Difference between revisions of "Talk:Modification Points"

Latest revision as of 22:30, December 18, 2006

Max, I find this to be extremely lame, I don't consider changing the way sites are edited that big of an issue. --Jailbaitking 16:17, December 15, 2006 (CST)

== WHY? == -lowcast

test -xXWaspXx

This effs up my Ever-Changing YTMND site. - Spider--Man

But Mommmmmm

This idea does not bode well for future Color Me YTMND's kind of sites. I spent over 3 weeks and 20+ alterations to color the image due to community feedback and development. I guess that you get one chance to express yourself, and let the chips fall where they may. I could petition to moderators like you said, but It may be a hassle if they are unresponsive or not as fast to reciprocate modification points as I am editing my site. Granted this kind of site development was new to me, and I've never done it in the past, and I dont think I ever will again, and maybe sites are not meant to be made this way anyway. Nutnics 5:02 am, December 5, 2006 (PST)

Guees you'll have to do very little updates next time. Maplejet 10:09, December 5, 2006 (CST)

I am just wondering why this process is even necessary? What are we combating here, and for what reasons. For obvious reasons i will use the hiveminded group as an example. Whereas before the system would allow us to update every day with entirely new content, the new system would allow maybe three new sites. Those three sites would be spread along a week to ensure that the creators get their moneys worth (this is in the sponsored section). Then the next week would follow with a new site and the same tactics. SO what we are doing in this example is a few things -

• slowing the rate of new content.
• decreasing the potential for sponsorships from outside (and inside) sources.
• discouraging content makers from forming groups.

So at this point I question the motives and logic behind a decision like this. Would someone care to explain the other side?Klasky 11:10, December 5, 2006 (CST)

"The goal of the modification points system is to keep people from changing the content/title of a site in order to acquire an unnatural amount of views." The sponsorship list itself is a means for people to give their site an unnatural amount of views. The natural course is for a site to go from the Recently Created to the Up and Coming if it receives enough high votes and/or to the top viewed for the day if it is released at a strategical point in time or is extraordinarily popular. The top viewed is a rather unnatural avenue for sites to acquire views, as the most influential factor determining whether or not a site reaches the top viewed is its time of release and not some sort of quality-based factor. Again, an extraordinary site can overcome this factor, but the majority of sites are simply the best of a brief period rather than the best of the day (I am assuming that "natural" refers to some sort of quality based judgment). At any rate, I think what exactly is a "natural" progression is a bit obscure, and if "natural" does refer to some sort of quality based judgment, then the sponsored list is a completely unnatural platform for any and all sites on it. To say that one site is acquiring an unnatural amount of views because it changes its content I think is to miss the point that all sites on the sponsored list are acquiring an unnatural amount of views.

Now, there is the separate problem of the content of a site changing. There are two possible problems with this that can arise in relation to sponsorship, and any problems not related to sponsorship are not in any way solved by the new changes (more on that later). The first problem could be that the act of changing the site's content is MORE unnatural relatively than other sites on the sponsored list. This could be the case, but the changes will do nothing to stop this. Given that a site retains its original name, something generic like ][ Hive ][, the site can be changed up to 5 times past the first 3 days for a total of 8 changes if performed daily. This doesn't solve any problems, really. A bit of coordination on the part of sponsors and this is easily overcome. The other problem could be that people sponsor the content that is currently on the site, and when it is changed they have spent their money on something they did not intend to. If someone sponsors another person's site, this is a risk they should consider before and after the changes are implemented... 8 days of changes are still possible after the changes. At any rate, a site that operates like thehive.ytmnd.com or any of the Dr-L337 hubs are, for anyone with any common sense at all, understood to be just that: hubs. There is no conflict of interest in this case.

"in some cases causing confusion as comments and votes on a site are for previous content" As votes for sites on the sponsored list are relatively meaningless, the voting problem isn't a problem for these hub sites. On thehive.ytmnd.com, comments sections are, typically, separated by blue comments linking to the original sites. Of course, anyone with common sense would realize that the main site is merely a hub and comments will quickly become somewhat irrelevent, but that sure doesn't stop anyone. A demarcation of when a site is updated in the comments section automatically could solve these problems as well.

"This will also possibly alleviate problems stemming from people getting sites on the front page and then modifying them to be a completely different site." For any site that reaches the front page "naturally", this is a problem. Of course, sites only last on the U&C for one day and the top viewed for the day along with the U&C are well within the 72 hour limit. Thus, sites can be changed at no penalty or loss of points to a completely different site. The new rule does nothing at all to discourage this type of action.

