timmell's Feed

timmell
03-28-2019 at 07:01 AM
53 Comments
Rate this Entry

Anyone getting excited? Submission queue threshold!!?!?!

The submission queue is now about 1700. You know what that means. Another push through of submissions when we get to the 1900 - 2000 mark???


Hey @datagod remember when you said this? A week or two period.

https://youtu.be/pOVwa_fdHCo?t=1722

Likesdatagod, Marcade, Cyriss_Zeal liked this post
Comments
  1. datagod's Avatar

    Wow, how many episodes was I on? I don't remember that particular episode, but I sure seemed to know what I was talking about.


    LikesMarcade liked this post
  2. Joonas's Avatar

    It was at over 1900 mark in February. At best the queue has gone down to 1300's couple of times during this year; then it just piles up back to 1700's.

  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    When my stuff goes through I should be second on intellivision

    LikesPixe Sukola liked this post
  4. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Joonas

    It was at over 1900 mark in February. At best the queue has gone down to 1300's couple of times during this year; then it just piles up back to 1700's.


    Oh, did I spend some SP recently?! :P (I'm not the only one.)

    LikesJoonas, Conjured Entertainment liked this post
  5. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax



    Oh, did I spend some SP recently?! :P (I'm not the only one.)


    not gonna lie, mass submitters who use al their points use to annoy me, then i realized, hate the game not the player. you're using the system within how it was created. The real issue people, overall, submit more than the necessary adjudications to complete those submissions. either submission cost needs to be raised, or some other way to encourage people to adjudicate more per submission needs to kick in. the certs are something, as they at least provide a use for submission points. the submission point leaderboard helps too. and yes, i'm aware that anything to encourage more adjudcition can just encourage more blind voting so i dont have a perfect answer. all i can say for sure though, is if the queue is growing, then the adjudication per submitting ratio is definitely off and a solution is needed

    Likesdatagod liked this post
  6. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    not gonna lie, mass submitters who use al their points use to annoy me,


    Really, the only part about this that annoys me is when I have to wade through 5+ pages of submissions for the same person for the same game. One of the reasons I try and pick out just a couple to adjudicate and comment on - break up the solid blocks so there's a bit more variety when going through.

  7. JasonV91's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl



    Really, the only part about this that annoys me is when I have to wade through 5+ pages of submissions for the same person for the same game. One of the reasons I try and pick out just a couple to adjudicate and comment on - break up the solid blocks so there's a bit more variety when going through.

    I would like to see some kind of way to permanently hide certain submissions from my personal view...for instance, maybe I've looked at a sub and don't care to vote on it - if i could flag this so it no longer appeared (to me) in the queue, that would let me focus on others. A customizable, "permanent" filter that I could apply to games, player, platform, etc. would be neat.

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonV91


    I would like to see some kind of way to permanently hide certain submissions from my personal view...for instance, maybe I've looked at a sub and don't care to vote on it - if i could flag this so it no longer appeared (to me) in the queue, that would let me focus on others. A customizable, "permanent" filter that I could apply to games, player, platform, etc. would be neat.


    this sounds similiar to a feature often asked for earlier of an explicit "abstain" vote choice. think now when we can see indication in the queue of all the accetps and rejects we have. well with an explciit abstain, you wouldnt have to make the submission disappear, just the abstain icon in the list simliar to the other icons would remind you that you already viewed it and explicitly decided you were uninterested in voting. abstains would also provide stats for admin on what sort of things gets abstained on versus just lost in adjudication

    LikesJasonV91, sdwyer138 liked this post
  9. The Evener's Avatar

    Looks like the system can handle a big backlog - maybe there's nothing wrong with it. I thought for a moment that TG could create a system where a member is allowed a max number of submissions in the queue at any given time, and additional scores can't be submitted until they're cleared out. A downside is that if your game is obscure or there isn't enough interest to adjudicate it, you'll be barred from submitting for longer. I suppose a backlog functions in the same way - if you pile in a lot of submissions that exceed the interest/capacity of the community to adjudicate, then they'll sit.

  10. EVN's Avatar

    The kludge is in full effect right now, feel like I adjudicate and nothing is moving. Doesn't bode well for getting my own ones through. The ones I don't know how anyone adjudicates are the Guitar Hero runs with muted audio. I understand the reason why they need to be muted but damn man - soul crushing.

  11. thegamer1185's Avatar

    I guess I'll say it. Maybe there just aren't that many active people on TG. They have had to make huge pushes 3-4 times now this year. Either the formula for submissions being pushed through needs to be tweeked or people just aren't interested.

