Community Content sorting and excluding of old uploads, better previews

[JinM]

Hello there,

the CC has many old uploads, and I would be glad, if I could exclude them from my search.

Like an option: Show only entries not older than 1 month/3/6/12 months; and narrow this results further down by only showing stations, and finally to sort this results by rating.

I just want to be able to search for some nice new stations, but whenever I try to go through the CC there are so many old entries that have ofcourse a higher rating.

Yes there is an option to search for "newer than" in the extended search function, but this doesnt allow me to show every entry, and it doesnt allow me to further sort the results by rating. Also the preview icons are not shown in those search results.

Secondly I would like to ask, that you somehow make a suggestion for CC uploaders, that they upload a meaningfull preview picture. Not just the text "If you have an icon to upload for this content, you will be given an option to upload this icon after saving. This icon should be 96x96 pixels." but something along the lines of "Please choose a icon of your upload carefully, as it helps users to quickly preview through our CC library."
It would e even better, if we could get a bigger version of this preview picture if we hover it in the search list.

 

[GDPR 302420]

I personally do not like the idea of date based filtering for clearing out "potentialy outdated ships" from search.

It feels unfair to people who build empty hulls and other "non system" builds which never go "out of date" unless the armor blocks are changed.

I would personaly rather have community members who have downloaded something be given an option to flag that something as "outdated" if enough of these reports were received, the CC upload would be automaticly given a tag that says "Outdated" which could be filtered from searches. If a CC upload was falsely flagged, then the owner could make a report asking for the tag to be removed while providing a short (3000 character max) reason on why it should be.

One thing I do think is a good idea on the mention of images is the ability for users to "attach" their own youtube videos/pictures to a CC content listing as a kind of "user submitted gallary" which could be used for example a way for someone reviewing a CC creation to promote that review.

Another thing I think would be nice is the ability for reviewers to attach pictures to their review which would embed automaticly under a spoiler.

Ohter than that, the idea in general is pretty good.

 

[JinM]

It feels unfair to people who build empty hulls and other "non system" builds which never go "out of date" unless the armor blocks are changed.

That's actually not true, as the highest rated cc-uploads are from 2014, and those hulls are in every case outdated. Further there are even hulls from early 2016 that are not up to date anymore, as the docking, cargo and logic modules changed. I just want those old ships and even hulls gone and be able to search ships from mid 2016 up to now. Without this option the CC so frustrating to use for me.

And btw. there are like 5% of the uploads hulls. Better have a unfair system, than a system that depends on flawed user input (and your system is very hard to implement, as it depends on constant maintenance).

 

[GDPR 302420]

That's actually not true, as the highest rated cc-uploads are from 2014, and those hulls are in every case outdated. Further there are even hulls from early 2016 that are not up to date anymore, as the docking, cargo and logic modules changed. I just want those old ships and even hulls gone and be able to search ships from mid 2016 up to now. Without this option the CC so frustrating to use for me.

And btw. there are like 5% of the uploads hulls. Better have a unfair system, than a system that depends on flawed user input (and your system is very hard to implement, as it depends on constant maintenance).

Here is example of the hulls I was talking about.

EVE Online Machariel 3D Import

This content is not going to be updated unless Schine removes Grey Standard Armor in one of the updates.

By your own suggestion, after enough time passes (1/3/6/12 months in your suggestion) this could be filtered out on the basis of it being "outdated" when in reality, it isn't.

Time based filtering is just unfair and it feels like a lazy solution to something that is not a major problem in terms of browsing CC.
[doublepost=1502149577,1502148767][/doublepost]

And btw. there are like 5% of the uploads hulls. Better have a unfair system, than a system that depends on flawed user input (and your system is very hard to implement, as it depends on constant maintenance).

"Better to have an unfair system" No, not really. Its a lazy solution to an non-existant problem.

The community content page shows newest uploads first, so the chances of an outdated ship being on the first page is next to nothing. The only portion that shows oudated ships would be the "Popular Contnet" section, which I think is not a problem, these content creators made a ship that a lot of people liked, your suggestion would prevent these content creators and those builds from getting the recognition they deserve, even if they are outdated.

And then you have the CC search bar, which if you wan't to avoid outdated stuff simply look at the pictures, reviews or even the date it was uploaded if you want.



Implementing a system that is unfair to CC uploaders is not worth the benefits it gives, and besides, you can already filter based on date if you really wanted. Just look at the dates the content was uploaded and if it seems to old then don't download it! Simple :D

 

[JinM]

Here take a look at it yourself:
Ships | StarMade Dock
-If I want to look for the higher rated ships but sorted from newest first I have to browse through 50 sites of content to reach uploads from Oktober 2016: Ships | StarMade Dock

- If I look for the highest rated ships I get like 70% of outdated ships on every page, and thats for me: older than mid 2016:
Ships | StarMade Dock
Just browse through it, you have like 70% ships older than 2016 on every page for 20 pages.

This is just tedious searching for me.

Whatever I just look at this matter differently than you. But thanks for sharing your pov on this anyway. I understand that for many this thing is not that important. I for my part find the CC disfunctional for a broader audience, and I just assume that the forum software is too complicated to update it like I suggested.

 

[Sachys]

Yeah, I think the community content section could at least have a bit of an archive for older builds. that would (at a guess) be the simplest way to get rid of a lot of guff.

however, i think the system for community content is quite broken as it is to begin with in many ways, so maybe im biased...

...or just right? O___o
[doublepost=1502319973,1502319623][/doublepost]

The community content page shows newest uploads first

not entirely true - try searching for anything (especially if you are unfamiliar with how the dock works things out) and 99% of the time you end up with skylord luke, or another popular builder at the top of your list - OR - an utterly broken ship / station by somebody that hasnt played or updated the build in quite some time.

consider that.

this leaves the popular builders at the top of the list. broken ships at the top of the list (not good for newbies at all) and means the system is broken and unfair as it stands. the review methodology really doesnt help of course. ive seen some great ships get a single review, ive seen terrible ships get muldtiple 5 star reviews because somebody did some magic rail doors.

 

[GDPR 302420]

One alternative to time based filtering would be to have an uploader input the version number of what version a work is created in, then filter based on that.

 

[Sachys]

One alternative to time based filtering would be to have an uploader input the version number of what version a work is created in, then filter based on that.

or just do what i said. less work, brick. less work

 

[GDPR 302420]

ive seen some great ships get a single review, ive seen terrible ships get muldtiple 5 star reviews because somebody did some magic rail doors.

Good by what standard?
[doublepost=1502326748,1502326712][/doublepost]

or just do what i said. less work, brick. less work

Please elaborate

 

[Sachys]

Good by what standard?
[doublepost=1502326748,1502326712][/doublepost]

Please elaborate

already did. if you read the post, you;d know that.
well done.

and i didnt mention the word "good". you did.
well done.

your agenda is complete.

 

[GDPR 302420]

and i didnt mention the word "good". you did.
well done.

Uhh

ive seen some great ships get a single review, ive seen terrible ships get muldtiple 5 star reviews because somebody did some magic rail doors.

I will ask again, but what standard is the ships that get a single review "great"

already did. if you read the post, you;d know that.
well done.

"less work, brick. less work" makes absolutely no sense, thats why I am asking you to elaborate.

your agenda is complete.

What agenda are you reffering too?