Admiral Keth

Before a person can download a scenario have him submit a review. I am no coding guru but there must be a way. </font>

Another consideration... Authors may choose to elicit numeric only, text only, numeric and text, or no reviews. How will text only and no review scenarios weigh against those which are being numerically rated? Should they even count, i.e., if an author wants their scenarios to be ranked against each other on the Top 10 lists, should they be compelled to use numeric ratings? If so, this will require that there be hard-coded numeric categories (Map Quality), as well as author-defined numeric categories. If there are hard-coded numeric categories, should they _always_ be mandatory fields on the review page, in additon to anything the author may define? So far, the design I'm envisioning goes something like this: * 4 hard-coded ratings for aspects that should be in _any_ scenario. Regardless of what options the author selects (Numeric Only, Text Only, Text & Numeric), these four values will always be displayed and prompted for when a reviewer posts a review. If the author elects to _not_ receive reviews, then the scenario will never be on any Top 10 List. These ratings will be: Playable vs Human Opponent Playable vs. AI Briefing Quality Map Design Again, zero values in any category are not included in calculations and do not count against the average score. These are the values that are used in the Top 10 Lists. The author can define 0 to 6 additional rating categories which _are not_ included in the cumulative score. These values are for the author's evaluation of the scenario, and are never used to rate one scenario against another. In addition, scenarios will only be compared to one another based on historicality. Thus fictional scenarios will be in their own Top 10 List of Playable vs. Human.

There have been several blatant trolls in the past, but they wer handled quickly and quietly. This was one of the reasons for implementing the Banning feature now in place at The Scenario Depot. I love this idea. However, how will positive ratings affect negative ratings. As an example, does 3 negatives and 5 positives yield a +2 overall Reviewer Rating (RR)? Perhaps as a percentage...1 positive RR = 100% of the score applied to the overall scenario cumulative rating. Then 2 postitive RR's = 100% of the score applied to the overall scenario cumulative rating. A successive negative RR will result in 50% of the score applied to the cumulative rating. Therafter a successive positive will result in 66% of the score applied to the cumulative rating. One negative RR will simply eliminate one positive RR. The higher the number of positive RR's, the less impact any single negative RR will have on the individual review ratings, thus on the overall scenario cumulative score. Complex, and I'd need to see what effect it would have on server load, but entirely possible.

WOW. My first double post.

OK, let me paraphrase to see if I understand... In effect, everyone starts out with a 10 point credit. 1 download = 1 credit decremented. 1 review = 1 credit incremented. I like this idea, but the real test will be from the authors. Once the player has consumed his/her 10 credits, they could potentially sign up again (although they would have to use a different valid email address). In addition, will this discourage players from downloading scenarios? Authors must weigh in on this subject before it goes on the Giant SDv3 To Do List.

The author may change the labels associated with the numeric values at any time. This confused me. OK, that appears to be a viable method by which reviewers can be "self-rated". However, what happens when they intentionally post high scores all of the time? They are effectively invalidating the system by abusing it. OK, looks like one vote for the Troll flag.

Although a machine gun may be a bit much, perhaps a dedicated team of "Review Reviewers" might keep things in line. Steve Overton and his group have been instrumental and extremely helpful in several areas, including patrolling The Scenario Depot for various reasons, but I'd rather they spent the bulk of their effort making more scenarios. I'm now envisioning two seperate flags for reviews: troll and hidden. The Troll flag discounts the associated rating from the cumulative score, and emails the reviewer that the author has flagged the review, but the review still remains publicly visible. The Hidden flag removes the review ratings from the cumulative score, hides the review, and emails the reviewer. At such time that the new system is implemented, I can forsee one or two "Moderator" positions occurring, which would have the capability of touching reviews, and flagging them as Troll or Hidden, along with emailing the reviewer. The email FROM address sent to the reviewer will be that of the person doing the flagging, so that the reviewer can respond to the correct person.

