PvXwiki talk:Real Vetting/Archive 1

criteria
Three criteria suggested in this policy is just an example. It is possible to make 3-4-5 or 10. It is very adjustable.


 * I really don't want to see us promote a build just because it is innovative. There are plenty of good builds out there that are pretty cut-and-paste; that doesn't make them bad. For example, a good war build will have an IAS, speed buff, ~3 attacks and a rez. There's nothing innovative about this, but a build featuring those skills would be effective. There's no need for that build's score to suffer.
 * The potential of build is also a poor quality to judge a build by. Some people can design a good build, designated to fulfill a certain purpose (let's say, e-denial). It may perform excellently at e-denial, but may not be effective at something else (say, spiking). Under these criteria, the build would rate much lower than it deserves. Just because it only does what it was designed to do doesn't mean a build's score should suffer either.
 * The categorization system of this policy looks great, however. It would certainly be beneficial to any policy we end up implementing.
 * As far as the voting side, it looks good too, though I think it would be inappropriate to call this an easy voting process. It is complicated, especially when compared to some of the other policies.
 * Most of this polciy looks really good, but it has a glaring Achilles heel, if you will: criteria. Having a static set of criteria to evaluate a build upon will be harmful to the wiki. It will misrepresent builds that are really good, as well as those that aren't (like the 'best use of a bad elite' builds. They may be good to have, for players who don't have any useful elites yet, but they should never be ranked above those common, uninnovative builds that really work). Evaluation is better left in the abstract; rigid criteria will not be beneficial to maintaining a useful Builds section. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I think this policy has a lot of potential, but needs some cleanup.
 * To me, it depends on how the vetting result would be displayed. If the three criteris (Idea, potential, and strength) are averaged together for a signle score, then I agree that it would artifically help the score of poor builds, while dropping the score of effective but non-innovative builds.
 * On the other hand, if the scores are not averaged, and each build is displayed based on each score individually, then this seems a very effective method. Scripts can easilly reduce the complexity, so no issues from that.  If you're looking for a powerfule build, search for all builds with a high "strength" score, ignoring the other two scores.  If you want innovative, search for high "Idea" scores while ignoring the other two.  This gives it a lot of flexibility.  I would also suggest writing the scripts to be easilly expandable - if a fourth or fifth criteria are wanted in the future, write the scripts from the beginning to support that possiblity.
 * The main thing that I would suggest changing is to make the vetted results based on 5 categories of 20% (0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80, and 80-100), instead of the currently proposed 25% segments. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.88.255.140 (contribs).
 * People come to the wiki looking for help with builds, i.e. they are looking for good builds to either mimic or be inspired by. They aren't looking for builds that other people were very creative in making. The strength category is the only one that will actually be useful to someone who needs help with their builds. The other categories are geared more towards pleasing build authors than those who want to use the wiki as a resource. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * However, if all we saw were the same old builds then the game qould start to get rather dull. Especially since EotN has only 150 new skills, and 50 or 100 (I forget which) are PvE only, someone has to be creative if the metagame is going to change at all and if old players are to stay interested. Another possiblity would be to organize the builds into sub-categories, having a category for most creative, best overall, best potential, best overall strength, best damage(spike and pressure) best defence, best healing, best E-denial and whatever other categories you decided to include.--Foozdood 21:23, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Why not just bring over the Overall Category sugested by my proposal an place it into this one. May give a 4th definitive build 'rating' that is still abstract enough for some, and detailed for others. May cynch this into place for those who want simplicity over detail. Shireen 18:10, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Could work just as well to rename it to Design Performance, rather than 'overall'. Shireen 00:44, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Could you provide a link to the proposal you are referring to, so that readers may understand what you are talking about? I can't find it on your user page or in the PvXwiki:Community Portal. If I remember correctly, it was something like "True Build Ratings?" - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   02:35, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

My first impression of this new policy is good, but there's one thing i would like to add to the discussion: HEROES! everybody wants to have good builds for their heroes, but it seems to me that there will not be a category for hero-builds (maybe i misunderstood something though). heroes often suck at using perfectly great builds (i.e. they don't know which skill to echo) and sometimes they perform very well with builds that a human player couldn't use nearly as efficient (i.e. nobody or few people can use the jagged nova bomber build as efficiently as a hero). that's why i would like to suggest to add another vetting criteria: how well do heroes use the build? it might also be a good idea in my opinion to expand the build categories accordingly: great, good AND hero friendly builds (= a category only for builds vetted to be hero friendly) --213.47.135.190 01:43, 26 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, the criteria here would be applied to all builds; what you want would be hard to apply to builds that are not intended for use on heroes. It would negatively affect the ratings of builds that are not hero builds. The separate category for hero builds would be better, and you could still apply this policy's criteria to a hero build (i.e. how effective it is). - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   02:35, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

Suggestion
While having a discussion with BrianG, we figured out a way to kind of get around the Achilles Heel that Krowman pointed out. What if we base the actual percent rating (that determines the placement of the build in the hierarchy) based soly on the Strength category (since that category pretty much covers the things that make a build good). Then, we could give people the option of also assigning Innovation, Idea, etc. scores to a build. Those scores would not effect the actual rank, but, would instead be usable as search criteria. That way, we get all the benefits of the policy, while still maintaining a high standard for our builds. Thoughts? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Good compromise. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I agree. However you would need to make the rating more than 0 to 5 to get a real ranking based on just one category. At least to 20.

