I'd like to get feedback on possible changes to one of the most important parts of MFGG: the system for submitting and processing games, graphics, reviews, and other resources. First of all, I should present a brief overview of how the current system works. I'm not sure if we've ever discussed this before. [b]The current system[/b] 1. User submits a game to the mainsite. 2. Two Quality Control staffers review the submission - they play the game and make sure that it is playable and properly categorized, and that it meets the submission guidelines. 3. If the two staffers both vote to accept the game, it appears on the mainsite. 4. If the two staffers both vote to decline the game, it will not appear on the mainsite, and the submitter will receive a brief explanation of why the game was declined. 5. If one staffer votes to accept the game and another votes to decline the game, a third staffer must vote to break the tie. 6. If the game has been accepted, and the user submits an updated version, the update goes back into the queue and again has to be approved by two staffers. Processing graphics, reviews, how-tos, sounds, and miscellaneous submissions follows the same sequence, although how-tos, sounds, and miscellaneous submissions require only one vote - not two - to be accepted or declined. [b]How can this be improved?[/b] These are some of the ideas I have: 1. Requiring only one vote to accept updated submissions. 2. Creating a "Members+" group for former staff members and members who consistently submit high-quality resources. For these members, their submissions would require only one vote to be accepted. This expedited approval process would be a reward for people who have contributed a lot to MFGG, and we might give a badge to recognize them. 3. Creating a "Subject Matter Expert" group that would give certain QC powers to people who have demonstrated ability in a certain area - like making sprites or how-tos. These members might be able to process submissions in a certain department. 4. A more radical restructuring of the queue system might do away with QC staffers altogether - in that scenario, we'd just have a few staffers patrolling to make sure that no one submits anything broken or malicious (basically, the way the forums work today), and the community would vote on whether or not to feature a submission. I'm not sure about this part. Remember that the primary goal of QC is to provide some degree of curation, so that mainsite submissions meet a certain minimum level of quality. However, we also want submissions to be processed quickly - if a submission sits in the queue for weeks, submitters might grow impatient, and new users might even leave the site because they think it's no longer to active. Also, by improving turnaround, submitters can receive feedback more quickly, and thus act on said feedback. Any changes to the mainsite queue system should be aligned with both goals - to maintain quality standards and provide quick decisions on submissions. What are your thoughts?

Uhhhh... [i][b]Uhhhhhhh....[/b][/i] What? I have no idea what you are talking about.

[quote="Thatgamerguy2234"]Uhhhh... [i][b]Uhhhhhhh....[/b][/i] What? I have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote] Then don't post. I think most of these are good ideas, but I disagree with the community vote option. I think that should be the first thing we reach a consensus on.

While reducing the number of votes required to one would speed the things up it would also allow some questionable content to get accepted, so I don't really think it's a very good idea. Members+ is a good idea, as long as only a few people get it. I also like the idea of Subject Matter Expert, but why don't we just limit QC to one or two areas instead of creating an entirely new group for that? I can see it being a bit confusing for the new members.

i would say to get more QC consisting of very active members as well as integrating 3 and 4 to keep some things in check. the way i've been thinking is that QC is effectively a job that doesn't pay, but a job nonetheless, and the speed at which things move should be rectified by making sure QC is active and around as much as possible.

Members+ sounds good (and I think I would fit into that to be honest) but I really hope that doesn't become something of an elitism better-than-you thing. I think of deviantart in that regard... And maybe cause that's how I've been used to it, but the 2 out of 3 QC thing we use doesn't neccesarily seem bad.

[quote]1. Requiring only one vote to accept updated submissions.[/quote] Honestly I think all additions to the mainsite should only require one vote, whether new or updated. Requiring two votes is cumbersome and wastes time. I'd like to believe the people who work for the mainsite have some idea of what constitutes quality. Unlike the old days, where standards were fairly lax, these days it's hard to believe anyone who devotes their time to mainsite work wouldn't know what MFGG accepts and what it doesn't. [quote]2. Creating a "Members+" group for former staff members and members who consistently submit high-quality resources. For these members, their submissions would require only one vote to be accepted. This expedited approval process would be a reward for people who have contributed a lot to MFGG, and we might give a badge to recognize them.[/quote] See above. What you could do instead is recruit certain members who meet a certain criteria as trawling CQ people and give these Member+ people the ability to report questionable material on the mainsite for review. [quote]3. Creating a "Subject Matter Expert" group that would give certain QC powers to people who have demonstrated ability in a certain area - like making sprites or how-tos. These members might be able to process submissions in a certain department.[/quote] See above [quote]4. A more radical restructuring of the queue system might do away with QC staffers altogether - in that scenario, we'd just have a few staffers patrolling to make sure that no one submits anything broken or malicious (basically, the way the forums work today), and the community would vote on whether or not to feature a submission. I'm not sure about this part.[/quote] I don't really like this idea, there has to be some input from higher up.

having games be accepted and moderated in real time could work. the way i see it is that games would basically be accepted out the gate (based on honesty and screenshots, failure to deliver what's advertised barring exceptions like april fools will result in a warn or a ban) with the games page itself being reworked to show the highest rated games on top based on how new it is, but of course there would be other filters and regardless new games would be advertised in updates. the bad games get put lower, the good games get put higher. seems fair to me. ultimately it's the most efficient and won't require QC to have to play each game to completion, assuming that's the current requirement. streamlines the process quite a bit, and while quality overall might take a hit, we should still enforce some bottom line (no engine edits, no obviously poorly made games, etc) so things don't get too crazy.