    Maybe show a counter for total votes. For example, if every submission needs 75 yes/no votes to be passed, actually show a counter. If a submission is sitting at 70 yes votes with 0 no votes and we can see that, it may be watched and pushed through.

    I don't like making submitting cost more either. I have ultimately decided I don't know a damn thing about MAME submissions, so I don't vote on them anymore. I don't like limiting submissions either. Many people put multiple submissions on video, mostly racing titles. I've been doing a lot of them lately and I dont want to have 20 submissions on one video but be limited only putting 10 up until some of them pass. I already have a **** of a time with my stuff clearing through inside 6 months while others blaze through in less than 2 weeks.

    I still think TG's number 1 problem....well, one of it's biggest problems....is CR. Get rid of it. That is why many of us don't vote on things we aren't sure of or we don't like it but know most people will vote the other way so we abstain. I'd rather see a submission sit in the queue with 100 votes for and against because the rules are messed up rather than people simply abstaining. You know damn well you are abstaining because of your CR, haha. Period. However, if you didn't have the fear of the CR Gods looming over you, I'd bet most abstains would be "I don't like how this was done so I'm rejecting" or "You know what, this is good enough for me so I'm accepting."

    Remove CR. On a side note, anybody else having a NET 10 wireless ad shrinking your TG pages width size by about 40%? That's incredibly fucking annoying. Bring back the underwear ads please.

  12. Joonas's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by thegamer1185

    I guess I'll say it. Maybe there just aren't that many active people on TG. They have had to make huge pushes 3-4 times now this year. Either the formula for submissions being pushed through needs to be tweeked or people just aren't interested.

    Maybe show a counter for total votes. For example, if every submission needs 75 yes/no votes to be passed, actually show a counter. If a submission is sitting at 70 yes votes with 0 no votes and we can see that, it may be watched and pushed through.

    Total votes counter would be a good idea, though the yes/no ratio should be hidden so that it doesn't influence the voters.

    And yes, there aren't enough active people on TG, a fact that the staff sometimes blindly ignores. When people have complained about the slow adjudication process, the answer has been "go adjudicate more".

  13. EVN's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Joonas


    Total votes counter would be a good idea, though the yes/no ratio should be hidden so that it doesn't influence the voters.

    And yes, there aren't enough active people on TG, a fact that the staff sometimes blindly ignores. When people have complained about the slow adjudication process, the answer has been "go adjudicate more".


    How do you do a vote counter? A counter that shows the votes for and also against?

    That would just make blind voting 100% accurate since they could see the ones they are getting wrong.

    LikesConjured Entertainment liked this post
  14. Joonas's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EVN



    How do you do a vote counter? A counter that shows the votes for and also against?

    That would just make blind voting 100% accurate since they could see the ones they are getting wrong.

    I clearly stated that the yes/no ratio should be hidden. Only show how many votes a submission has, but don't show if they are yes or no votes.

    Currently we can only see the view count, and that doesn't give much info.


    Updated 03-29-2019 at 01:56 AM by Joonas
  15. Blackflag82's Avatar

    On a positive note, I've noticed a handful of new people adjudicating more if late, so that's a good thing. But yeah, it's clear the current system requires more voters/cred than are presently active and even then it depends on blind voters for the final push. In an ideal world the algorithm would be changed to just require fewer, but since Jace seems to think his formula is perfect I doubt that'll happen.


    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy liked this post
  16. Conjured Entertainment's Avatar

    I don't agree with raising the costs to submit. While that would slow down the mass voters, the new members would suffer.

    Limiting the number of submissions in queue for an individual would definitely stop the mass submissions by the SP wealthy, including the wealthy blind voters. Especially when they are submitting a bunch of older runs at the same time, as if they had been saving them up just to overload the queue. Not saying they had that intention, but it would be easy for someone to perceive it that way. I am sure it has more to do with making the time to organize the evidence, or making time to create videos of the MAME inp files from their old runs, but those members not familiar with MAME will not understand what is going on.