--Dark Grendl 18:28, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
 * @DE and Krowman; I thought that was what I said above, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
 * @Dark Grendl; Not really. Letting each individual user vote 0 to 5 simplifies voting, and averages of multiple votes goes into decimal places, so there's really an infinite range of average rankings with 4.5, 3.25, 3.14159, etc.

Yes, or something like efficiency + utility. ~Corpselooter 17:14 +1Gmt. 18 May.

Dispelling Some Myths

 * Ben says:
 * While having a discussion with BrianG, we figured out a way to kind of get around the Achilles Heel that Krowman pointed out. What if we base the actual percent rating (that determines the placement of the build in the hierarchy) based soly on the Strength category (since that category pretty much covers the things that make a build good).  Then, we could give people the option of also assigning
 * Ben says:
 * Innovation, Idea, etc. scores to a build. Those scores would not effect the actual rank, but, would instead be usable as search criteria.  That way, we get all the benefits of the policy, while still maintaining a high standard for our builds.  Thoughts?
 * Ben says:
 * So that way, Strength is the only thing that really matters for determining score, but, people lookinfg for innovative builds can still search for them.
 * gcardinal says:
 * Yeah sure sounds a like a great idea. How about faking its effect? I am not sure if people will rate build "good" if they know it has nothing to say, how about we make Strengt count for 70% of tottal score, and other 2 for 15% and 15%. that way they cound but not to much to damage anything
 * Ben says:
 * Meh... I don't know.
 * Ben says:
 * The problem is that the VERY BEST warrior builds would still recieve lower ratings because most of :them aren't creative.
 * gcardinal says:
 * hmm yeah
 * gcardinal says:
 * I just afraid we will not have any builds in Good, only Great
 * Ben says:
 * I still think it would work fine like that.
 * Ben says:
 * And voting on Creativity and that stuff would just be optional.
 * gcardinal says:
 * sec let me check
 * gcardinal says:
 * Okey how about this, does a VERY BEST warrior build has 0 potential ?
 * Build W/Mo
 * Strengt : 100% (counts 70%)
 * Potential : 100% (count 15%)
 * Innovation : 0% (counts 15%)


 * I Think this is the best the only problem is caltulating and evrything
 * And still we wil get 85% tottal score and it will make into Great section
 * gcardinal says:
 * Its important that both Great and Good will have builds, if there will be only 10 builds in good, it would be good
 * Ben says:
 * What is potential defined as?
 * gcardinal says:
 * If this build has potential to do more than it has been designed for.
 * gcardinal says:
 * LIke you can farm in 1000 areas with build = potential
 * Ben says:
 * No... builds do what they are designed to do... that is just a silly category...
 * gcardinal says:
 * No not really
 * Ben says:
 * A GvG warrior is good at one thing... being a GvG Warrior.
 * gcardinal says:
 * okey let me illustrate that
 * gcardinal says:
 * http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Build:W/A_Shove_Hammer_Spiker
 * Ben says:
 * Alright...
 * gcardinal says:
 * That is a PvP build, but it can be used for AB, CM, GvG, RA, TA -> 100% potential
 * gcardinal says:
 * Potential in form of Universal
 * Ben says:
 * Universality doesn't mean good though.
 * Ben says:
 * Again, a GvG warrior may be the best GvG warrior but not be good at anything else.
 * Ben says:
 * Why should that lower its score?
 * gcardinal says:
 * It will not lower its score, it will make it Good
 * And if its a build that is so great for GvG so specificly designed, it may just as well get Innovation score, becouse its a new way of thinking or what ever.
 * gcardinal says:
 * http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Build:Mo/E_SoA_Sliver
 * Build that is
 * Strengt - 75% becouse its has many major problems like hard to use
 * Innovation - 100% new way of farming
 * Potential - 100% can farm 40 different boss's


