SOTW needs a minimum post rule

[UNFLUX]

I hate to say this, but it's really wearing on my nerves to see
people coming to this board, post once in SOTW, and never come
back. What's even worse, is that these people are winning.

Personally, and I know a few others who come here regularly, I
think this is ridiculous and unfair to those that do post and help out.

I propose a minimum post rule to be implemented for SOTW. I
think 20+ seems fair to me.

2 weeks ago, 3 out of 10 posted their first post in SOTW, and
haven't been back.

Last week, the site that won was posted once and they have
never been back. In fact, do a search for his username, you'll see
that they've only returned to post a lame thank you.

If you look at the submissions for this week alone, you'll see that
as of this thread, 6 sites have been entered. Only sintax321 and
grimdeath actually post.

The total posts between the others is exactly 8. :sigh:

What does everyone else think?

[eyeinfinitude]

Well Kirupa's Site of the Week Award is recognition of people's work, not how much they help out on the forum.

If that was the case then Lost would win every week then. haha :P

We'll see what the rest of the mods think, I think 20+ post sounds reasonable, but it shouldn't really matter. =)

[lostinbeta]

This actually has been discussed before. But you know what, I don't even think we came to a conclusion on that, perhaps we should bring it up again.

As EG said though, it really is based on their work, not on their posts, but I do see where you are coming from as well.

[Kitiara]

I can see the sense. It would be nice if people came to the forum for more than just to get an award for themselves. Or if they hung around after they've won, and helped people out, maybe share some tips on how they made their site... :)

[eilsoe]

good point fluxyboy... good point... :)

[kirupa]

Well it is a good idea, but the SOTW is designed to pick the best sites - not necessarily best sites from people who help out. If we proposed the 20 post limit, many will.

A. Simply decide to not submit their site
B. Spam to get exactly 20 posts and leave

It is a loss/loss situation for us. In retrospect, many of the previous SOTW winners have become great friends on the boards and post regularly such as kajinku, mariofan, etc. =)

Cheers!
Kirupa :cyclops:

[SureShot]

Kind of a catch 22 really.

Too bad to, I really liked your idea mr.flux :)

[lava]

bah. Here's the problem with SOTW... somehow it's implicit (but not in the rules) that you have to submit your OWN site, which leads to people like UNFLUX to ask that you should be a forum member before you're able to submit. This is clearly not a good idea.

I think people should be encouraged to submit a site they saw and liked. If the pool of applications comes mostly from people who are submitting their own site, we don't get a representative sample of the whole domain of awesome websites. Why? Because there are designers who haven't heard of kirupa.com (gasp!), and because there are designers out there who are too busy working with their sites to go around submitting it to websites.

[kirupa]

True lavaboy, the problem with that is that the sites that will be nominated will be 2Advanced, 2Advanced Clone I, 2Advanced Rip-Off (Clone II), Balthaser, etc. - the same sites that everyone has heard of and visited time and time again.

The SOTW is just a small way for designers who do have the time to scour the net and submit sites. Most designers who don't have any time in promoting their site may have trouble gaining new clients. The SOTW is by no means an actual representation of the best sites on the Web. It is, though, a place where talented designers who may have not have a method of gaining exposure on sites such as Macromedia, etc. to get their site better known.

As long as the sites that win are of good quality - comparable sometimes to bigger sites designed by large design companies - the current method may work for a while. I agree that the rule "the designer has to submit his own work" is a hassle, but it is the least he/she can do considering all the work RennaisanceGirl and the moderators place in looking through the submissions and writing critiques on them :)

Cheers!
Kirupa :rambo:

[lava]

Originally posted by kirupa
True lavaboy, the problem with that is that the sites that will be nominated will be 2Advanced, 2Advanced Clone I, 2Advanced Rip-Off (Clone II), Balthaser, etc. - the same sites that everyone has heard of and visited time and time again.



while that might be true, I doubt it will be of the apocalyptic proportions that you're suggesting. Simply put, if you have a bigger sample of sites submitted, the greater the chances you will have of finding a good one that no one's ever heard of. Not only that, but you could also keep track of websites that are too popular and make rules disqualifying them in advance


