redelf's Feed

I'd rather see either a limit on the number of submissions one person can have active at a time and/or submissions be subject to an expiration date.

Fly, Emayl, EVN, lexmark liked this post

I like the expiration date idea. I also don't have a problem with 2000 submissions sitting there. I have a saying for this and it still seems to be mostly true. Let's see if you all have been paying attention. Go!

Snowflake, Blackflag82, Rogerpoco, HugDD liked this post

Yea Twin Galaxies. What Redelf said. Stop neglecting the scoreboard. Without the scoreboard, none of this site means anything? anyone else agree with me?

Snowflake, EVN, Marcade, Blackflag82, Cyriss_Zeal liked this post

Expiration date? So my submission would expire without being accepted if not enough people are interested in adjudicating it?

An expiration date may not be needed if we could filter out individuals or explicit abstains

No time for functionel enhancements though

Originally Posted by timmell

Yea Twin Galaxies. What Redelf said. Stop neglecting the scoreboard. Without the scoreboard, none of this site means anything? anyone else agree with me?

The score board is small potatoes the big things coming is where it’s at

Pixe Sukola, onlyinajeep liked this post

Originally Posted by Fly

I like the expiration date idea. I also don't have a problem with 2000 submissions sitting there. I have a saying for this and it still seems to be mostly true. Let's see if you all have been paying attention. Go!

If it sits...

Well.

:)

Fly thanked this post

Fly liked this post

Originally Posted by sdwyer138

I'd rather see either a limit on the number of submissions one person can have active at a time and/or submissions be subject to an expiration date.

RTM REPLY - many years back on more than one occasion an industrious gamer submitted hundreds if not close to a thousand records to referees to watch, and I include with that having to wade thru the "non records", restarts, etc as on occasion these submissions did not come with a map to make it easy to locate via time stamp. I received quit a few 6-hour speed tapes filled with maybe 20 minutes of actual records which had to be found, and fast-forwarding was a risk of either (A) missing it completely or (B) missing another element in the continuity of the recording.

A limit, a reasonable one, is a good idea, but I'd like to add a caveat to that. Maybe the submitter can be forced to DONATE a sum of their remaining submission points to be distributed randomly to future adjudicators of their scores once they reach a certain pre-determined submission threshold ? Not a quid-pro-quo, but a means to slow down the submission queue while encouraging adjudication.

Maybe this kicks in when you've submitted 25 scores and must contribute x-points for your 26th thru 50th submission PER submission, at which that value increases geometrically for submissions 51st thru 75th and exponentially every 25 submissions thereafter.

The downside of this is a lethargic adjudication community will DIS-courage future submissions from an industrious gamer...if, after all, submissions 1-25 are languishing, why bother with numbers 26-50 if they are also going to languish AND submission points will be lost as a result ?

Even without a donation of submission points, any pre-determined cap could, in theory, DIS-courage an industrious submitter, especially someone anxious to submit for an entire roster of tracks such as the 72 fastest lap/race/highest speed variations for standard "F-ZeroX" (N64) variations and so forth.

As for an expiration, implementing this would shoot TG in the foot from a business perspective. Sure, it would "unclog" the queue, possibly in short order, but let's be realistic...

-> Submitters would effectively be penalized for lethargic adjudication
-> Submitters would be further inconvenienced by lethargic adjudication by having to re-submit
-> THAT, in effect, would bring what little adjudication has already been performed towards that title down to zero again, which is not only unfair to the submitter but also to the few adjudicators who invested THEIR time up to that point in good faith that the rest of the community would eventually chip in

Thus an "expiration" policy merely maintains a clean queue at the expense of multiple individuals and through no fault of their own.

The biggest submission problems that TG faces right now include...


(A) - no dedicated referees...this is not a dead-horse-beating comment but rather one to show that even the unpaid volunteer referees did (most of them anyway) have the gumption and tenacity to go thru the performances regardless of interest level (see below) and for them it was the thrill and enjoyment of being a referee. Right now, everyone is an adjudicator and quite honestly the energy level is just not the same now as it was back then...just my opinion.