 * that will make it a great build
 * Ben says:
 * Alright... whatever... just make Strength count for the vast majority at least.
 * gcardinal says:
 * And another thing, if we see anything going wrong, it will take just 1 second to change balance in terms of how rating is counted, and it will automaticly recalculate evrething
 * Ben says:
 * There is another problem though.
 * Ben says:
 * Just in general with your policy.
 * gcardinal says:
 * yeah?
 * Ben says:
 * Alright... I know you may not agree, but the fact that this gives no way for an Author or an Admin to refute a vote is ridiculous.
 * Ben says:
 * Some votes are just stupid.
 * gcardinal says:
 * I dont remmber saying that
 * gcardinal says:
 * of couse we can refute a vote, if we cant do that what the points of having admins ?
 * Ben says:
 * Well also... is there any way that we can force people to present a reason for how they rate a build?
 * gcardinal says:
 * we may also need to create a group of people with that kind of permission. not sure about giving that to author
 * Ben says:
 * And then can you have Admins remove votes that just make no sense based on the reasoning.
 * gcardinal says:
 * Yes there will be rating with box's and shit, but it will be also box where they MUST type some reason for they vote
 * gcardinal says:
 * and people can edit they vote and reason any time
 * gcardinal says:
 * yeah exactly
 * gcardinal says:
 * that was my idea, it was maybe stupid not to mentining it in a policy
 * Ben says:
 * So, as an Admin, I can see someone's reasoning and then render the vote null and void if the reason just makes no sense?
 * gcardinal says:
 * in short, when you go to build page, next to [Discussion] will be [Vote] when you go there, you will be askt to rate a build using 3-4 box's rating each parametr from 0 to 5 bla bla. Under that you will see current builds score, votes from other people:
 * User name
 * Score given to build
 * Reason given


 * Each user will see that but admins and (maybe) a bigger group of trusted users will have right to
 * gcardinal says:
 * delete a vote giving they reason for deletion of the vote
 * gcardinal says:
 * however discussion will not find place on that page, and will be in [Discussion], but in top of the discussion will be current builds rating just as on diagram on the page
 * Can some of Admins please make a summary of this discussion and edit policy according ? GCardinal 00:37, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Summary:
 * 1) Builds would be rated solely according to their Strength/Performance/Effectiveness (whatever we end up naming it) score; Idea and Potential would be used as sorting/searching criteria and displayed alongside Strength, but would not be used to rate how 'good' the build is. Strength would determine the build's placement in the hierarchy.
 * 2) Admins will have the power to remove invalid votes (i.e. votes that don't leave any reasoning, etc).
 * 3) 3 tabs for builds: Build, Discussion and Vote. Votes go under [Vote], Discussion occurs under [Discussion], and the Build would exist under [Build]. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   02:22, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

Winner
...This one won... Can GCardinal tell us how many votes the others got? NVM-- frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 20:48, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

ick--Coloneh 23:01, 18 May 2007 (CEST)


 * My main thing is that this is the one all the socks voted for... But whatever. We can flesh this one out. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 23:15, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Page is buried again
- Need to put a link on the front page, a LOT of people are going to want to be able to have a quick refrence to it without having to guess and dig where the link is. Voting results are not linked to their policies. Shireen 00:38, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Ummm... click on the Official Vetting Policy link under the "Writing Your Own Build" Section. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:56, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Transformation
Here is my suggestion on what to do with builds we have no and how to move them under new policy: It can be a small mess to start with but as soon as that extension is ready it will be okey.GCardinal 00:35, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * All current favored builds goes to Working\Good.
 * All current un-favored builds goes to Archive\Trash
 * All current stubs goes to Archive\Store
 * All new builds as by policy will start as Drafts.
 * Do we need to retemplate anything? Eronth 00:36, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Pretty much everething. But I have to write an extensions first. Then we will see how to deal with what we have. I will figure out something. Until then just hold GCardinal 00:37, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Give us a holler and we'll (Me for certain) help out. Gotta break the funk man, quickety split Shireen 00:42, 19 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Putting all currently favored builds into the working or whatever section is going to solve problems from the previous policy how? We know that old builds in favored needed to be cleaned out, and still do. -- Sefre  T*C 00:59, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Agree with Sefre. Move them ALL to untested or w/e it's called. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 02:44, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Voting will be done on all builds as time goes. And as voting goes builds will be automatically moved around. Moving all builds to Trash will not solve a problem. Taking it step by step will first keep site up and running and will keep it usefull for Readers as well as Writers will have a playground to start with GCardinal 12:32, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * We didn't say move them to trash, we are saying move them to Drafts I think. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 15:04, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Move all builds on the site to drafts. I dont fully agree with this policy, but i think we all know the old one was crap.--Coloneh 21:36, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
 * FINALLY. Will work on it. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 06:34, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Do not move or touche anything. I am working on extension. GCardinal 22:25, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * And again, extension will move all builds. And if builds in Good will be rated to be in trash it will be moved there. So as time goes they all be moved according to rating they have. There is no need to make a big mess and move all builds in one folder it will only slow down process of re-voting. As favored builds must be #1 priority to be re-voted on, then all stubs builds and so on. No one says that favored builds dont need cleanup, I am just say lets not start cleanup by creating mega mess when we have a structure we can start working on. GCardinal 23:30, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Some thoughts...
...that occurred to me when re-reading the policy article:


