to be the one who got rid of previous threads, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why I would do that. D<<<

 

Anyway. Basic answer: Pretty much everyone upon everyone agrees description mods would be cool. However, things need done on site before we can get description mods, but hey, there's a lot that needs done on site and only one guy to do it all. We really have everything already worked out and I know, based on comments I see on descriptions, who I would want to apply (well, generally speaking - I can't see who makes comments). At this point (this point being a point like a year or so ago), it's not an argument to convince anybody. It's just a waiting game (and then hoping that the qualified people apply).

 

Description mods only being able to approve - wut. I'm much more worried about approvals than I am rejections. Rejections, the user can resubmit (and fix) and have it re-looked at or discuss on forum and have it approved without changing. There's nothing I can do about accidental approvals. I'll be the first to admit - I've made plenty of mistakes. Realized I had the wrong option selected or submitted and then realized, re-reading it I had accidentally read over something that changed my answer, and then just had to live with it. Also, it's really un-fun to just have to mod rejections. I'd be bummed if description mods got to do all the approvals and then I just had to look over their rejections and agree/disagree.

 

Approval/rejection after certain number of users approve/reject it - no!

Everyone complains about the phantom rejecter and I am am going to complain about the phantom approver. Just as there are people who reject for no reason (or no discernible reason), people definitely do this for approvals.

Sometimes I'm unsure whether (some) people are actually reading the descriptions they're voting on or they're just really afraid of rejecting. I'm pretty sure it's both.

Here are two lists of descriptions that users could have managed to approve/reject even though a mod wouldn't have taken that action:

Descriptions I've seen with both rave reviews and high positive ratings:

-Detailed description of a dragon slaughtering his father and raping his mother

-Cut-off descriptions

-User rants: a recent example: somebody gave me a handful of sentences on being fed up with people asking them why they put numbers in their dragons' names and then said it was because it was cool

-Descriptions littered with errors even though they had at least a dozen comments that covered how to fix all the errors

-Descriptions way not in the era of DC, although they were entertaining

-Non-original descriptions (song lyrics, book quotes), some of which most users recognize the song as stolen from somewhere and some of which only one user did

-Descriptions that only give the meaning of the dragon's name

Descriptions I've seen with low or negative ratings/negative reviews:

-Descriptions that are "too long" even though they don't cut-off

-Descriptions that are "too short" even though they describe the dragon

-Descriptions that are "boring" even though that is not in the guidelines and subjective

As you can tell from my lists, there are tons of things that receive high ratings from users that are not appropriate for a DC description. If we changed descriptions to be simply user-based, it would make more sense to just remove the whole moderation system (which is rather tempting, lol).

Sock even though it would be a while until we got description mods do you think TJ would support an area or form for people to use to apply until we are able to add them? while I understand it is a waiting game the back log at some points does not make describing dragons fun. Maybe seeing that there is prep for when we can add description mods would at least improve moral among those who like to describe all their dragons.

[RainDear]

Perhaps the best things those of us who support this idea can do are: to review descriptions, hone our grammar skills to give good advice on necessary changes, learn to recognize inappropriate descriptions (especially watching for those things SockPuppet Strangler pointed out), and watch the News Forum for Description Moderator openings.

 

Certainly, even when an idea has been accepted and is "in the works" it sometimes takes a while (sometimes a looong while) to be implemented. When we know something will be done, we need to be patient.

 

@gistofeverything It is more helpful for the moderators and the describers if you leave comments. If you leave a blank "reject" or "accept" you could be one of the phantoms SockPuppet mentions and that is not helpful. The comment that the description follows/doesn't follow the guidelines, or is/is not grammatically correct can go a long way to helping describers improve and easing the moderators' job.

 

I try to leave notes for needed corrections, if there is room. When I run out of room for corrections, I try to send the describer to the "Need a Description Proofread?" thread ( http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showt...&hl=description ) for assistance.

[Obscure_Trash]

Sock even though it would be a while until we got description mods do you think TJ would support an area or form for people to use to apply until we are able to add them? while I understand it is a waiting game the back log at some points does not make describing dragons fun. Maybe seeing that there is prep for when we can add description mods would at least improve moral among those who like to describe all their dragons.

 

The thing is, there's no timeline for when this will get finished. What happens between now and then...could be a lot. New people reviewing, folks who applied going inactive, etc. I'd rather wait until we get closer to the ability to add description mods to have some place to show that we're preparing for it.

 

~

 

Thank you, raindear - well said. :3

With the limited space users have to review, I always appreciate when users suggest the writer go to the proofreading thread or just point out a few errors or just point out the description really needs double checked for errors. It's also helpful to know when users didn't see mistakes or even when they really enjoyed a description (when I see descriptions with rave reviews, I tend to check for a user and then finish off the rest of that user's descriptions). <3

 

As for morale - hey, the backlog really isn't that bad this time and once I finish checking the forum, I'm headed to knock out at least a few hundred more. ^^

Edited December 16, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Ember_Silverly]

Description mods only being able to approve - wut. I'm much more worried about approvals than I am rejections. Rejections, the user can resubmit (and fix) and have it re-looked at or discuss on forum and have it approved without changing. There's nothing I can do about accidental approvals.

What if this new group of description approvers could only reject descriptions then? If an approver 'approves' a description, it goes to the mod's queue to be officially approved, but if it is rejected by an approver, the person has to fix and re-submit before the mod sees it. This would ensure the quality of the descriptions stays high and would cut down the amount of descriptions the mods actually have to read. It would mean that a description would essentially need to be approved twice (once by an approver and once by a mod) but I think it would cut down the total time needed overall for descriptions to be approved.