    The CR has its multiple positive purposes, so I do not agree with doing away with it. However, the CR hit as a percentage rather than a flat rate is what is deterring many voters and causing many abstains. If that CR hit had a cap in it, or in some way was weighted based on the voter's history of wrong votes... ie higher number of historical mistakes means higher CR hit for that individual... then it may be better. Right now, with many things restricting participation based on CR, new members do not want to risk taking a big hit when building all of their stats, including CR, are important to them. CR is important, and we do need to keep it IMO, but punishing voters heavily as victims of the submitter's wrong doing, whether intentional or not, does not seem balanced. It should be the submitter taking the heavy hit, not the voters. I realize the voters need something to keep them in check, but beginners will make mistakes more than older members, so weighting those penalties based on ones experience here would seem like a better way for the penalties than a flat percentage taking a heavy toll on new members. We want to encourage their participation, not discourage it.

    I would rather keep the votes hidden too. However, there could be some adjustment made for those submissions that are past a certain time of waiting in queue should the votes be really close as in the example posted above with the 75 needed and 70 there. In that example there were zero no votes, so pushing it through on a tiered system to reduce the needed Yes votes based on the queue time would be no problem. However, if there were any NO votes at all, then pushing it through with less than needed YES votes would not be right. So, I don't see a better way to do it than what we already have going on.


    The primary problem with a backlogged submission queue is participation in voting. Many people vote, including blind, for the people who have the best track record of making no mistakes on their submissions, while abstaining from voting on submissions by people they don't know. Trust is a big factor, and many people trust the older members to make fewer mistakes than new members, which is reasonable. So, some submissions linger while others fly through. They best way to encourage more participation of voting across the board is to reduce the penalties for voters, or at least weight them based on experience, so that new members can vote confidently without being so selective on what they vote on that they are passing up many submissions that they are qualified to vote on, but are reluctant to vote because of the substantial CR hit that they may take for the submitter's mistakes. Often times these mistakes, even simple ones, can be overlooked and missed by even the experienced voters, so it is the dispute system that makes the fear of the CR hits linger and amplified for many members too.


    Hit the submitter hard with an SP hit, and reduce the CR hit for voters, would be my suggestion to adjust the current system of submission penalties to encourage more voting and reduce faulty submissions to speed up the queue.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I do not keep up with the changes going on as well as you guys do, so apologies if I am suggesting something already done or mistaken on the current penalty system. Another thing I wanted to mention though was the CANCEL option, and the need for notifying people to go change their vote. A submission that is CANCELED should have all of its votes, YES and NO removed automatically, without the need to stress the system notifications, or burden the voters to do something that can be automated. Again, apologies if that has already been done away with, but I wanted to mention it in case it was still in effect. No need to penalize people for not using the system as regularly as other people, or for not using it more than they have time to allow, so giving them a hit for not changing a YES vote to NO on a cancellation never made any sense to me.


    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy, voltronforce0 liked this post
    Updated 03-29-2019 at 06:12 AM by Conjured Entertainment
  17. RTM's Avatar

    Not for nothing, but pre-2006 we never had a submission queue of nearly 2000 performances. You may not like the days of the "referee", and I'm not going to get on a podium about the pluses and minuses, but at least up to that point the staff never allowed a backlog of that level to develop.

    POST 2006 is a different story...can't speak to what that group did (and didn't do)

  18. Joonas's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by RTM

    Not for nothing, but pre-2006 we never had a submission queue of nearly 2000 performances. You may not like the days of the "referee", and I'm not going to get on a podium about the pluses and minuses, but at least up to that point the staff never allowed a backlog of that level to develop.

    POST 2006 is a different story...can't speak to what that group did (and didn't do)

    How can you be sure? Did you know exactly how many unwatched tapes the other refs had at their houses?

  19. GibGirl's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by RTM

    Not for nothing, but pre-2006 we never had a submission queue of nearly 2000 performances. You may not like the days of the "referee", and I'm not going to get on a podium about the pluses and minuses, but at least up to that point the staff never allowed a backlog of that level to develop.

    POST 2006 is a different story...can't speak to what that group did (and didn't do)


    Could the fact that it's much, much easier to record and submit have a substantial impact there? I know if I had to record to physical media and mail things in, you can believe I'd not be bothering with any of it.

    LikesBlackflag82, Snowflake liked this post
  20. timmell's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by GibGirl
    Quote Originally Posted by RTM
    Not for nothing, but pre-2006 we never had a submission queue of nearly 2000 performances. You may not like the days of the "referee", and I'm not going to get on a podium about the pluses and minuses, but at least up to that point the staff never allowed a backlog of that level to develop.

    POST 2006 is a different story...can't speak to what that group did (and didn't do)

    Could the fact that it's much, much easier to record and submit have a substantial impact there? I know if I had to record to physical media and mail things in, you can believe I'd not be bothering with any of it.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Join us