 * Instead of "percentage of current/max ratings", wouldn't it be better to call it "average rating"? Technically it's the same, but easier to explain/understand.
 * The categories (Great/Good/Store/Trash) are meant to be implemented as wiki categories along with Drafts and Untested, right? (The article doesn't say anything yet.) At the moment there's also an inconsistency between the diagram and the description concerning the category names.
 * Assignment of a category is based on an overall rating (I assume). How is this calculated? I favor the 70/15/15 weighted average proposed above.
 * Should the "Strength" criteria be split into something like "Power" and "Usability"? Not so experienced players might look for a build that they can handle, and accept that it has limited power, while others don't care how difficult a build is to use (or to get the equipment) but want maximum power for a difficult task.
 * What about additional, optional criteria, that don't go into the overall rating but help in describing the build? Some of the ideas of pvxwiki:True Build Ratings could be taken over. Might look complicated, but shouldn't scare anybody as long as it's optional.
 * Search engine: I think this is a very powerful and important tool that can render many discussions obsolete. It should include filtering and sorting with respect to all the "criteria". A close to unlimited amount of additional gimmicks is thinkable and can be implemented later. GCardinal: I can send you the draft I wrote (don't want to publish it here, it might cause some load if too many people use it in the current state).
 * Finally, at some point a trusted native speaker should polish the article text (no, I'm not :-)

I guess that most of these points are being worked on anyway, now that we can concentrate on one policy. Btw: congratulations for winning the vote. --Hhhippo 12:04, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

It says the script will be made within a week. im curious as to who is writing it?--Coloneh 08:26, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Make a new topic under which ppl can suggest criteria, general as well as optional? --Luuck 11:18, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

MAJOR PROBLEM
How the hell do we stop trolls from 0 rating everything? Coz we gonna get idiots who do that. This policy is pathetic in the way that is has such an obvious flaw. And what does this mean? We have people who don't TEST BEFORE VOTING. Back to GuildWiki again, the past is here to stay. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  (talk)(contributions) 11:26, 20 May 2007 (CEST)


 * People who rate 0 on all criteria are easily identified as trolls and can be warned/banned. That's already a major advantage of Real Vetting over just Favored/Unfavored.
 * But you're right, there should be a note in the policy saying that you need to give a reason for your rating. If a rating seems unjustified, the rater should be asked to clarify it. If that doesn't help, admins should have the power to strike the vote.
 * In general: Let's try and see how it works. There will be more to the new system than just vetting (like you can check which builds your favorite xx-expert is favoring). So the actual rating might become less important than in the old system, reducing also the motivation to push the rating up or down.--Hhhippo 11:57, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That's why I didn't vote for this policy, and why I decided to go for the scale of 1-10 one, I think it was the one about things like overall, practicality, specialist roles etc. But yeah, I think reasons MUST be given. But that's not enough to satisfy me.


 * I believe that we must all provide PROOF that we have tested the build, either by screenshots, a report on how the build functions and where you have tested it, or especially for the people that are willing to provide the software (by request sending the full version by e-mail or MSN), FRAPSing your manic mayhem, which would be by FAR better proof as then you can see whether the person's vote is valid or not as you can see their playing style or if they were using the build in a completely stupid way. Obviously if a build is so stupid it violates PvX:WELL then it will just be deleted on the spot. Not so easy to do all of the above, but it is damnnear foolproof. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 15:14, 20 May 2007 (CEST)


 * It's also close to making nobody want to vote for any builds. The amount of work it would take just to put your vote on a build is tremendous. Sure you could implement that type of policy, but PvX would lose much of the user base it has now, which still isn't that much. No one would want to vote, and the to verify that everyone did what they were supposed to to vote would also take a tremendous amount of work. So instead of taking a good idea on how to handle the votes, you want a almost perfect plan, but at the cost of many users not voting and ten times the amount of work. I think we should just leave the voting regulations the way they are. Most bad voters will be caught. The only thing that I would say, is that the user had to be logged in. That might already be up there, but I don't know. My 2 cents. Bluemilkman 15:58, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Then this policy would fail badly. With no regulations and no PROOF, if someone goes and rank 0s about 20 builds and just says it sucks, that would then be considered a perfectly valid vote. THAT is what I feel will fuck this wiki over like GuildWiki was. Heck, this is no better than favoured/unfavoured really. Well, it is in the slightest bit. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 16:03, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * If they 0 rank a bunch of builds, they'll be checked against WELL. If they don't violate WELL, the troll gets a warning for VANDALISM. Because there's no worse vandalism than tanking build ratings on a BUILD WIKI. Someone add that because I have to go. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 17:55, 20 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Did you not read what Hhhippo said about it about three comments up. People who vote 0 for no reason can have their votes stricken. The ones who just go around voting 0 will be identified as such, and could possibly get banned. As long as someone has a good reason for voting 0, then it's fine. The only thing that I could see you being not so happy about is the fact that someone has to tell an Admin that somebody is just voting 0 for no reason. That will leave it up to the normal users to make this policy as good as it can be. Bluemilkman 17:58, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