[Obscure_Trash]

My point was really - if we're going to have description mods, why can't we trust them? It defeats a lot of the purpose if they can only approve or if they can only reject. Either way, that's a lot of descriptions that these users now can't moderate, which doesn't really ease up the job on the mods already around. x3

[gistofeverything]

OP has been added to. Is it time for a new poll?

[Danne]

actually, I've had a thought. you know how users can accept and reject descriptions? what if, a desc. automatically got approved/rejected if it went over a certain number/ratio/percentage of one type of vote? like, if 90% of users are voting one way or another, then they're likely to be right.

NO! No, no, no, no! I have seen some of the descriptions that get a lot of positive reviews (courtesy of mods sharing) and this is NOT a reliable way to tell if a description is good!

 

As to the OP's idea of a Description Approver group, I am in full support.

[gistofeverything]

Poking this up.

 

If we changed descriptions to be simply user-based, it would make more sense to just remove the whole moderation system (which is rather tempting, lol).

 

This is a thought. Added to the OP.

[Fuzzbucket]

Poking this up.

 

If we changed descriptions to be simply user-based, it would make more sense to just remove the whole moderation system (which is rather tempting, lol).

 

This is a thought. Added to the OP.

This is not a thought, for me....

 

I have nixed several that were either obscene or read something like

 

d gjk byiof ahiopdsbpad cjs

 

I guess the latter doesn't matter much - but the site owner is legally responsible for filth posted on it, and obscene descriptions could get it all shut down. If they have to be approved by mods, non-members cannot see them till they have been passed as acceptable, and that should protect us from losing the game altogether to the activity of some troll.

[Natayah]

This is a great idea for many reasons. But my favorite is that it gives players an opportunity to. Be more involved with assisting in the game. This lets them try it out and see if its something they want to do more of. It also gives higher level mods and admins to track their leadership and decision making skills if they wish to apply to be a mod one day.

 

There is a lot more to this game than just being able to sprite. And its nice to have other avenues where players can get more involved even if they lack digital artistic talent. If players want to help, let them help on something that is small and menial and taking up a lot of time so the mods can do their real job ..... Moderating

Edited December 29, 2012 by natayah

[HeatherMarie]

I honestly don't know about this. I mean, it makes sense, to have a Description User team, but... there's so many questions and concerns about that.

 

How exactly would this team be chosen? They would have to be reliable, honest users who *aren't* going to use their powers to "accept" all their friend's descriptions, or accept inappropriate descriptions.... So how would these people be selected?

 

And I do *not* like the idea of completely leaving description-modding in this new group's hands. People new to the description-modding task will make mistakes. And I've *seen* horribly inappropriate or just plain unreadable descriptions that have gotten multiple user "accepts".

I, for one, would NOT feel comfortable with the mods stepping out of this completely.

[cerimonster]

As to how this team should be chosen; well obviously people who have taken an interest in this for starters.

 

Then going on from there, people who have their own descriptions who are usually accepted, (such as a 90% success rate of being accepted by the mods).

 

Then have an application form/quiz thing to ensure that all applicators know what they are doing, and that they know the rules of writing/reviewing descriptions.

 

Mods will choose those who appear to be the most user friendly, are approachable but can still say no to the silly or rude descriptions, but also don't mind being harassed by people constantly poking at them to get their descriptions moved along the queue.

 

Then this team will have a probationary period where the mods will watch. The team will be able to either reject or accept but this will not be an actual action until the mod either agrees or negates it. Should the team (individually) get a 90% agreement rate with the mod after this probationary time(we all make mistakes, I know, but I believe that being 90% in agreement with a mod means 5% mistake on part of the team applying for the position, 5% mistake on part of the mod,) then the mods will phase out, checking in occasionally to ensure that this team is doing their job correctly, and that they aren't playing favorites with their friends, and letting things slip too badly.

 

Also, unless it is implemented at some to integrate other languages, strong well speaking English speakers/writers etc should be chosen to cut down on grammatical/spelling mistakes being made/ allowed to go through. (I am not being racist, simply practical, would you want a beginner English speaking person to reject you because they thought you had your tenses incorrect when in fact you were correct?)

 

That's just my two cents worth on the whole picking a team/what to do about mods etc...

[Tehpikachu]

I like cerimonster's idea above. And if this idea were to get passed, I'd like to be on that team.

Speaking of which, if this does get passed, how will we choose the people? Well, I mean would we make a new thread and see who is interested, or would we keep it here and see what people want to join?

[gistofeverything]

Here is the thread for RP Approvers. The three presiding mods over the rp section look over the application and decide if that person is worthy of taking the practical portion of the test. If they are, they move on to the second, practical portion of the test, where they go through the approval process and try to get as m many rps approved as they can in two weeks. However, they never do any actual approving. They pm a rp mod the rp they want approved, and the three of them look over it and seen it worthy from there. If said user grants X it more rps (where x is decided by the mods) within two weeks, they pass the test and become an approver. I realize that this is obviously a larger scale task than what this is, but maybe we can use this system for deciding the candidates?

[urge101]

I'm by all means approving this

[cerimonster]

The RP approvers section was how I came up with the whole probationary bit of the idea

 

I would also like to be a part of this team