Originally posted by kirupa
I agree that the rule "the designer has to submit his own work" is a hassle, but it is the least he/she can do considering all the work RennaisanceGirl and the moderators place in looking through the submissions and writing critiques on them :)

Personally, I don't mind if it's a hassle for the designer to submit his own site. However, my problem is that it limits the pool of applicants to those that know of kirupaforum. And while this is happening, unflux's request certainly has validity. Might as well make it "kirupaforum member site of the week." And as for the work that rengirl does... she does all the work because she chooses to. I can bet that you can find at least 5 other people in kirupaforums who would be willing to help her out writing the reviews if you guys made a push for more applicants.

[kirupa]

Hmm, how about this - we'll leave SOTW the way it is for now. I'll, instead, create a new section with a list of the best Flash sites that many members such as you may have seen. I don't think there would be any problem adding popular sites there - kind of like a collection of some of the best sites many of you may have seen such as 2A, Juxt, etc.

Cheers!
Kirupa C:-)

[lava]

haha.. I'm not demanding anything in particular, so you dont have to do anything... it's your site. However, I just think that you should look at the rules of SOTW and define them better. Maybe not the rules, but the purpose of it. I think you explained pretty well what the purpose of SOTW, and it goes with the current rules, but the purpose is not stated anywhere on that forum, and that's why there's questions about "what's the purpose of this."

But you know what I think would be a good idea? If we had a section where we write reviews for established members' sites. This would be more extensive than site check. For example, I would love it if someone wrote two or three paragraphs on the good and bad things about my site, instead of just saying "good job" on the site check thread. I think it would something like this would attract more members, and you can make rules along what unflux is saying: "need to have at least 200 posts, and at least 30 of them have to be on the help section GIVING help." Of course, newbies would protest, but it also gives them an incentive to learn and help people out. And spam on other threads can be stopped if the mods simply choose the site of someone who's behaving well.

And I'd be willing to write reviews, as I'm sure other members would. So you'd have something like Site of the Week, and Site Check of the week... something like that would be more beneficial, I think.

I've been listening to Unflux's little loop on his site... I just haven't bothered to close that window for about an hour... it's driving me nuts.

[sintax321]

Big K's idea for a list of cool sites is a good idea. Kind of liek the resources sticky in the Flash section. I also agree that you should have to submit your own site.

I also like the idea of a min post count. It might keep more ppl at the board. Most dont' check out the other sections. A min post cout could create a better chance at more people sticking around. Even if they get stuck in random they stand a better chance at helping out in the other sections then if they just post and leave. It is not so much judgeing them on ther post count but increaseing the chances of more help on the board.

[lava]

Originally posted by sintax321
Even if they get stuck in random they stand a better chance at helping out in the other sections then if they just post and leave.
That's me!
:esmirk:

[grimdeath]

I agree with lavaboy having a section of the forum where people review your website is a great idea i personally think it should be done because its not good to post your site to get feedback and have answers like it sucks, ugly colors or whatever instead they should exp[lain why the think its ugly or why does it suck remember a website is supposed to be an experience so sometimes suers try to make the experience a bit difrent thats why theres diffrent concepts and designs, the main problem is that sometimes people make websites just to practice effects and other cool stuff and dont plan out their website with a storyboard, desing it on paper, or do some research as to what screen resolutions most people use and OS people use and a whole other bunch of stuff that you ahve to take in consideration when creating a website plus you have to describe your target audience and desing and program towards that in the end.

I love it when EG critics a website why? because he tells you exactly whats wrong with it in his point of view this is what site check should be about not just about getting nice site posts thats my opinion

If you guys need help then im sure you can post on the forum and a bunch of the members like myself will be willing to help you guys out if its help you need

keep up the good work guys love this site its like my home on the net now lol, formerly it was another forum where i got to be a mod but i wont post it here unless you guys are really interested in knowing which forum it was lol

Grim

[Jubba]

I know this matter is probably dead, but most other award sites require the person to submit their own site, so why should this be any different. This is the same thing, it is an award for recognition. If the designer of the site does not feel compelled to submit their site here, then their site should not be submitted...