...and both good ideas! </font>

To paraphrase the famous quote, "You can't please everyone all the time". This has been covered in threads long gone, but the predominant reason the old cumulative rating system was scrapped was that it was supremely subject to "ballot box stuffing", abuse, and whining. Players were intentionally submitting either overly high or overly low reviews to skew the cumulative score. Authors were perpetually complaining that players were posting low review scores which adversely affected their overall high rating. This made the entire cumulative rating system invalid. Now each review stands on its own merits, and contributes nothing to an overall score. If anyone can design a system where players can post scores which accumulate to an overall rating, which also cannot be maliciously manipulated, I'm open to ideas. I'm skeptical that it can be built, simply due to the fact that if a player truly hated a scenario and posted a low score which devalued the overall score, the author will claim "trolling" and petition to have the review removed. Prior to The Scenario Depot v2 redesign, I petitioned for suggestions from players and authors on what features they would like to see implemented. Pretty much everything that was capable of being coded was implemented. Maybe now is the time to begin taking in ideas on what people would like to see in The Scenario Depot v3. If you preferred the old system, then help design the new system. If you want your suggestion to have any merit, you must consider the following: * How to prevent abuse by both players (reviewers) and authors. * What to do with the reviews from the old systems. Incorporate or segregate? * How to rank various scenarios against each other. For example, should historical scenarios be ranked in the same categories as fictional? * Now that authors can define their own rating labels, how will those scenarios be ranked? Perhaps have 2 to 4 hard-coded categories, such as Play vs. AI, then allow perhaps 2 to 4 additional author-defined categories. * Authors may selectively choose to have numeric, textual, both numeric and textual, or no reviews at all. What to do about scenarios which have no reviews, or simply textual reviews? Perhaps how the previous problem is handled will define how this one is solved. * A hard-and-fast set of rules by which players and authors alike agree that reviews can be stricken from the overall score. Perhaps something similar to a flag which can be set by the author, which publicly identifies the review as a possible troll-attempt, allows the poster to respond, and removes all values from the cumulative score. Hmmm, actually not a bad idea. I have no problem re-instituting the previous system, but prior to doing so, there MUST be a viable solution to the previous problems. Now is the time for everyone to weigh in on this. I'll potentially be out of work in February, so this is a good time to begin putting together the specifications for this. No idea will be refused, but those ideas which actual include some methodology (coding, math, logic) will be given more weight. ===================== @jwxspoon - Please clarify your "1 for 1" idea. How can that be enforced?

The Scenario Depot is Saved! I want to thank everyone who have generously contributed to not only the survival, but the longevity of the valuable Combat Mission resource. Your response has been overwhelming, and honestly, quite emotionally moving. Once I economically get back on my feet, I will be allocating more time towards improvements (including numerous suggestions sent in by the authors and players). Again, thank you very much.

Fixed. There is a small bug with the upload routine that I need to address soon. RE: Employment - Not real good at the moment, and getting more surreal around here as time progresses, but thanks for the encouragement.

I'll try to look into both issues today between East Indian training sessions.

You can always enter the scenario synopsis, then email the file directly to me and I'll manually upload and link it.

GreenAsJade, I am aware of a number of issues that need to be addressed. However, until I find a job, SD modifications are on hold. With regards to the review details: that is a minor bug (which i coulda swore I fixed) that I can fix in a day or so. Ideally, the review details are to be displayed unless the author specifically indicates that they want review details hidden. I'll look into this issue this week. I can also space the bullets out for readability. The vertical spacing of the reviews themselves (again, this was fixed at one time) is a bit more of a sticky wicket, but totally addressable. All, right now stress level is pretty high, what with having to teach East Indians my job, as well as the impending Sept 30 layoff. By all means, if you run across an issue, please email me. However, expect it to be addressed sometime after Sept 30.

