Woah... I didn't know my game was being argued about.
If anyone is upset about the contest results, the only people to blame are those patrons who choose time and time again not to take it seriously—both in submitting and voting. I really don't think there are many of them, but they do exist, and I'm a bit disappointed as well.
I think the democratic, unregulated approach is the only sane way for the staff to handle voting as it is, considering the limits on the polling tool itself. The only thing I would consider changing is enforcing the one-vote limit, as that is the only thing we really can do feasibly, but I don't know if that would simply make the vote distribution worse. Using a nominated group of judges would simply be another popularity contest, and it's not up to a small group of selected people to decide what the community wants or likes. At the end of the day, the contest really isn't about quality as much as it is what people like; "quality" is a loaded and damaging concept in some ways IMO. However, I understand the concerns about people who obviously are voting for bad submissioms because they think it would be funny, or some other reason. It's not a good thing.
I do believe the only way to improve is to change some things in the submission process. It really is imposaible for us to control how people vote, anyway. Not opening submission until a short time after the contest is actually announced is one potential thing to try, as well as vetting entries. Checking the entries is a slippery slope though, because standards of "quality" are vague and loaded, as I mentioned before. A good benchmark is simply clear effort and completeness (i.e. not a white screen.) I also want to point out while a majority of entries are games, these are not strictly game contests and classing certain types of programs above others is unfair.
Another potential change is to wait a week or so after submissions end to open voting. I believe we've done this in the past, to moderate success. I do not see the point of doing two rounds of voting though, if only to break a tie.
Well, I don't run anything around here and I don't think people listen to me so hopefully someone considers the things I said.
sorry for being too lazy to quote
I do agree that people should consider completeness. As 12Me mentioned to me earlier, unfinished projects put up for submission are actually rarely finished later. Maybe we shouldn't encourage this sort of behavior, I don't know. There's some scenarios where it might be fine to vote for an "incomplete" program, if all of the tech is there, it represents all of the core experience, and the unfinished elements are story or something else. This might benefit technical showcases. Basically, we should reward solid workmanship if it's there.
Of course we can't actually control the voting body (and shouldn't IMO) and they'll do whatever they please. Considering the size (and other factors) of our community things like this are just a sad truth and I don't really see if they would come as a surprise.
I should also point out that I didn't vote this time because I didn't get around to playing everything yet. Paying more attention I see that maybe I could have skipped some. 🙃
In all reality I don't really care how the voting comes out unless it's a complete disaster. A bad program never actually wins, it's just that the vote distribution below the top three or so is pretty much random, as far as I've seen. I only care if we get good output from entrants, which we did. The results are just points and sometimes prize money.
LOL come to think of it, as an American adult, I should have less expectations for any poll. I know that intellectually, anyways.
Perhaps its my newness around here, but I honestly expected a poll in a forum full of programmers to be reflective of the traits that normally come with being a programmer- I.E. Logic and analytical skills.
Some part (maybe small, I don't know) of the SmileBASIC community (in the West, anyway) is kids just starting out programming, or people only interested in playing the games other people make. Be aware that it was marketed partly as a learning tool, and really didn't get much exposure or literature beyond the eShop or Miiverse (again, in the West.) Of course, looking into our site the output you see is mostly from the slightly more experienced users, but that's to be expected.
Not saying this to discount anyone, this is just how it is.
I think for the next contest, an "effort" requirement would definitely be required. I think it's stupid for jokes to rank higher than games with actual effort. I think a decent idea would be "checkpoints", where projects should be uploaded and tested for progress, and if they aren't really improving at all, are disqualified from the contest. It's flawed in some ways (sometimes life might prevent you from working on your contest entries) but I think it could be somewhat of a help for the quality issue we're facing here.
I'm sorry, but if anyone tried even just 2 entries and still chose to vote for a white screen fade, in most logical people's opinions something definitely went wrong with their choice- especially if the results show it besting entries from those who actually took the contest seriously. How is this remotely difficult to understand? If a parakeet were elected as president of the US, in some bizarre ballot SNAFU or the like, it would clearly be the *wrong* choice. I find it *wrong* for the parakeet to be included in the ballot to begin with. Democratic processes have strict running requirements for exactly that reason.
The point: in the event of absurd poll results it's more than fair to call the whole practice into question. To argue against that line of reasoning is equivalent to voting for the metaphoric parakeet. We may all have the right to choice, but we should each be held accountable for choices that can generally be regarded as irresponsible or damaging to how polls are being conducted.
Alas, I've said all I'm going to on this subject, the dead horse has been beaten enough. If nothing changes, so be it- that's reflective of the general opinion of everyone involved and those whose principles are offended by the practice can simply opt out as I have. I merely wanted to call for reasoning into a clearly flawed process, and people are certainly thinking about and discussing the subject, so I count it as a win regardless.
If this forum is trying to encourage 'high quality' entries or at the very least 'effort,' then maybe voting could be broken into multiple categories for something like [polish, playability, preference] to try and get users to decide what games were the most liked as well as most effort or most usable. This way if someone really liked WHITE: THE GAME, they could vote for it as a preference, whereas it clearly isn't very usable or complex. And entries with more effort could be voted for quality, assuming users recognized the effort regardless of whether they like the gameplay or not.
Does anyone know who voted for WHITE: THE GAME?
.....
Thinking.
Thinking.
Thinking.
.....
Polls are good things when people need to make a choice about a preference: Pepsi or coke. Flame grilled or flat-top fried. Orange hair or emails. You accumulate a lot of data with different perspectives... and not all of it makes sense from every angle. Moreover - by definition you identify lines of division in a population.
Awards when given out by voting are fraught with drama. I recall an early season of "American Idol" with that one guy who really wasn't so fantastic but he kept advancing because of the people who thought it would be funny. (Indeed - it was kind of funny).
But - awards that are given by a select committee of experts who publish their decision criteria and hold each other accountable for poor decisions... those usually have staying power. Not everyone agrees with them all the time - but most of the "funny" drama goes away.
This community can benefit from both types of events:
- programming contests "for fun" every two months (or so) with an obscure theme and people voting on what they simply like. indeed creative joke programs have a place on this forum and can be perfectly acceptable in these formats
- programming contests "for real bragging rights" every 6 months (or so) that are judged by a panel of 3 senior submitters who have the right perspective on what Smilebasic is capable of and can set clear criteria for the submittal... Moreover the judges can/should publish a rationale for how they chose the winner(s) so that the runners-up get feedback on what they could have done better. (indeed this kind of feedback is tricky in an open forum like this because people don't want to give nitpicky negative feedback... yet to receive coaching from the likes of CALC84... BRING IT ON)
.... food for thought ...
what the heck i just got 56 notifications from this thread alone
...R-right. I'm going to have to ask that further meta discussion hold until after the contest is over.
Who says a cross between starbound and terraria is a bad thing? Also terra I think means earth and verse could be worlds like universe but it meantions no space.