[lava]

Originally posted by Jubba
I know this matter is probably dead, but most other award sites require the person to submit their own site, so why should this be any different. This is the same thing, it is an award for recognition. If the designer of the site does not feel compelled to submit their site here, then their site should not be submitted...
Well, you start running into the problems of legitimacy then. There's TONS of websites that give awards. If kirupa.com has that attitude, who outside of kirupaforum is going to care about this award? Of course it's an important award, but who's going to care if the rules state that the designer should be the one to apply for it. First of all, the designer needs to KNOW about kirupa.com
Many site awards, and 90% of real life awards, are given to a pool of people eligible who have been nominated by someone else. If this is award is going to be an insider thing, it's fine if the designers nominates themselves. However, if there's going to be any legitimacy for this award, people should be able to nominate any site they want.

[kirupa]

This matter isn't dead....the flame thrower (which is great for burning threads) is taking a while to ship from my eBay supplier. I will consider creating a new section - similar to Flash Resources - except for exceptional Web sites.

We already have a Site Check section where people get critiques for their sites. More recently, after a suggestion from reverendflash, the SOTW subbmissions are voted on and critiqued as well. If we were to create a new section similar to Site Check, the same problems would ensue; simple one-liners used as a critique. ElectronGeek will probably be among a handful who will write good reviews in the new forum as well. I don't want to create a virtual clone (clone-aid haha) of the Site Check forum.

Instead, my take is, we can improve Site Check by ensuring that we have enough members to write good critiques.

Grimdeath, as long as it isn't something that people under 18/21 aren't allowed to view, you are welcome to post the URL lol =)

Cheers!
Kirupa :bandit:

[Jubba]

Well if no one knew about it then no one but Kirupaforum members would post their sites, but that isn't the case. The fact that people only come here and post their site for site of the week is evidence that people outside of Kirupaforum.com know about it...

[lava]

Originally posted by kirupa
We already have a Site Check section where people get critiques for their sites. More recently, after a suggestion from reverendflash, the SOTW subbmissions are voted on and critiqued as well. If we were to create a new section similar to Site Check, the same problems would ensue; simple one-liners used as a critique. ElectronGeek will probably be among a handful who will write good reviews in the new forum as well. I don't want to create a virtual clone (clone-aid haha) of the Site Check forum.
I think you missed my point. this is not about starting a thread in the Site Check forum, this is actually about someone writing an article every week with criticism for a site. Not something that EVERYONE can just randomly post in saying "oh, cool site" but an article in which 3 or 4 experienced, responsible people get together, for a set weekly installment, and write a critique that's more than 2 paragraphs, on the website of an established member. This wouldn't be a clone of the site check forum, but something much better, and much more helpful. I mean, I'd be willing to start something like this, and I'm pretty sure EG would like to do that too...

the advantage of this is also that it's established content... People would EXPECT to see something every week, and would come to the site to check it out.

[sintax321]

You are talking more about a weekly review now.

[lava]

Yeah. I understand the need to have more quality posts in the site check forum, but I dont see why we can't do this? I mean, I'd be looking forward to whatever day the review is posted just to see if mine got picked, and it'd be incredibly useful.

[reverendflash]

If you want good reviews in site check, then it starts with the reviewer. If you want reviews on your site, list it in Site Check. If you don't like the "looks good" responses, then let them know when you submit a site.

Plus, review sites. If you like the way EG critiques sites, critique them with the same vigor. Site Check gets ignored quite often.

As far as site of the week goes, I think Kirupa and the mods did a great job of the rules change, and it should stay the way it is right now.

JMO

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[SureShot]

The Rev has spoken!!!! :)

[Guig0]

word

[lostinbeta]

Lava: Ok, but we get more than one site posted in the Site Check every week, so what you are suggesting is that a weekly review be made of one site, and the others just get tossed aside and left for the "one-liners". That doesn't sound very fair to me.

