Anonymous user
Forum:Featured Content voting issue: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Mathetesalexandrou |
imported>LostInRiverview No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
{{closed|nr|Inactive thread: no resolution reached}}
There's an issue with Featured Contents that has bothered me for long. Sometimes there are too few nominees in a Featured Content nomination list, or only a few people voted for something. The problem is that it isn't uncommon that a nominee becomes featured just because it is the sole option, or that it outnumbers the 1-0 vote with the only other nominee. This results a guaranteed outcome just because something is nominated—and not because it's worthy to be featured.
Line 57 ⟶ 58:
Going to another tangent, I'd also like to note about the serious lack of nominations (asides my own) in the Fanon Battles: I for one am of the notion that some of this is a poor execution largely caused by me, considering a good portion of Fanon Battles that I started gets around 1-2 votes (which I believe have partially killed it off), while Fanon Battles nominated by others usually get more, with a few exceptions. However, this is also an effect caused by a difficulty in nominating a good battle, since some of the good contents are off limits as the authors haven't volunteered to have their fanons put up.
For some numbers, There have been 25 battles, and 12 of them were started through my nominations. However, actually taking numbers actually defeats some of my points, because some of the battles with poor turnouts that I thought was under my nomination wasn't the case, but still the point about the difficulty with the nomination and the good field of battle-worthy content out of reach could be addressed: after all, the most vote that a single battle ever got was 8, one for the first battle and the other one a [[The Sims Wiki:Fanon Battles/Battle 7| Older battle between Kallistrata and Angel]]. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 01:11, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
:Fanon battles is not alone in this. A new featured article has not been nominated since mid-November and a new featured media has not been nominated since early October. Regular Battles and Featured Editor both had nominations in December but so far none in January. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 01:49, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
::If you're looking to get more fanon battles I suppose you could ask specific users whose fanon you want to use if they're ok with it? I like to think most of them would be and that the reason there isn't more is because some of them don't even know you have to sign up. I don't really think fanon battles are going as badly as some other features are since they're a pretty niche feature anyway, because most people are coming here to find out about the game and not about fanon content. Still, more activity would be nice to see. {{WHsig|02:32, January 8, 2015 (UTC)}}
:::@LiR As for the Featured Media, I don't find it problematic given it has plenty of nominations with votes ready to be updated at a moment's notice: it had around 10 even before my October nomination took place.
:::@WH I didn't consider that point. However, I still believe being cautious and having explicit consent a good thing, although implicit consent with opt-outs may be a good option for better Fanon Battle nomination content. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 17:22, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
==2 months later==
Bump. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 23:11, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
:I would like to get this matter resolved as well. I had made a suggestion of curating content, particularly in regards to Featured Article, but also for other Features. I still think that may be a good idea, as it would remove the necessity to constantly nominate new content. Take for example Featured Articles. There are by my count 77 articles that have been featured on The Sims Wiki (including the current F.A.). Taken as a percentage, this makes up about 0.737% of the wiki's article content. Now look at the English language Wikipedia - as of the time of writing, en.wikipedia has 4,493 featured articles, out of 4,852,395 articles total, or about 0.093%. Now admittedly comparing TSW to Wikipedia is always a mixed bag, but I think there's something telling here. In the case of Wikipedia, it isn't necessary to continually select new Featured Articles, because doing so can reduce the standards applied towards making that selection.
:We've seen this on The Sims Wiki before, where, "...a nominee becomes featured just because it is the sole option, or that it outnumbers the 1-0 vote with the only other nominee. This results a guaranteed outcome just because something is nominated—and not because it's worthy to be featured." This is indeed a problem, and removing the requirement to constantly find new Features solves the problem, alongside a possible minimum vote threshold as proposed.
:As for how we would implement a 'curation system,' I'm not sure. Ideally we would have community input, but if worse comes to worse and no one is involved in the decision, there would need to be some way to handle it. I'm not particularly keen on simply having the featured article randomly chosen via < choose > tags. Additionally, it would be prudent that there is some sort of system in place to weed out those past FA articles that [[Sarah Crittur|are no longer (or never really were) Featured Article calibur]]. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 18:26, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
::Late bump, but I have an idea that would help somewhat with finding featured articles... my idea is that we would have article ratings, and trusted editors could evaluate an article and give it a rating depending on a variety of factors, mostly about how well the page is laid out and the quality of the text. Only articles above a certain rating can be nominated and featured, and if their rating falls before they get featured the nomination is suspended. Not sure if it helps with the embarrassing "oh no we don't have a featured article for this month", but it will at least weed out the crap that gets selected just because it's nominated. I will start its own discussion thread once I'm done writing it. --I am [[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] [[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF"><sup>Talk to me!</sup></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F"><sub>See what I have done</sub></span>]] 14:33, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
:::Both of these systems could be implemented in tandem. It wouldn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing. In the case of a curation system, it would probably be quicker to implement than an article ranking or a "Peer Review" system (as with Fanon Peer Review), but ultimately I think an article ranking system could be useful on many levels, not just features selection. I support both initiatives. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 16:12, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
| |||