Project management suggestions - Revision history

Ashhawk: BSN link flagged for maintenance - using AWB

2022-02-01T16:22:32Z

BSN link flagged for maintenance - using AWB

Proleric1: /* Extend valid file types for projects */

2010-02-18T14:58:10Z

‎Extend valid file types for projects

BryanDerksen: /* Seeking Help */ adding to Extraview

2010-02-16T17:11:58Z

‎Seeking Help: adding to Extraview

Proleric1: /* Seeking Help */

2010-02-15T01:34:32Z

‎Seeking Help

Proleric1 at 01:33, 15 February 2010

2010-02-15T01:33:00Z

Amadrammelec: /* Variation and changes to the current rating system */

2010-02-14T22:08:05Z

‎Variation and changes to the current rating system

Largo Usagi: /* Project classification */

2010-02-13T03:50:35Z

‎Project classification

BryanDerksen: remove an attribution, the text on this page is going to be refactored and rewritten frequently so trying to track who said what is counterproductive. The discussion page is a better place for that.

2010-02-12T21:40:44Z

remove an attribution, the text on this page is going to be refactored and rewritten frequently so trying to track who said what is counterproductive. The discussion page is a better place for that.

BryanDerksen: I think the suggestion is that the looser file type restrictions apply ''also'' to WIP projects, not to suggest that LRRHR is itself a WIP. I'll move it up into the WIP-specific section.

2010-02-12T21:35:37Z

I think the suggestion is that the looser file type restrictions apply ''also'' to WIP projects, not to suggest that LRRHR is itself a WIP. I'll move it up into the WIP-specific section.

Sunjammer: /* Extend valid file types for projects */

2010-02-12T20:43:50Z

‎Extend valid file types for projects

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 1 February 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{BSN link}}
		+
	This page is intended as a collaborative repository for suggestions on how to improve the social site. Create a new section for each specific suggestion or related group of suggestions. Feel free to discuss them to some extent on this page, but bear in mind that discussions should be refactored every once in a while into a summary of the idea - the purpose of this page is to consolidate discussion into a more easily-referenced form.		This page is intended as a collaborative repository for suggestions on how to improve the social site. Create a new section for each specific suggestion or related group of suggestions. Feel free to discuss them to some extent on this page, but bear in mind that discussions should be refactored every once in a while into a summary of the idea - the purpose of this page is to consolidate discussion into a more easily-referenced form.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 18 February 2010
Line 150:		Line 150:

	See: [http://social.bioware.com/project/334/discussion/586/ Little Red Riding Hood Redux] for the example		See: [http://social.bioware.com/project/334/discussion/586/ Little Red Riding Hood Redux] for the example
		+
		+	== Number of files for projects ==
		+
		+	The limit of 10 files per project isn't appropriate for WIP projects, which will need considerably more.
		+
		+	Can we have a Delete File button, too?

	== Project/Group "Discussions" ==		== Project/Group "Discussions" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 16 February 2010
Line 162:		Line 162:

	Also, searching for Friends by proficiency doesn't work at all.		Also, searching for Friends by proficiency doesn't work at all.
		+
		+	{{EV\|216207\|[[User:BryanDerksen\|BryanDerksen]]}}
		+
	[[Category:Feature requests]]		[[Category:Feature requests]]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 == Seeking Help ==
-BUG - this group [http://social.bioware.com/group/97/] is seeking help in four categories, but it only shows up in Browse Groups for the first category, Cinematics.
+BUG - The Browse Groups filter doesn't always work. For example, the Crown of Creation group [http://social.bioware.com/group/97/] is seeking help in four categories, but it only shows up in Browse Groups for the first category, Cinematics.
 Also, searching for Friends by proficiency doesn't work at all.
 [[Category:Feature requests]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, 15 February 2010
Line 156:		Line 156:

	If this is not possible, the closer we can get, the better.		If this is not possible, the closer we can get, the better.
		+
		+	== Seeking Help ==
		+
		+	BUG - this group [http://social.bioware.com/group/97/] is seeking help in four categories, but it only shows up in Browse Groups for the first category, Cinematics.
		+
		+	Also, searching for Friends by proficiency doesn't work at all.
	[[Category:Feature requests]]		[[Category:Feature requests]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 14 February 2010
Line 52:		Line 52:

	* Maybe projects need a sex rating system similar to what hollywood does (e.g. G, PG, PG13...XXX).		* Maybe projects need a sex rating system similar to what hollywood does (e.g. G, PG, PG13...XXX).
		+
		+	* Make an adult category. Let's face it, they tend to be some of the first and most abundant mods made on any game (even those without a proper toolset). Sometimes you just don't want to have to look at the index screen shots of all of the "Witches Gone Feral" mods when you're trying to find a mod to fix your crossbow.