If the aim of the new system is to stop sites on the sponsored list from changing, this is counterproductive in at least 2 different ways. First of all, a site suffers drastic diminishing returns on its donation after the first day, and all donations are recorded for 7 days. Thus, if someone wants to make the top sponsorships for the week, they will be paying a price that is either much more than they should rationally want to pay or the amount that they will pay will be much lower than it is currently. Which brings me to my next point: The sites on the sponsored list that change content daily are also typically the highest sponsored, which keeps the average sponsorship elevated, they also maximize the individual sponsor's bang for his buck (avoiding massive diminishing returns), and they themselves bring in a good deal of money. It just doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint.

Now, if the problem is not that a site acquires an inordinate amount of views but that it statwhores these views, then I can see the complaint, and the solution to this problem on the sponsorship list would also solve the non-sponsorship problem: Resetting views and votes after a SHORT (as in 1 hour or less) period after submission unless, by some option while editing, a mod can be requested to review a site and choose whether or not to reset the views. This would, as nutnics mentioned, lack some efficiency in terms of updating speed, but it would solve the other two problems in one swoop and I don't see any other way without severely harming your wallet. Just a thought. Korf41 2:31PM, December 5, 2006 (PST)

Nutnics example is one where modification points would be given freely as it is a completely reasonable use of edits. The whole method of continually updating a site creates a nightmare for a few reasons. a) moderation: having to re moderate a site every time someone edits it causes unnecessary work for moderators, and when a site is continually switching between nsfw and ws content, the moderation log is confusing. b) votes and comments end up being for content that was previously there and no longer exists. c) views aren't meant for "how many times this domain has been viewed" but rather "how many times this ytmnd has been viewed", in my opinion, changing the image, sound and title of a ytmnd is akin to making a new ytmnd, so this is basically view hacking.

In the case of hivemind, where the user claims to be showcasing sites, it's not only robbing the original site of views, but this is more or less what the lists function was originally created for, I just need to finish the interface, and it's most likely going to be finished before I implement any sort of point system. YTMNDs aren't blogs, they aren't meant to be updated daily, and while that's how I feel I may just implement it so that after you use 10 edits, it resets your views and votes and then gives you 10 more, which would allow infinite edits but wouldn't give you top placement in multiple categories. Max 16:39, December 5, 2006 (CST)

and to clarify, sponsorship in the last 365 days has brought in roughly enough to pay for a single month of ytmnd hosting, if anything, keeping the rolling average of the most expensive site down would be helpful in bringing in more small donations as opposed to scaring people off with a larger minimum buy in. in short: i'd be pretty willing to risk the minimal income to keep this from happening. I don't have anything wrong with the idea of a user showcasing a different site each day, but rather than constant edits, I'd like to come up with something more intuitive. I like the idea that once a site is made, it's done. Anyone can go and visit it any time and it's there for them. If you notice with Dr L337 sites, he would create backup sites to save parts of his edited site, but those back up sites had none of the views, comments or votes that they originally got.

in reality adding lists and sponsorship/ratings to lists would clear this up. Max 16:49, December 5, 2006 (CST)

"Nutnics example is one where modification points would be given freely as it is a completely reasonable use of edits. The whole method of continually updating a site creates a nightmare for a few reasons. a) moderation: having to re moderate a site every time someone edits it causes unnecessary work for moderators, and when a site is continually switching between nsfw and ws content, the moderation log is confusing."

2 problems here: If the points were as initially discussed, each time nutnics' site would be awarded modification points would require re moderation every time he edited the site. The initial version of the site included a giant penis in the middle, which isn't very WS, which would require moderators to do unnecessary work just as in the previous case. I don't think that you intend to say that any site that is going to be edited must retain its initial SFW or NSFW distinction, as this would stifle a great deal of creativity (not all NSFW additions are merely for shock value). The second problem is, again, that the sponsorship list functions completely different from the other types of lists. To limit what it can be used for limits its usefulness and by limiting its usefulness it limits its worth as space on the front page (of which it is guaranteed the top left position). Now, you can say that it doesn't bring in much money, but you've given it a prime spot on the front page and I doubt it pains you to have people giving you money, so it doesn't make sense either that you a.) don't care about the list at all or b.) don't care about free money.

The sponsorship list functions different from the others, as shown by experience, so why not allow it to function in the most efficient manner? It is inefficient for HOF sites to be changed, since this would take away from the original reason for putting them in the HOF. However, it makes sense for a recently created site to be able to be changed in order to quickly fix problems and keep or earn itself a place on the U&C. Likewise, it makes sense for a site on the sponsored list to be able to be changed, since it sits there for 7 times as long as any recently created site on the U&C and there is no option to only sponsor a site for a single day (Daily donations show up as donationx7 on the weekly donation list for a period of 24 hours could fix this and there would be *less* need for hubs, although the hubs run more efficiently as they do now, as people not involved in a project can sponsor a project if they like it and not have to worry about sponsorship overlap problems).