In reply to the note-box by Defiant Elements: Great. That should end the discussion. Maybe include it in the policy description soon. There are some points that should be clarified anyway, see previous section. Oh, yes: And maybe call it "as per discussion in the community". If only two people decide about details of a policy which was just voted on, that calls for complaints. Even though I don't think anybody will oppose this particular decision. --Hhhippo 19:36, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeh, it probably wasn't phrased in the best possible way, but, I was really referring to the conversation posted in a previous section that already answered all of these questions which obviously no one bothered to look at. But still, I hope the notice box renders this whole discussion moot and we can get on to more important things.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:39, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Something that I would like to comment on is the 'testing required' remark above. A testing requirement is a practical impossibility. It is unnecessary to test a build in order to determine it's quality. Giving reasons behind your vote should suffice. If a testing clause were included, all that we could use as evidence would be screenies. Uploading (at least!) 5 screenshots per build as evidence would be a nightmare. As well, what do you take screenshots of? How much a build heals for? How much damage it does? There are qualities in all builds that cannot be measured simply by numbers. Having to test build will create a huge backlog of builds in Untested. Leaving a reason behind your vote will tell people what is wrong with the build, how it can improve, and should leave build authors feeling a little more satisfied that someone did not simply vote against their build out of spite or whatnot. - Krowman    19:55, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * asking voters to test every build is rediculous. experienced players can look at most builds and decide if they will work or not. newer players should test all builds they vote on. also there are some strange(unique) builds that really need to be tested by even the most elite. testing isnt necessary, knowing what your talking about is.--Coloneh 02:10, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

YES! NAPALM HAS SOME INFlUENCE! NAPALM HAS DONE GOOD DEED! WOW! Okay I'll stop capsing and get down to business. Nice one defiant, thanks, much appreciated. But do you plan on giving build creators the right to strike out certain invalid votes like trollers and votes that do not make sense/cannot be applied/are downright stupid/are just incorrect, or do you have to notify an admin? Coz once this policy goes into full effect there physically won't be enough of you at some point to keep monitoring the votes for the above problems. And this doesn't just go for 0 votes, can go for 5s or any number. I can see there will be some very slight teething problems in time to come, but nothing too serious I hope ;) (And by the way, I'm only on about when this wiki reaches it's point of boom... Sounds like the English housing market... typical) '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 20:57, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Right now, it looks like only Admins will be able to strike votes since voting will occur within an extension and it is unclear whether or not regular users will be able to view the results (which will include the reasons). I would never advocate giving Authors the right to strike votes since I just wouldn't trust a lot of the random Anons who post builds or whatever.  Maybe we could get a larger group of trusted users who weren't Admins and give them the power to strike votes.  Regardless, we are trying to expand the Admin pool since we do acknowledge that we need since it is just too big a job for 6 people to handle.  However, to really answer your question, I would guess (you have to ask Cardinal for the real answer) that all users will be able to see who voted and their reasons for voting, but, that only Admins will be able to strike votes, and, it will be primarily the responsibility of normal users to tag votes for Administrative Review.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  21:25, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I agree with Defiant Elements, you really don't want the general population to have the right to strike votes. When users did give reasons on GuildWiki and the vote was negative, many anons and even some registered authors automatically said that because it failed for that user, the user obviously did something wrong, and therefore the reason was invalid or seriously flawed.  This would even happen when the votes were 5:1 or more towards unfavored - many noobish authors simply refused to acknowledge the community's reasoning.  As far as the author was concerned, in their mind the build was the greatest creation in Guild Wars history, and anyone who voted negatively obviously didn't do something right or was flatly incompetent.  To keep a handle on the volume of issues, it's a good idea to have names ready to expand the number of users who can strike votes in case the volume of complaints get to high, and users who can strike votes wouldn't really need to be full admins.  But there should also be a policy in place to settle disputes (arbitration or whatever) for when two users who can strike votes disagree on if reasoning is valid or not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:32, 21 May 2007 (CEST)
 * True, too true. I'd be willing to do that in a completely unbiased way, if you think you would trust me ;) '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 17:37, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Protected
Why is this protected still? If it will be the official policy then people need to be able to fine tune points and fix errors on it. Especially points mentioned in the above section.-- Sefre  T*C 21:35, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * probably because there is no need for it not to be protected... concsencus has to be reached on the talk page before a change is made anyways. Not a fifty five 21:55, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * True, if someone has a real reason to edit it, we can always unprotect for a short time. But, beyond what 55 said, there is also the fact that if a page is viewed as "unpopular," there is always a greater risk of vandalism, much like with the Builds wipe page on GuildWiki which had a bunch of occurrences of vandalism.  Once things settle down and it is properly implemented, we can un-protect the page, until then, we can leave as is.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:03, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The history tab shows zero occurances of vandalism. he practice of protecting of pages that have never been vandalized strikes me as an odd development. While there's no need for most users to edit it, I also find it odd that Defiant Elements has protected his own userpage which also has no history of vandalism to that page.
 * On a related question, is there any chance of getting Special:Protectedpages to work on this wiki? It works on MediaWiki.org and Wikipedia.org, but not here. --161.88.255.140 23:53, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It was protected not again vandalism but just to illustrate that this policy will be implemented as its written today. Look at it as a symbolic mark of freezing current version. My userpage is not protected even I am a founder and everyone a free to post anything in my discussion page. GCardinal 23:57, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Quality vetting policy?
While I think the idea is pretty cool... I don't think this policy solves ANY of the problems guildwiki had... the two major ones being


