Rating time for campaigns and missions

[Damage Inc]

I decided to open this post because I (and I belive others to) am wondering why is the waiting time for rating missions so long? I donÂ't know if you got enaugh people to do that faster, but i think it should be like this:
-you should have one or two reviewers for campaigns and they should rate one or two campaigns per month (depends on how many missions campaign have)
-one or two reviewers for single missions and multiplayer missions and they should rate at least 5-10 missions per month
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So can anyone of you tell us why the waiting times are so long. I see that the campaign which  should be rated next is 3 months old (posted on 18.dec).

[Artak]

We currently have 10 reviewers doing all of the mission types and working their way from the oldest to the newest.
10 reviewers is about the max I'm willing to take on board and by the rate of which missions are submitted, it should be enough.

Your suggestion for one or two reviewers for each mission category is good, but can never work in a business where nobody gets paid for what they do, and put their 'real life' first.

A few possible solutions would be to
a) have a less accurate reviewing system
b) start paying money for our reviewers
c) tell mission/campaign makers to do easier and shorter missions
d) find that special somebody who can do 5-10 reviews a month

So as an aswer to the question you (and everyone else) is wondering; I have no idea. I thought our reviewing was fast compared to some other sites, and yet on a much higher level in quality and accuracy.

[MachoMan]

aaah me like option B!  ;D

[RujiK]

lol As long as this site stays free I don't really care.

[Damage Inc]

This site is the best ofp site anyway ;D

[scooter24]

Hey!
I agree slightly, sometimes it does get pretty bad. However, January 14th (latest, non faulty mission) is tolerable. I wouldn't mind knowing why Good Morning Reds (final) hasn't been reviewed. It doesn't say anything about it being faulty. After all, 25th August 2004 is rediculous (unless it is faulty)!
     Still, i've got no reason to complain! These guys are doing it for free but they are getting joy out of it. After all, no one would apply if they didn't like play OFP and writing their opinion of it! Plus you get to be famous !
Scooter24.

[macguba]

The mission review process is much more complex than most people realise.  For example, if a mission has a problem we usually give the author a chance to fix it.    How long should we leave it up?   If the time is short, the author - an ofpec member - has only a short time and is under pressure.    If it's a long time the Pending list starts to look bad.    What is the right balance?    

I won't even get into exampls like mission faulty - author contacted - original reviewer leaves owing to moving house - new version submitted but author doesn't tell anybody - new reviewer eventually finds new mission but also finds new fault - contacts author - no reply for 6 weeks because author is on summer camp/doing exams - and so on more or less ad infinitum.

In other words, having no missions older than August last year is actually a bloody miracle of commitment and organisation.    It most certainly is not ridiculous:   such a remark merely demonstrates ignorance of the complexities of the review process.

Also remember that a year or so ago the list of outstanding missions was extremely long and messy.    Since then it has been significantly cleaned up and improved.

Reviewing a mission takes anything from about three to ten times the mission time depending on circumstances.     In other words in the time that you take to download and play four or five missions, a reviewer can review only one.

If you wish to speed up the review process, there is a simple and effective way in which you can help:  play Pending missions and post helpful Comments.   If the mission is fully functional you can also post a user rating, which has no effect on the review but does provide some information to other users.

[dmakatra]

Why can't you just do as it says on the submit mission form? If the mission is faulty, delete it and don't contact the author (well, maybe an IM and/or e-mail sent). If he can't get the mission done propely, well that's his headache not yours right?

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[greg147]

I think the missions should have been beta tested first, so if it is faulty, it should come off the pending list and onto the beta testing board.  

[macguba]

We already STRONGLY[/i][/size] encourage authors to get their missions beta tested first.    That's partly what the recent beta testing party was for.

We have to be wary of throwing out the baby with the bathwater:   there's no point in binning a good mission if the only problem is one easily-found and easily-fixed line of code.    Missions which are persistently faulty are deleted, as are those where the author doesn't reply or fails to fix the fault.

Remember the object of the exercise:  to get as many good missions into the Missions Depot as possible.    You don't achieve that by discouraging people.  

Which is better:   no mission, or a good mission that hangs around on the Pending list for a while before being accepted?

Read the second paragraph of my last post again.   It is not an extreme example - that kind of thing happens all the time.    If it was easy to review all missions within five minutes of them being submitted we would do it.  