(B) - "un-interesting" submissions get far less adjudication...this is nothing new...the same issue existed many years back although at least now such submissions were not sitting in the custody of a single referee. Still, even with hundreds of potential adjudicators, there are some performances which barely attract a single comment let alone a vote. You can't force gamers to sit and watch a 12 hour submission on "Space Jockey" (Atari 2600)...heck, you couldn't even PAY me to do that now never mind before (I had my limits back then), so the "un-interest" level of a submission can, let's admit it to ourselves, work against the submitter and by default the submission queue. Now, imagine a queue that was FILLED with similarly "un-interesting" submissions...that would be the 2000 queue monster that just kept growing and growing and never dying down...ever.

(C) lengthy submissions...watching "marathons" and even "semi-marathons" were never the easiest for either myself or my staff years back, so I have to imagine that non-dedicated referees...the community of adjudicators...would face similar problems and concerns in the here and now. You also cannot force an adjudicator to watch a marathon, but with few exceptions, the referees of old (again, with a few exceptions) DID buckle down and watch these "marathons". I did so myself...twice, in fact, for Bill Carlton's 27-hour "Asteroids" submission, including annotations...but that was then and I did it because the person who appointed me was counting on me to do so as I committed to doing so. Maybe some form of an an intentional quid-pro-quo reward could work best to unclog marathons from the queue, maybe TG could award a reasonable though not crazy amount of additional submission points for those who adjudicate marathons in particular ?

(D) - I would like to be able to quickly filter performances to adjudicate - this way I can filter on a specific title. Or, filter based on submissions of under x-minutes in duration...that ought to really unclog the queue relatively fast, especially if a large number of submissions were like "Skiing" for the Atari 2600

(E) - the annoyance of yanked submissions - these personally are my biggest pet peeve...you SHOULD be able to correct a clerical error in the listing (within reason) without having to either have it rejected or un-submitted/re-submitted...that's a waste of our precious time...and don't even get me started on loss of credibility points when people yank submissions for negligence reasons, part of my same biggest pet peeve with the submission process

(F) - approval algorithem - it needs to be re-thought and re-engineered. We do not know what it is only that it exists. This is the internal benchmark that was programmed to govern when a submission reaches an "approved/posted? status. Maybe it was designed too broadly and it needs to be scaled based on the duration of the performance ? I personally do not think that a one-size-fits-all algorithem works, at this point

(G) - credibility should be an adjudication/approval factor - someone suggested that those with high credibility should be given (hypothetically) a much higher value towards adjudication. I agree, but so long as the credibility came exclusively from adjudication or at least primarily from adjudication. If it was largely or exclusively due to submissions then I would say no...or maybe not as high of a multiplier value as for a gamer with their credibility largely or exclusively from adjudication skills and successes.

(H) fear of cred loss - that percentage loss is devastating. We know why it is in place, but it is so overwhelmingly high in percentage to cred points GAINED that it is, in my opinion, proportionately punitive and needs to be re-addressed

That's what I see are at least some of the submission queue problems, not factoring in "real life" interfering with the submission queue such as when potential adjudicators are quite simply busy, extremely busy or flat-out unavailable due to real-life concerns trumping TG assistance. It is what it is, not much that can be done about that. But for these other possible causes above...and for any that I failed to consider...some re-thinking and/or re-tooling of the process is an absolute must...before it reaches the point of no return.

To Angela's and Robert's points about expiration: In my mind it would be something very very generous, like a year. If your submission is sitting for a year, something is wrong with it other than it not being popular. This means that the submitter should probably provide a more thorough evidence package in the future.

Also, in my mind, an expired submission would never count negatively against any adjudicator, regardless of how they voted. (cancelled subs should be this way too, but I guess that's a slightly different topic). The submitter, however, should still lose the sub points.