[lava]

I just don't see what's wrong with doing that... it doesnt hurt anything... and you guys keep saying that people should post quality reviews, which is not going to happen... and this is not about leaving all the others to the one liners... If we do this, one site a week at least will get a quality review... lost.. you're looking at the inequality from the wrong side. Is it wrong to do a good review of one site just because the other ones are going to be jealous?

[RenaissanceGirl]

Why don't you go ahead and pave the way then? Pick one site from Site Check each week and post a lengthy essay about it. I don't think anyone's going to stop you...

[lostinbeta]

One site gets a quality review.

What happens to the others then? How will they know what to improve? Where is their quality review?

Simple... if its in the site check section, all sites have an equal oppurtunity to get a quality review. Giving all sites an equal chance of getting constructive criticism on how to improve their site.

[andr.in]

I couldn't agree with ya more!

[lostinbeta]

Syko: Who are you agreeing with, from the beginning of this thread there are multiple ideas to agree and disagree with :P

[Guig0]

with you man, and so am i (agreeing with you ;))

[reverendflash]

Raf:

If you are so passionate about this, then start a thread every week with Raf's review. Then do a thorough critique of sites in the Site Check section, and help teach others how to critique.

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[RenaissanceGirl]

Right! Less talk - more show! C:-)

[grimdeath]

well maybe the mods of site check could just do like EG does when he gives comments about websites, it would be great if they could atleast give some full coments mayeb at least 3 i dont know sometimes people are busy but if you really want to help other forum members i think at least a detailed opinion as to what you think is wrong on how r what he can do t improve it thats all like when i asked my first version of my site to be checked they said used more colors well i did and from a 2 color tone website i ended up with a 5 color website thanks to the forums suggestions

Grim

[reverendflash]

grim:

don't go there. we do.

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[RenaissanceGirl]

Why do the mods have to do it? Site Check is open for any forum member. I say if you have a complaint about the lack of critiques in Site Check, you should start by giving detailed critiques yourself.

[lava]

Originally posted by lostinbeta
One site gets a quality review.

What happens to the others then? How will they know what to improve? Where is their quality review?

Simple... if its in the site check section, all sites have an equal oppurtunity to get a quality review. Giving all sites an equal chance of getting constructive criticism on how to improve their site.

an equal opportunity to get a crappy "cool site" review... basically.
Let me give you an example. There are 10 kids and you decide to distribute apples... One day you give out 1 really crappy apple. Another day you give 1 good apple, and 3 crappy ones... another day you give 6 medium-crappy apples. Some kids might come back to see if you're not giving out crappy apples, but some might not. However, if you guarantee one good apple each time... there's a better incentive there isn't there?

Lets talk about opportunities here. Doing the weekly installment DOESN'T decrease the chances of someone's site having a good review (whether it's on the forum or on the article). If anything, it INCREASES the chances by providing a guaranteed opportunity for review every week. I understand that this is not stopping me from writing a good review in the forum if I wanted to, but there is a clear advantage to writing it as an article, which I have talked about already.

And Ren, I never said I wasn't going to do it. However, there are people who are much better at critique than I am. I'm not VOLUNTEERING others to do it. I'm volunteering myself. However, it'd be nice if others joined me.

[lostinbeta]

Ok, so you get at least 1 chance of a good review, and 9 kicks to the side. You don't think these people will be offended and not want to come back, but instead feel that maybe they should submit week after week after week until their site is finally picked to get a review?

As Ren and Rev said, no one is going to stop if you if you choose to critique one site a week in the site check section, but while you are at it, why not just critique a few so more people have chances?

[Jubba]

it would be nice if people would do that, but it would be better if people just took the time to go thru SITE CHECK and critique everything. There usually aren't that many sites in there anyway. I, personally, can't critique sites because I suck. I can't even critique my own sites...

[reverendflash]

It's really easy to get burned out in the Site Check forum with all of the people who just want their ego stroked, so we all take a break from time to time.

Rengirl is right. If you don't like the quality of the reviews, make your own reviews better.

If you want a Pick of The Week, with a critique, then make one. As stated above, I doubt anyone will stop you.

Rengirl and the rest of the mods put a ton of energy each week just to give SOTW the attention it deserves. I know I spend at least a couple hours going thru the sites, making notes, and that is just the first time I go thru them. I know for a fact that other mods do the same.