 * Flood of terrible builds making untested monstrous
 * Poor quality voters who do not read the entire (particularly the usage section) article or think about it

In fact, this probably only aggravates the second problem, as people are probably less likely to comment before rating in this system as the new "vote" has no comment area Not a fifty five 22:16, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Err, we got rid of the untested problem at Gwiki, it just took time and effort. The big problems at Gwiki were general quality and NPA violations and the ensuing headaches. With this system, they have to leave a comment about why a build is bad, if they choose to vote that way. That kind of mutes your 2nd point; if they don't leave any reasoning (to make it a valid vote), their vote will be stricken. The 1st problem, like I said, only really occured at the beginning of new chapter releases, and we got it under wraps over at GWiki. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   22:22, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well for #1 if I recall correctly, guildwiki DID solve the nightfall builds inundation for a brief time in untested but it eventually flooded back to the hundreds. And for #2, I guess thaat's true.  We'd prolly have to describe what an obviously flawed reasoning would be in more detail, though. Not a fifty five 22:30, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I think Krowman gave you the reason why Poor Quality Voters is not an issue. I would add that I would guess that it will be left largely up to the Admin who strikes the vote as to what constitutes a poor build.  As to floods of bad builds... well, we aren't going to limit people from submitting builds, but, PvX:WELL does give us broad latitude to delete bad builds which means that less time has to be spent actually vetting them.  And, with a little effort, we can keep them from being flooded.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:37, 20 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Effort and more admins. *Goes to check email* -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 03:33, 21 May 2007 (CEST)
 * BTW, spamming bad builds in bad intent (meaning you don't really care if they violate WELL or not, or if they're tested, or whatever) can also constitute vandalism. Simply putting up a bunch of builds that you tried to make but were bad despite your best efforts wouldn't be. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 03:41, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Concerns and tweaks
I just re-read the policy and noticed that the standard favored/unfavored vote and it's application is completely removed from the system. This may be a major flaw. The ratings are there to require critical thinking and encourage testing of the build, but may lead to serious inacuracy in voter behavior. For example, without the yes/no vote seperated from the process, some voters -will- vote builds at a 5 strength when it should be a 3 or 4, just to ensure it makes it through the voting process, giving a misleading analisis of the build. And just because a build is strong, doesn't necisarrily mean the build should be favored. Put the favored/unfavored vote back in, but leave the builds sorted and categorized by the numerical values. It would be a much stronger system and help to mitigate 'over/under stuffing' of the ballet to generate desired results. (This is why I kept the favored/unfavored vote in my policy was to adress this potential problem).
 * The other thing I wanted to bring up is verbage: Idea should be changed to Concept, as it's a stronger word to reflect the attributes meaning.  You may want to change out Strength with 'Overall' or another neutral evaluation word, as strength alludes to damage output, and seeing low damage output may skew voters perception.  Shireen 04:07, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