ILLSeaBass liked this post

or they can just force through submission that are both canceled and the voters clealry had an issue with

half-witts

Originally Posted by sdwyer138

If your submission is sitting for a year, something is wrong with it other than it not being popular. This means that the submitter should probably provide a more thorough evidence package in the future....The submitter, however, should still lose the sub points.

RTM REPLY - I'd like to chime in on those two points.

A year of remaining in the queue...I see that the inclination is to blame it on the submission package as technically a submission could even be sans-documentation if the submitter wishes, but my concern still would be over properly documented albeit "un-interesting" performances.

Trust me...if you've ever seen Atari 2600 "Space Jockey" you would know why I consider the premise of watching a 12 hour submission tantamount to torture. Ever see or read of the couch potato contests where participants vie to win a special prize by having to sit watching sports with little break for hours and even days on end ? My point being, had they been forced to watch this title, none of them would have survived anywhere near as long in comparison to even watching 24 hours of "curling".

But that's just an example to drive in the point. Even a short submission on an "un-interesting" title garners few viewers and/or adjudicators. If you care to test that theory, how about a mere hour of watching a "Gypsy Juggler" (MAME) submission while juggling only two (2) balls at once ? If it was a choice between that or watching an episode of the "Kardhadians" I'd rather risk my mental well being and watch the latter.

Got an even better one...someone downloading an inaugural world record on THIS little known gem -

Those would be perhaps the most cringe-worth submissions to sit through...but what of run of the mill mediocre submissions (of which there are literally thousands potentially). Adjudicators, even referees, tend to gravitate towards pre-eminent scores, interesting titles and even short-but-sweet under 60 second performances when they are time-pressed. That's a matter of fact, past and present. A submitter of other performances has a distinct unfair disadvantage to overcome as it stands getting the attention of an adjudicator, but putting a clock on the adjudication process...just unfair.

A former referee of mine made it a point to only watch MAME submissions "if they were noteworthy" in terms of the title, thus TG's first MAME backlog was created in a matter of months. If you submitted on "Galaga", "Gyruss", "Pacman", "Donkey Kong", no problem...but try submitting back then on "Navalone", "Wolf Pack", "Athena" and good luck getting it accepted.

Lastly, having the submitter lose points for aformentioned "un-interesting" performances is likely rubbing salt on the wounds. Expect in short order no more submissions (inaugural or not) on any title either already identified as or untested in the TG adjudication community such as one of those golf-based games from pre-1985.

And not every boring game is a turn off for potential adjudicators either. I personally enjoy watching "Boxy Boy" yet (pattern-based or not) it is quite difficult for the average gamer to sit through this and retain full interest throughout. So again, it seems patently unfair to penalize a submitter for their choice in title which may indirectly or directly contribute towards lack of enthusiasm with potential adjudicators.

That "Waiting in Line" performance...joke or not...would turn off any potential adjudicator. Be honest...how many people reading this actually sat thru the entire 4+ minutes...without fast-forwarding...and listened to every painful second of comment and lack of action ? No imagine an entire hour of that...record set or not, it's torturous to watch.

I'll share one anecdote then I'm done with my say...

Back in the 2001-2004 range someone actually wrote to myself/TG asking if they could submit a record on a "Tamagatchi" device...the record being how long they could keep it alive.

They actually inquired in all seriousness whether TG could handle such a submission and they described how they would create an internet weblink so we at TG could watch it "in shifts" 24 hours day until the person was satisfied with their performance which could be several months.

Even our most die-hard, gung-ho referees agreed...no-expletive-way. So, the gamer was politely told that we could not due to lack of resources with which to do so, and I believe also that this was not a traditional record that TG was in the business of tracking. I might have even suggested that the gamer contact Guinness but it's been too many years and I quite simply forgot...but I would never forget the magnitude of this player's request of the TG staff in conjunction with his possible record submission.