http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads...p?levelid=2796

That's just a common daily upload. Look at the reviews, how only the form is taking space up. This is just a waste of space, and horrible over rated. Labratkid actually spend a few minuts on typing his review, which is good. I would really suggest finding someone who is willing to moderate the reviews more often than the current administrators (since they are already far busy with other things). Labratkid himself would do a really good one.

~Moonblaze

I might do good if I actually un-lazy and review more. And I visit j2o nearly every day that I'm not grounded, so being active wont be a problem.

I worry about thiese people sometimes.

I always download packs based on Labrat's rating. J20v2 should have an option to ignore (or only see) certain reviewers, and displaying the pack's scores based on that.

That's why I hate posting levels, because I fear of these newbies throwing their "LOL's" and their "OMG's" around and rating whatever number pops into their insignificant brain first.

I agree. Most of our truster reviewers no longer review anymore.

So that's why so many uploads are rated so high... phew, I was getting worried..

From your description it sounds like the problem is not that reviewing has gone too far, but that it has not gone far enough. I, for one, agree with this. The problem, however, is that idle comments like this rarely have any effect. There is no way one can force users to post reviews of a certain quality when so many reviews are bad. If we begin removing ratings or deleting reviews of a certain user, they tend to get discouraged and not write longer reviews. Besides, judging someone based on their grammar and English ability (for those who know a lot of English, it is easier to write longer reviews) puts an unfair burden on those whose English skills are poor. You may argue that they should learn English better, but that is obviously not easy.

Most of today's reviews would be, by last year's measure, be considered poor. Even the longer reviews of today would be completely unnotable. The best we can really do is to install a minimum length, but even that would just cause people to add unnecessary spam content to their reviews so it could be posted. The most absurd of reviews are, and always have been, removed to the best of the administration's abilities. However, it is up to the users to report offenses that slip through. I look into every single PM I receive, but simply cannot do the work all by myself.

We may apply more helpers come J2Ov2 time. However, all self-nominations will be ignored as they are on the JCF. The point of this job is not power. If you are seeking this for power or recognition in any way, you will be disappointed by the job. It is not fun, nor rewarding, besides the feeling of helping out. The best you can do at this point if you still wish to help out is send a PM with information about abuses. This may be slower, but helping out makes it more likely that you will receive recognition in some way for your effort. And I thank those who have already helped out a lot, especially one person in particular, who definitely knows who he is.

~ Traft

Not all self-nominations are based on power or recognition. Some people actually enjoy helping others.

Originally Posted by KRSplat

Not all self-nominations are based on power or recognition. Some people actually enjoy helping others.

Users are perfectly capable of helping without having administrative access, and are encouraged to do so. If we have no prior helpfulness record to go by, and have nothing but a nomination, it can be safely assumed that the newfound wish for access is not perfectly pure. Not that it ever can be; however, most who are selected at least help out with no reward involved. I have trouble believing those that say that they really wish to help out yet never have before done so. Not because I do not trust them, but simply because I am aware that the wish for power is something that affects even the most nice people.

The best course of action for those interested is reporting abuses. This saves the administration time, and helps us catch things that are hard to notice. Obviously, one is not guaranteed a position this way - there are other factors involved - but at least it will satisfy the wish to help out in general.

~ Traft

Did not read this thread yet, but I deleted one of the idiotic ratings for the download mentioned.

I think we should code something that bans all people with dutch names.

Originally Posted by Fquist

Did not read this thread yet, but I deleted one of the idiotic ratings for the download mentioned.

I think we should code something that bans all people with dutch names.

I'd be careful with what I wish for, Mr. Quist... ;-P

~ Traft

Why is it that J2O's standards for being an administrator seem higher than the US government's standards for being a governor? :P

imho the reviewing rulez are way too strict, what if people cant write up a whole long story about the level and how good it is, (Seriously.. would anyone waste time reading such a long rant about the level? i wouldnt..), I'm not quite sure what the rulez exactly are now.. but reviews get deleted to easily.

Originally Posted by $tilettø

imho the reviewing rulez are way too strict, what if people cant write up a whole long story about the level and how good it is, (Seriously.. would anyone waste time reading such a long rant about the level? i wouldnt..), I'm not quite sure what the rulez exactly are now.. but reviews get deleted to easily.