I like the idea of expedited submissions for members who post a lot of quality content but I don't think I'm on board with having members vote on whats accepted. I feel that this should be left up to the staff. I think that the current system is not bad at all, it just comes down to individual QC staff getting into the queue in a timely manner. If there is a long list, than you just need more QC staff (which already seems to be being handled).

The system described in 4 could work. As an example, it works very well on PixelJoint. Users submit art, which then goes into a "public queue". Users upvote and downvote works and if they are deemed to be good (I don't know how the algorithm works) they go into the gallery. During all of this, the image is visible in the user's gallery but not in search results. Granted, most of the users at PixelJoint are seasoned artists with a high bar for quality. If the system were implemented at MFGG, it's debatable whether the community could handle it. We'd have to try it out to see.

@Mit: I would add an exception to games being accepted out of the gate: they should be scanned for viruses first, and checked to make sure it's not just a folder full of nsfw.

oh yea, of course. i think a quick play of it just to make sure its functional is important too.

The "voting" aspect is what I have an issue with in terms of the QC process. If I were in that position, the only thing I would care about is if the game itself is at least playable to begin with at all. Followed by if the "presentation" from the start is acceptable and not a huge mess (because first looks/impressions do count in any game).

[quote="Merit Celaire"]The "voting" aspect is what I have an issue with in terms of the QC process. If I were in that position, the only thing I would care about is if the game itself is at least playable to begin with at all. Followed by if the "presentation" from the start is acceptable and not a huge mess (because first looks/impressions do count in any game).[/quote] Voting exists because two QC staffers might disagree on what is and is not acceptable. Also it could be argued that if you accept it based on first impression, why not go ahead and make sure the gameplay itself is acceptable?

[quote="HylianDev"][quote="Merit Celaire"]The "voting" aspect is what I have an issue with in terms of the QC process. If I were in that position, the only thing I would care about is if the game itself is at least playable to begin with at all. Followed by if the "presentation" from the start is acceptable and not a huge mess (because first looks/impressions do count in any game).[/quote] Voting exists because two QC staffers might disagree on what is and is not acceptable. Also it could be argued that if you accept it based on first impression, why not go ahead and make sure the gameplay itself is acceptable?[/quote] I didn't say that I wasn't against making sure that the gameplay [i]and[/i] presentation needed to get "checked" upon submission to be sure it meets our "standards". Even I would agree that there needs to be a fine line between what can get added here and which games get the reject after it has been submitted.

[quote="VinnyVideo"] 2. Creating a "Members+" group for former staff members and members who consistently submit high-quality resources. For these members, their submissions would require only one vote to be accepted. This expedited approval process would be a reward for people who have contributed a lot to MFGG, and we might give a badge to recognize them. 3. Creating a "Subject Matter Expert" group that would give certain QC powers to people who have demonstrated ability in a certain area - like making sprites or how-tos. These members might be able to process submissions in a certain department. [/quote] I'm iffy about these (well, mostly the second one). As much as it's nice to reward high-quality creators, it makes sense to put their behavior into account, too. Otherwise, we'll end up in a situation where there is a kind of pecking order in place and members won't have their submissions uploaded (not just through bias, but also ridged standards of quality). If these two incentives are followed, then it would be smart to tread carefully.

Option 1 is by far the easiest to implement. Originally, all submission types required 2 positive votes. There's a reason it got relaxed on other types: they were considered "too hard" for all the QC staff to deal with, and so you might have only 1 or 2 people willing to look at them. Well you need at least a pool of 3 to make that effective; preferably more. Your short-term solutions are either relaxing the voting requirement, or bolstering your QA team with knowledge that you're only going to get useful work out of some of them at any given time. No one's getting paid after all.

bumping this, a few of us in hotel delfino were discussing this kind of thing and the general ideas were this- each field of QC (as well as a few subfields, more on that in a bit) would have their own "gurus". this is most similar to vinny's 2nd and 3rd suggestions, only mushed together and nerfed a little bit. every determined amount of time, the forums would run a thread that asks for people to apply for being a guru in a certain field. after this, the community will vote on who they think should become the guru, and whoever gets the most votes will get the job. there would likely be some kind of prerequisite so that any random newbie wouldn't be able to join without initially contributing something, though what exactly will predetermine this should be discussed. the goal of a guru would be to become the "go-to" person in that field regarding any questions people would have with certain things. this is also an entirely voluntary position- there aren't really any perks to doing this besides maybe some degree of a say in QC. things like level design, polishing, spriting, music, sounds, etc would get gurus, meaning that each major field (those being games, sprites, sounds, and "misc" on the main site) would have subcategories where applicable and it's possible to have multiple different gurus in the same fields as well. for quality of life, there could be a special kind of inbox or in-site IM service kinda like customer support to streamline and organize the process of submitting and responding to help. i'm not sure if this status would deteriorate over time, or if it would rely on them leaving, or if there would be a cap on how many gurus can be in each field, but regardless, the longevity of a specific guru would rely on being consistently helpful and around where applicable and ultimately up to the community.