What we do may not be glorious, and we are usually last to be hired, first to be fired, but we make a difference. I, too, have had to translate from engineerese and developerish to English. I'd rather be doing it as opposed to letting an engineer (or worse, an East Indian!?) write the manuals/online help. Thanks for the tip @Hans, Thanks for the tips and resources. You can safely bet that I'll be investigating them and evaluating their feasibility.

Yikes! All of my grandparents hailed from the Frankfurt area of Germany. We are a cool climate people; I'd melt. @Hans, 1) Where can I find out more info regarding these possibilities? Is telecommuting a possibility? III) Do you know anything about telecommuting and taxes as it relates to foreign employment?

An American in the Middle East...Hmmm...let me think... Pros: Increased salary, dry climate, change of scenery, meet new people and experience new cultures...not bad. Cons: Potential Decapitation Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll give it a miss, unless I could telecommute. ...and I hadn't even considered the lack of homebrew supplies.

Whew! I am a Senior Technical Writer with 15+ years of experience documenting software user guides, policies and procedures manuals, and sales collateral. I am also a Senior Web Developer with 7 years experience in HTML, graphics, PHP/MySql, and Lasso/FileMaker. There's much, much more, but the above qualifications are the extreme bare highlights.

Validating such a feature would be well-nigh impossible and frought with issues. Screenshots can be forged in a nanosecond, and recording all of the randomized results in a database table would put additional load on the server. Emailing the results is also not a good option, as I'm already receiving emails for just about everything that's happening at The Scenario Depot, from author submissions to failed password requests. Thus, no. Yep, I'm still here. However, my job is moving to India without me, so 100% of my energy and focus is going into finding gainful employment (not easy in this economy). I'm addressing minor issues that come up at The Scenario Depot, but for the most part I'm pushing off some tasks until I've landed a job. Once I'm employed, I'll begin working on The Scenario Depot v3.

Fixed. The filename associated with the scenario was entered as TwinVillages.zip, but the file which was uploaded was HSG_B_Twin_Villages.zip.

All, I believe I have corrected to bug. Here's the issue... The data was being posted to the correct fields within the database, but the default field labels were wrong. Wierdly enough, had authors used custom labels, those would have appeared correctly. In my fevered push to get the site up and running, I erroneously transposed the field labels for Playable vs AI, Replayability, and PBEM Replayability. Anyone who posted a review since The Scenario Depot v2 went live should check their reviews and make sure those three values are where they want them. Genuine apologies for any inconvenience.

All, I believe I have corrected to bug. Here's the issue... The data was being posted to the correct fields within the database, but the default field labels were wrong. Wierdly enough, had authors used custom labels, those would have appeared correctly. In my fevered push to get the site up and running, I erroneously transposed the field labels for Playable vs AI, Replayability, and PBEM Replayability. Anyone who posted a review since The Scenario Depot v2 went live should check their reviews and make sure those three values are where they want them. Genuine apologies for any inconvenience.

All, I believe I have corrected to bug. Here's the issue... The data was being posted to the correct fields within the database, but the default field labels were wrong. Wierdly enough, had authors used custom labels, those would have appeared correctly. In my fevered push to get the site up and running, I erroneously transposed the field labels for Playable vs AI, Replayability, and PBEM Replayability. Anyone who posted a review since The Scenario Depot v2 went live should check their reviews and make sure those three values are where they want them. Genuine apologies for any inconvenience.

All, I believe I have corrected to bug. Here's the issue... The data was being posted to the correct fields within the database, but the default field labels were wrong. Wierdly enough, had authors used custom labels, those would have appeared correctly. In my fevered push to get the site up and running, I erroneously transposed the field labels for Playable vs AI, Replayability, and PBEM Replayability. Anyone who posted a review since The Scenario Depot v2 went live should check their reviews and make sure those three values are where they want them. Genuine apologies for any inconvenience.

All, I am aware of a couple issues at The Scenario Depot, and I'm attempting to allocate time to repair them. I'll do my best to correct them this week, in between hunting for jobs and brain dumping information for East Indians to take my job.