You just have to explain WHY you rated the level so, and have a valid reason. I actually like this system, I've seen some sites where someone will rate something with a 10 average a 1 and say "your sucks".

imho the reviewing rulez are way too strict, what if people cant write up a whole long story about the level and how good it is, (Seriously.. would anyone waste time reading such a long rant about the level? i wouldnt..), I'm not quite sure what the rulez exactly are now.. but reviews get deleted to easily.

Sucky reviews get removed. Point. Long stories are not necesarry at all. We just don't tolerate stuff like "LOLOLOL THIS IS SO GOOD RATING: 10" or "this sucks Rating: 1"

That's all. If those standards are too high for you.. ;-P

Originally Posted by $tilettø

imho the reviewing rulez are way too strict, what if people cant write up a whole long story about the level and how good it is, (Seriously.. would anyone waste time reading such a long rant about the level? i wouldnt..), I'm not quite sure what the rulez exactly are now.. but reviews get deleted to easily.

The standards are:

1. You have to be able to tell what the person is talking about.
2. They have to back up their rating with reasoning.
3. The rating needs more support the farther it is away from the current rating.

I do not think those are too strict.

~ Traft

Originally Posted by Trafton

The rating needs more support the farther it is away from the current rating.

Hmm, quite an interesting point you bring up. If I rated Voldard's Cool Treasure Jungle a 1 and said "it sucks", nobody would remove my rating. However, if I wanted to rate it a 10 I'd probably need about 15 pages of valid justification.

Originally Posted by Radium

Hmm, quite an interesting point you bring up. If I rated Voldard's Cool Treasure Jungle a 1 and said "it sucks", nobody would remove it. However, if I wanted to rate it a 10 I'd probably need about 15 pages of valid justification.

That is true, because if there are many ratings of 1 from valid reviewers, it is much less likely to be a 10. Just common logic, really. I doubt you would need 15 pages, though, although I cannot see how anyone could give it a 10 (being that the author of the pack in question does not actually exist, I doubt saying this will offend him).

~ Traft

It's not that hard to say why you like something or dislike something. That's really all you need: You might say that the eyecandy sucks, but the gameplay rocks. You just have to prove it, and you have a review. Of couirse, you should talk about more than just those two aspects.

Catagorizing things always helps, too. It makes your review easier to read, and more understandable.

Perhaps ratings and reasoning can be incorporated into forms to fill out. Here's what I mean:

When a person goes to rate a level, they get a list of areas to talk about in text boxes that they fill out.

urrhead@hotmail.com" METHOD="put" >

LOGIN info:	Name: Password:	CTF Compatable	Treasure compatable
Ratings:	Eye Candy: Gameplay Placement of pickups:	Please, don't belch the name of your tileset again.	Cheeze is green on tuesday.
Your Message:		You Spam, You DIE! -The Derbinator	Click button to send:

Er, anyways, this could help get more focused reviews... Or even better, have a lits of level features and players click a rating for each field, and the ratings are averaged up to get the suggested rating.

Hmm... My form isn't working. Oh well. LOL, it would have been funny if someone actually filled it out with real info, and sent me their User name and password by mistake. :P Still, I would have liked to see what someone would type into it.

Oh, and I hope you don't mind me borrowing your flame button, Rad.

A lot of people use that method, Hare, I use it when I'm reviewing levels, though I have more categories than just eyecandy, gameplay and pickups. It wouuldn't be a bad idea, but what about when reviewing tilesets or levels with unique design that dont fall into those 3 categories?

The only problem with that is that it is a big constricting. Besides, I can just imagine the reviews:

Eyecandy WAIT WHAT IS EYECANDY????? WHAT IS IT???? TELL ME!!! WHAT IS EYECANDY!! 1.0 FOR ME NOT KNOWING

Not a bad idea, but sort of pointless.

~ Traft

Nah, it isn't quite pointless... I dunno, a form like this could be pretty fun. Once I get it configured I can go around collecting people's lognins and passwords then hold them for ransom until someone hacks me and uses a key logger to get my user name and password and so I have to ech... er... Ok, so it isn't that funny.

Originally Posted by Hare

urrhead@hotmail.com" METHOD="put" >

Hmm... what did you use to make that? My detailed plan for world domination eventually requires me to make a table with HTML.

I read tutorials.

There's an error somewhere in there, that is why it doesn't work. All hand typed ... Actually that may not be something to be very proud about.

..OH There's the problem! my email addy is somehow screwed up so it thinks the rest of the HTML script is the email address to send it to or something. My email address partially appears at the top of the page.