	* NWVault has a rating system where you give a 0-10 score, but the rating is hidden for ranking purposes until a specific minimum number of people have rated the project. The average number may be meaningless - in NWNvault, an absurdly high percentage of modules have a rating above 9.0, but still the relative ranking is pretty good - a module with a high score and a high download count is probably worth looking at...		* NWVault has a rating system where you give a 0-10 score, but the rating is hidden for ranking purposes until a specific minimum number of people have rated the project. The average number may be meaningless - in NWNvault, an absurdly high percentage of modules have a rating above 9.0, but still the relative ranking is pretty good - a module with a high score and a high download count is probably worth looking at...

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 13 February 2010
Line 114:		Line 114:

	Don't forget the ability to reassign a projects category at any time. especially so that old projects can benefit from new addons.		Don't forget the ability to reassign a projects category at any time. especially so that old projects can benefit from new addons.
		+
		+	BioWare could also have a better definition for what belongs in each category and allow people to flag a project that doesn't match the category it was posted in.

	=== Alternative approach to classification: tags instead of categories ===		=== Alternative approach to classification: tags instead of categories ===

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 * NWVault has a rating system where you give a 0-10 score, but the rating is hidden for ranking purposes until a specific minimum number of people have rated the project.  The average number may be meaningless - in NWNvault, an absurdly high percentage of modules have a rating above 9.0, but still the relative ranking is pretty good - a module with a high score and a high download count is probably worth looking at...
-* [[User:Proleric1|Proleric1]] 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The NWVault rating system is good, but any competent statistician will tell you that the sample size is far too small to make detailed judgements on the results. So, anything voted 9+ is probably good - a very useful thing to know - but being #1 in the rankings rather than #10 is probably meaningless. I'm not sure what the latest research says about these things, but I suspect a slightly simpler system would be better - for example, a scale 1-10 (with no .25 intervals) and no guidelines on what the scores mean. NWVault calculates the average ranking by a complicated algorithm, which is open to troll voting. IMO it would be fairer to rank on the median score. It's useful to see a histogram of the scores, too, e.g. http://proleric.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39&start=0&view=viewpoll. Some people dismiss the voting system as a measure of how many friends you have, but I think that's too cynical - as long as you just see it as a way of sorting sheep from goats, and nothing more.
+* The NWVault rating system is good, but any competent statistician will tell you that the sample size is far too small to make detailed judgements on the results. So, anything voted 9+ is probably good - a very useful thing to know - but being #1 in the rankings rather than #10 is probably meaningless. I'm not sure what the latest research says about these things, but I suspect a slightly simpler system would be better - for example, a scale 1-10 (with no .25 intervals) and no guidelines on what the scores mean. NWVault calculates the average ranking by a complicated algorithm, which is open to troll voting. IMO it would be fairer to rank on the median score. It's useful to see a histogram of the scores, too, e.g. http://proleric.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=39&start=0&view=viewpoll. Some people dismiss the voting system as a measure of how many friends you have, but I think that's too cynical - as long as you just see it as a way of sorting sheep from goats, and nothing more.
 * if you intend to keep a simple voting system. Please give us the ability to remove a "+" and I am also in favore of a "-" button to push junk out of the way.(CID-78)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 We also need a stronger separation between public projects and internal build team discussion. A Work-In-Progress (WIP) category would be one way of doing that. It should allow builders to discuss issues confidentially and share files without cluttering up the public project listings. A team might well need both a public project and a WIP project. WIP is not the same as the various Builder-to-Builder categories currently available, because the latter are for marketing and releases to the wider builder community.
 == Other project filter options ==
@@ Line 144: / Line 146: @@
 See: [http://social.bioware.com/project/334/discussion/586/ Little Red Riding Hood Redux] for the example
 == Project/Group "Discussions" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 12 February 2010
Line 148:		Line 148:

	: A WIP category is not remotely relevant to the above as '''Little Red Riding Hood Redux''' is a finished product that is intended to be shared in both a B2P and B2B formats.		: A WIP category is not remotely relevant to the above as '''Little Red Riding Hood Redux''' is a finished product that is intended to be shared in both a B2P and B2B formats.
		+	: --[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

	== Project/Group "Discussions" ==		== Project/Group "Discussions" ==