you mean
I have to not troll

Cleanup
I did some cleanup of the description of vetting procedure and categorization. I hope the result reflects the original intentions, plus the suggestions made in 'Dispelling some myths', which seem to be consensus. I'm not too happy about the scales yet. There's an unnatural transition from the 0-5 scale used by each voter to a percentage scale for the final result. I think we should use the same scale all over the process, that is either percentages from the start or 0-5 till the end. I'd suggest to use only the 0-5 scale, and change the category limits to Of course non-integer limits are also possible, but integer ones look nicer. Btw: Doesn't it sound strange to put candidates for deletion into a category called 'Archive'? Shouldn't we skip the two-stage structure and just call the categories Great, Good, Archive and Trash? --Hhhippo 20:45, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Working\Great (rating 4 -- 5)
 * Working\Good (rating 3 -- <4)
 * Archive\Store (rating 1 -- <3)
 * Archive\Trash (rating 0 -- <1)
 * that is in fact not true; with multiple votes an average can be calculated, which can result in any rational number between zero and five. This autmatically translates to a percentage on a coloured bar. Using the numbers 0 to 5 for the categories or a percentage is arbitrary, but the percentages in the original policy are a bit more smooth than the numbers chosen here. -- Ifer 82.75.190.21 22:12, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * What is not true? I'm aware of rational numbers, that's why I mentioned non-integer limits. For the color bars it doesn't matter at all what scale is used, since there are no numbers labeling the bar (at least in the current draft). I agree that using 0-5 or percentage is arbitrary, but I still don't like changing the scale during the calculation. That's like asking everybody for their height in feet and than calculating the average in cm. Not wrong, but not nice either.--Hhhippo 22:24, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * You said that the transition from 0-5 to percentages is unnatural. That is something I feel is untrue. Since the scale on the coloured bar is arbitrary, a percentage or fraction is easier to work with (Doing it manually anyway). The resulting score should not be adjusted to a 0-5 score as they were given at the voting - as I said, the percentages are more smooth. the aribitrary scale is up to the code-writer I suppose. -- Ifer 82.75.190.21 03:30, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * On a side note, I agree with Hhhippo, it would be better if the categories were renamed to simply "Great, Good, Store, Trash"... or possibly replace "Store" with "Archive". To denote builds as "working/great" would imply that there could be "not working/great" builds as well.  When a build falls out of grace for whatever reason, like skill changes.. then it would go to "store" or "archive" where I think it should show what the previous score was for the build and why it doesn't work as well/at all anymore.  "Great" for builds that currently work very effectively (based on score), "Good" for builds that work fairly well, may not be very user friendly.. or very universally effective, but still good, "Archive" (or store, whatever) for builds that had previously been favored but have fallen out of grace for whatever reason (had once been successfully vetted), and "Trash" for builds that did not pass the vetting process.  But if you wanna still use the 0-5 scale, I would suggest just labeling them "Great, Good, Ok, Bad" or something like that.. store/trash are essentially mislabeled if it's just based on average vote. -- Spore 20:20, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Part of this thread is still active and has been left as a copy on the discussion page.--Hhhippo 21:23, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Developing
Ones again we are entering discussion. I have been away for a few days and now its 3-4 pages to read and new ideas are coming all the time. This extension requires a lot and a lot of work and it will be done by me only. And if you guys want me to finish this extension suggestions must be constructive and specific.

I will write extension as it is in policy now. I have to freeze further changes of the policy just so I have a template and a guide line to work with.

Discussion on changes must be separated from this page. Here only specific ideas and suggestions should be posted after they have been discussed on elsewhere. Please keep this discussion page clean and short.

Please keep in mind that no development can not be done while main task are under constant change.

One thing I think we do need to change are names of three criteria and their easy to understand description.

And just to mention it, I am not trying in anyway to slow down, ignore, influence or avoid discussion. I am trying to set a realistic frame under witch I can code extension we need. I would ask Administrators to make last changes to policy according to discussion after that it will be on hold until extension is ready. Discussion must be re-organized and if needed moved to a separate page. GCardinal 22:41, 22 May 2007 (CEST)


 * My intention to edit the policy page was not to change the policy, but to describe it more clearly and to include the dispelled myths. The latter you actually asked for; it seemed than no admin had time for that so I did it. The main aim was to stop useless discussions by putting the answers on the policy page.
 * I agree that this discussion page is a mess. I thought about moving a lot into an archive and summarizing open questions, but now I feel like this might be a major intervention and more appropriate for an admin to to. Moving lengthy discussions to another page might be another option, but still the discussion page of a policy page seems to be the natural place to discuss that policy.
 * Anyway, part of the discussion is just speculation about points the policy doesn't specify yet. Here we should just wait until you're done with coding.
 * Finally, I'm not sure if it will help you, but if you like I can send you my Search Engine draft.--Hhhippo 23:42, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The edit you did was great Hhhippo. I was waiting for that to happen so I could freeze policy for a while. By the way, its a cool nick Hhhippo, cant stop saying it :)) And if you have any code that you want to sure that is always more then welcome! GCardinal 23:54, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Thanks, now I feel helpful again :-) Should add some trivia section to my user page explaining how the name got stuck in my head...maybe tomorrow. The code is on its way. --Hhhippo 00:37, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