[scooter24]

Hey!
Why should OFPEC give people a ridiculous amount of time to fix their mission anyway? These faulty missions were submitted August 28th (thats 7 months ago) and December 12th (3 months and 16 days ago). Do these people look like they give a damn  ?
     If it were me, i'd give authors an e-mail, instant message and 3 months to fix and resubmit their missions. Why should OFPEC bend-over-backwards supplying their time, money and effort into waiting for people ignorant enough to not even send an e-mail saying: "am sori bud but a cant b assed wiv dat mission. jus delet it or woteva!" After all, its your site and your money going into this website. Not his/hers and I can guaruntee that these people couldn't give a flying monkey if it was the year 2514 and their mission was still faulty and pending.
     Theres also a BETA testing board. One simple rule: Make sure your mission works before submitting and if your not sure, use the BETA board! Don't you find it a little annoying when OFPEC does its upmost to avoid these infestations of faulty missions but these jackass' decide otherwise!
     Sometimes there are authors who do genuinly forget to BETA test it. But isn't an e-mail, IM and 3 months enough for the author to sit down and finalize it!
     Even if there are good missions out there that are faulty, if they don't work they are no better than bad ones. If someone did review them, the good mission and the bad one would both recieve 0/10. Am I right?
     In conclusion, you can make a little formula for these faulty missions:-
faulty mission + admin ---> e-mail + IM + time limit ---> working mission/lazy guy who doesn't fix it.
     If the guy is away on business/at school, the e-mail wont delete itself. And if after the given time limit the mission is deleted it's always on his hard-drive. If he's deleted it, i've got one saying for you: "lifes a b***h!"  
Scooter24 :afro:

@macguba:-
Don't you think it's a little unfair on the guy who submitted his work 7 months ago and it's still not been reviewed?

[macguba]

Seven months is a long time if you're talking about holding your breath underwater.    It is not a long time if you are talking about mission reviewing.

[scooter24]

Hey Macguba!
What about the other missions submitted in February and March. They were reviewed. This guy submitted his work in August of last year. Does it seem fair then ?
Scooter24 :afro:

[Planck]

I really don't understand all this rubbish.

If there are older mission still awaiting review, then anybody with an ounce of common sense will realise there must be a good reason for it.

It is entirely possible, nay, probable, that said missions have a fault, a problem or two that requires fixing by the author.

If the author does nothing.......i.e. does not respond at all, then I imagine the mission will sit there and wait until either the author fixes it or it gets deleted.

Meanwhile newer mission get reviewed.

What would you expect to happen in these cases, possibly the whole mission reviewing team halts work on any more missions till the authors of the older missions respond?

No? I don't think so either.  The older missions are held in abeyance till the situation is resolved one way or the other.  Meanwhile the newer missions will get reviewed, after all it wouldn't be fair to the authors of newer missions would it.

Simple isn't it?


Planck

[macguba]

What Planck said.

[Artak]

Do I need to add something here?

[scooter24]

Hey!
Yeah but, shouldn't that mission say if somethings wrong? Or am I mistaken and it hasn't been put on intentionally or not. In which case I apoligize ! Alls I was saying was, if a mission is faulty just notify the author and delete it.
Scooter24 :afro:

[Artak]

If you must know, there's nothing wrong with that particular mission anymore, or at least anything wrong hasn't come up. The one you see is the third version of the mission and it is currently under review.

Why should OFPEC give people a ridiculous amount of time to fix their mission anyway?

The time is usually 2 weeks after IM and e-mail sent to the author before the faulty mission gets deleted, IF no response from the author in that time. Other than that the waiting time is case sensitive and there's nothing ridiculous about it as long as the mission is marked as faulty so everyone knows to avoid it.

Do these people look like they give a d**n

We like to think so and take our business very seriously. I've personally had several missions pending in the MP section for a year now and I would be very hurt if they were deleted because of a minor bug that could be fixed in a flash.
We have a system that allows you to update the submitted file. Why shouldn't we offer a chance to use it.

If it were me, i'd give authors an e-mail, instant message and 3 months to fix and resubmit their missions.

Standard procedure is that authors get e-mail + IM + 2 weeks time to reply. After that the mission is either deleted, or left for the author to fix in a reasonable amount of time.

Why should OFPEC bend-over-backwards supplying their time, money and effort into waiting for people ignorant enough to not even send an e-mail saying: "am sori bud but a cant b assed wiv dat mission. jus delet it or woteva!"