"In the case of hivemind, where the user claims to be showcasing sites, it's not only robbing the original site of views, but this is more or less what the lists function was originally created for"

First of all, in the case of hivemind, all sites are posted by their authors, and the initial sites show a statistically significant increase in views due to their being posted on the hive, even though it is less efficient than linking directly from the sponsored list to an off-location site. If you could buy a spot on the sponsored list for a link to a separate site this would solve all of the comments/votes/edits problems, and the sponsorship itself could be something like: HiveMindedIndividuals sponsored link. The link could stay the same or change (change is more efficient), but this would, from a user's perspective, increase the functionality of the sponsored list and, from a data-tracking perspective, keep things as they were. Now, the sponsored links section would be limited to links inside of ytmnd, and to remove the problem of constant moderation of NSFW/SFW you could simply put a disclaimer up that all links are potentially NSFW in that section and allow the posters themselves to self-police. At any rate, the recently sponsored LIST is a LIST and it was created for people to post sites, and there were, at that point, no restrictions on changing content etc. so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the recently sponsored list was originally created for people to be able to showcase sites that the other list functions failed to recognize in the eyes of any given user or group of users, just as it is used now.

Korf41 11:06PM, December 5, 2006 (PST)

I agree with most of what korf is saying (and I can't understand the rest) + I have a few other ones. By reseting the views/votes of a site doesn't that make it eligible to get on U&C/worthwhile again? Because it seems to me that viewhacking would be more prevalent when you site SUCKS ASS. So you create your site, get downvoted to hell, edit your site into oblivion, get your votes/views reset, and start all over again by upvoting your own site with alt accounts. THAT sounds like a moderation hassle to me. Furthermore, why not just Freeze a site that is on the sponsorship list from being on any other list? That is what you're upset about yes? the fact that they dominate the "top viewed/top commented/top [etc] of today" lists. So why not feeze a sponsorship site until it's off sponsorship and then they can be added with the correct amount of views/votes and it can take its place in the ytmnd history books without being a redundant annoyance to all frontpagers? Klasky 18:17, December 6, 2006 (CST)

I like the sites that constantly change. They're enjoyable and keep me coming back to YTMND more often so I can see the changes. I really don't like the new proposed edit system. If anything I'd rather Korf41's idea of sponsorship that lets you buy a spot on the sponsorship list that can link to any site you choose and which you can modify if you want. BTape 22:30, December 18, 2006 (CST)

Minor changes to titles

I like the idea for the most part and I think such a system should be implemented, as it sometimes gets confusing as to which YTMND I am looking at. However, I think that minor but important changes to a title should somehow be exempt from the points being taken off.

For example, say you have a YTMND called "This is a funny YTMND", and everyone tells you your graphic was good, but you need a better sound, as often happens. The way the system sounds right now, changing the sound and updating the title to "This is a funny YTMND (Better Sound!)" will cost you two points. Since the spirit of this system is to reduce confusion over what YTMND you're looking at, points being taken off for this sort of a title change would be somewhat counterproductive, since the "(Better Sound)" tells users that what they are seeing is an already existing YTMND that has been updated, rather than one that is stealing an image and text and using a different sound.

One solution I can think of is to compare the changed title with the original, and if enough of it is the same, exempt it from a point change.

Or a version/update 'tag' system could be implemented. When you make changes to a YTMND, it gives you an option of incrementing a version number (like "This is a funny YTMND" to "This is a funny YTMND 1.1"), and/or an option of adding 'update tags' based on what you updated ("This is funny YTMND Sound"). Based on User Options, the update tags may disappear after the update is viewed.

Another thing I can think of is a Subtitle option for YTMNDs. You'd probably get fewer characters for these, just enough for something like "Updated!" "Updated Sounds!" etc.

Perhaps while on the YTMND homepage, these 'update tags' and/or subtitles remain hidden and appear when you roll over the title with your mouse.

The ideas of the 'update tags' and the subtitles have the bonus of being ideas that allow people to announce updates while not making any direct changes to the point system. They also have the least chance of users finding ways to confuse the system into letting them make what are in reality major changes to a title which just seem to be mostly the same (for example, anagrams) without losing points.

I'm sure after doing all that work coding the most recent update and finding this little post of suggestions for more updates will cause poor max to desire to drive some kind of large, cumbersome object, such as a lamp (plugged in) deep into my eye socket. I apologize deeply if such is the case, and will now stop typing, save to mash out four tildes to associate this half-baked babbling with myself.

Koncur 07:28, December 5, 2006 (CST)

You forgot "Captainobvious 09:50, December 5, 2006 (CST)". -CO

Also, I think the idea of HOF will work out quite well, preventing anyone from ever modifying the site so we don't end up with another hack like with the Picard Song. And the new modifcation points will put an end to those site-changing trio of Dr. 1337, the hive, and lazytown4's first Stephanie site. Maplejet 10:09, December 5, 2006 (CST)