Idea
For organizing this page I suggest that a sub page to to this should be created, this page will be set aside for suggestions and proposed changes. While on this page there is a single section where a list of all proposed changes are listed and updated by a admin or trustworthy user. Below this there would be mini sections(don't know the proper term) for each proposed specific change where users can discuss the change and critique it. Whenever a new idea is brought up and is viable enough a new section on main talk page will be created to allow discussion on if it should be implemented. This would make things a lot easier to understand here. The separate issues would be in specific sections that could be archived when needed without archiving other chunks of unrelated info. And all new suggestions would be found on a separate page then the discussions of already existing issues. This would allow both aspects(proposals and perfecting) to be separately maintained but still connected.-- Sefre  T*C 03:57, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * To make my idea little easier to understand-User talk:Sefre/test-- Sefre  T*C 04:14, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I like it, i like it alot. ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  04:34, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Great idea. It will also make easy to implement changes and keep track of them. gcardinal 08:59, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yes, sounds good. A sub-page for brainstorming and developing ideas and the discussion here is limited to 'implement or not'. Let's try.--Hhhippo 09:28, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Great idea, now make it so! -- Ifer 82.169.153.174 16:51, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * If you wish to use that organization system somebody is going to have to go through all this text and get out key changes that already have been discussed, would be a complicated and cluttered process. Now that I think about it that system would probably be more effective on newly proposed policies.-- Sefre  T*C 23:44, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

Contradictions in context
I don't want to express opinion or criticism concerning the policy itself, but the way it's displayed. "Please do not submit new builds(...)"- Main Page suggests that the policy is incomplete and subject to discussion and change. "This page is almost an official policy(...)" - Article says the same - but suggests the contrary - there is a check mark next to it! Now, this is supposed to be "the winning policy (...)" - Main Page - thus it's final. Who would ever call a vote on a policy that is not finished? Last but not least, the article is protected. How is man supposed to fix that stuff if he can't even edit it? Get that policy straight, display a coherent image. All it's doing right now is telling people about your ineptitude. ~ Dragon Legacy 10:52, 24 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The policy itself is finished, but some programming has to be done (and is currently being done) before it can actually be used. That's why everything is on standby now even though the decision was made. Once the new code is running the page will be updated to describe more details.
 * But your're right that the overall picture is confusing and a new reader will not always understand what's the current status. This was brought up already here: User_talk:Gcardinal. Dear admins: It seems that the problem is not fixed yet. --Hhhippo 13:23, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Dragon, The comunity voted on a policy. Cardinal is workingup the scripting needed to impliment the proposed policy, and if you would read the page above you would see that we all agree that this is the best policy, but needs a few tweaks and adjustments to be able to be eaisier to use, and adress potential problems before they occour. Weve been hashing out, kicking around, and making fun of each others sugestions here on this page, if it reaches a consensus, admin alter the source document. Shireen 17:39, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Implementation Ideas Concerning Vote Modification
As we all know well, the Guild Wars world is not a static one. Skills change in quality and therefore builds change in quality. A jagged bones minion bomber may have been an 8/10 at one point, but right now, it would be a stretch to give it a 1/10. In the discussion of the current build rating system I haven't seen any attempt to address this issue.

Caveats:
 * I readily admit that I don't know what the back end of these wikis look like, so some or all of my ideas may be impractical to implement for one reason or another.
 * I'm not sure at what stage of development this system is currently in, so we may not want to do this yet or it might just be plain old annoying to go back and make necessary modifications.
 * I had no idea where to address implementation ideas, so I may be playing the part of a fool in placing this here, but it seemed a good forum for this.
 * We may just plain old want to wait to address this issue at a later point in time once things have been established and started to settle down.

The first feature that I feel would optimally address the mutable nature of build quality is the ability to simply replace your old vote on a build in some manner or another.

The second feature that I would personally find useful in support of the first feature would be some form of summary of, and access to, the votes that I may have submitted in the past.

Alternatives that I feel are inferior, but worth considering: --DeathFlame131 08:52, 25 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Establish a policy for resetting the scores of builds that have been significantly effected by skill changes.
 * Only use the last X submitted votes on a build for rating purposes and give users the ability to vote again after their vote has been pushed out of the vote queue.


 * Good point in principle. The first two features you mention are currently worked on by GCardinal. They will be part of the voting system. About calling for revotes or expiration of votes: Let's discuss that once the voting system is up and running. It's an addition worth considering, but first we should have the main part in operation. --Hhhippo 09:02, 25 May 2007 (CEST)
 * PvXwiki:Notify Build Testers is a separate policy related to re-voting of builds that change for whatever reason. Discussion on the subject would be better there where it can be kept a separate issue from actually vetting builds. --[[Image:SefreSig.jpg|45px|Sefre]] 15:10, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Projected release date
Whats the status on the new system? Can we get an estimate? A lot of us are getting antsy. Shireen 05:33, 1 June 2007 (CEST)
 * GCardinal is writing the extension atm. I asked him about it a little while ago; he said he will have it ready for testing by admins on a separate server in a few days. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   05:37, 1 June 2007 (CEST)