We don't.

If someone did review them, the good mission and the bad one would both recieve 0/10. Am I right?

Yes. A really really bad mission can get a 0/10, and a really really good mission, with something wrong in it can get a 0/10 too.

[The-Architect]

These guys are doing it for free but they are getting joy out of it.

I wish we did. You wouldn't believe the amount of crap we get and the amount of hassle we go through trying to get things fixed. Then on top of that we get you guys.  ;D

As a mission reviewer myself all I can say is that you guys will get your missions done when they are done. If you don't like it, tough. We all do what we can when we can. Granted, some of us are a bit slack at times but that's because Flashpoint happens to be a game. Real life sometimes takes centre stage.

Best you can do is get your mission tested and submitted, then, shut up and put up.

[Wolfsbane]

*Appears from the murky crack he was lurking in*

OFPEC has always had some qualms over the review sections of the site, mainly down to several reasons:

1 - Too many submissions, not enough reviewers

 This was rectified with hiring more reviewers, we had over thirty at one  point
 
The result was we had lots of people to 'encourage' to work, as they were listed as staff, and we had strangely enough, less active people with more numbers. This is because of percentages. If you have ten, and two aren't working, you've got 20% of your workforce being bums. If you have thirty, and you have fifteen not work, you've got 50% of your workforce being bums. It wasn't even a case of being bums, it was just a case of, as OFPEC policy agrees with, Real Life comes first.

So as such, a small staff list is better than the sixty plus we once had

2: The Review system on the site to begin with, was basic cut & paste ASP or HTML.

This is, naturally, rubbish for a fast flowing review system.

It was updated, and is now a ninja of web interfaces.

3: Because of the HTML system, and the interruptions whilst things were uploaded, a massive backlog appeared, and I don't know the situation now, but it was never really caught up with and got on top of. Certainly not for the missions. When I departed company with OFPEC, it was improving rapidly though.

The new system was introduced, people were hired en'masse to deal with it.

More problems arose.

4: We recieved lots of faulty missions, lots of badly designed missions, lots of crap missions, and lots of missions using lots of addons.

All this adds to the Review time. If you have to hunt for obscure addons, if the Author hasn't bug-tested, if the mission is poorly designed so as to be unplayable.

We had a feedback system for the author, which worked well.

5: We review on quality over quantity. You will never (Hopefully!) see Reviews being churned out like hotcakes, because OFPEC, is OFPEC, and OFPEC is proud of being OFPEC, and what made OFPEC become OFPEC?

Standards my good man, standards.

If you can't iron the crease on your trouser, you can't have standards.

OFPEC has very sharp creases on its trousers.

(No idea where that metaphor came from)

[dmakatra]

Well said. But Wolfsbane, you've been coming here an awful lot latley. Ain't it time for a 100% comeback? I'm sure Tomb will be very happy. ;D

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[Wolfsbane]

No, I wouldn't come back. The guys are doing a brilliant job without me, and it's the way things progress. We do our best, and either move on, or get forced on, or die.

I love OFPEC to pieces though, and just like to pop back now and then. A couple of years of your life can't be forgot that quickly!!

[456820]

find that special somebody who can do 5-10 reviews a month

quote from arktak the first reply to this

anway i was thinking about this and i thought i could do 5-10 reviews a month if not more well maybe.As im only 14 i have alot of time on my hand and i do have school but never seem to get any homework.
  But then i remeber the age limit thing about only being 18+ i think it was because people under that aparentaly dont take their job serious wich is true about some but not with all and also not with me i would take my job serious and i am very discaplined well so im told. lol.
  Just thought i would say in case you do get into a pickle with a load of missions and need some extra people to hgelp I could thats if you dont mind about only being 14

[The-Architect]

Sorry buddy, but no. Policy is policy.

[macguba]

There are lots of ways you can help other than joining the staff.   For example, play Pending missions and post constructive Comments - this can be very helpful for MD staff as well as players perusing the list.

You can also contribute by playing missions posted on the beta testing board.    We're in the process of writing a new sticky on that board for new beta testers, and we are interested in any comments new testers may have.

[dmakatra]

Yeh, but that won't get him the sexy Missions Depot-title he's looking for. ;D

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[MachoMan]

Nah, it's not that sexy, Artak took away my even sexier "ECP Team" title to give me this!

[456820]

oh well i understand