It was asked one time how to become a mod... This is a good example. If you think there is a hole, become proactive, make a plan, and follow it through. Should there be a problem, Kirupa and the mods will handle it in an way that is fair to as many as possible.

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[lava]

Originally posted by lostinbeta
You don't think these people will be offended and not want to come back, but instead feel that maybe they should submit week after week after week until their site is finally picked to get a review?
does this happen in SOTW?

[Jubba]

do you see everyone come back once their site doesn't win? And this is actually for an award, not just a critique...

[lostinbeta]

They all get critiques though, do they not?

[Jubba]

good point lib

[RenaissanceGirl]

Originally posted by reverendflash
It's really easy to get burned out in the Site Check forum with all of the people who just want their ego stroked...

Amen to that!

[lava]

Originally posted by lostinbeta
They all get critiques though, do they not?
I should have been more clear. We're talking about different things. SOTW is for an award. My question was: do people keep submitting even after they didn't win the award?

but anyways, what's wrong if people submit every week? All I'd (or whoever else wants to do this with me) would have to do is pick one at random. I don't think there's anything wrong with people trying every week.

[reverendflash]

Raf:

go ahead, get it started. You are just stating the same thing over and over again. If you think this is a hole, then fill that hole. You seem to have the time...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[RenaissanceGirl]

No... SOTW is also about getting a critique. I always repeat this every week: "One of the valuable aspects of SOTW is to get valuable feedback about your site and get an idea of how well it stands beside some of the best on the web."

So basically, we've already implemented your idea, only we do it to 10 people each week. However, SOTW is for sites that have already worked out the basic kinks and are aiming for greater advancement. They are not for people who just learned flash. And ofcourse to compare since, you can get some idea of what you are doing wrong if you look at something that works well.

And again - no one is stopping you from just randomly picking someone from Site Check and giving it a good reply.

[lostinbeta]

Originally posted by lavaboy
I should have been more clear. We're talking about different things. SOTW is for an award. My question was: do people keep submitting even after they didn't win the award?


Actually no, it does happen, but not everyone re-submits.

And if they do resubmit, we usually expect to see some changes made according to the critique it recieved when last entered. Usually there is a reason it didn't get voted for, and we critique that reason. Although sometimes it is just an extremely hard choice between sites, that is a different story though.

You can't very well re-submit according to previous critiques when you are submitting just to be able recieve critiques in the first place IMO.

[Marz]

Wow... Man.. You guys really get fun to look through... I read a bunch of the lines but thought I'd post at the original thought..

First thing is first.. SOTW scares me.. I definetly don't wanna put my "designing" skills up against anyone.. Especcially seeing as how I'm just a lonely "programmer". But.. I would place my site in site check if need be.. But I never visit the two..

I think if you guys should do anything it should be that the site check and sotw forums get posted in the "talk" section under the forums...

About the 20 post minimum rule.. Are you forgetting that Random can not "tally" up your post count anymore? So what happens when someone gets on here and doesn't know much about Flash MX.. or doesn't get on alotto help people out? I get on alot and I usually don't see many threads in Flash MX and Actionscript or Server Side Scripting that have 0 replies to them! What are these people suppose to do then?

I think we have alot of great people helping out already and if these guys want to just post their site out of the blue how is that any different from posting someone elses' site out of the blue...

If I were to post a site that I thought was cool.. How would that person ever get recognition for this award? And... Would the person that won the award really care about coming and posting in the forums then? I'm sure there are some cases when they will but still. It's the same thing.

If you're a designer.. One of the biggest things can be word of mouth about your website... That is a good point.. But the fact is.. When you are a designer and you want to win awards for your site.. You need to work at that yourself. Kirupa does a great job of advertising the fact that he gives out awards and if someone stumbled in here and placed their site in the SOTW, then I don't think they should be limited to the number of posts that they contribute. I think this will turn more people away from posting their site than anything.

As for the critiques... I have never posted a site nor have I ever given a critique.. Personally my critiques would be the one liners... And I think the person receiving them should be **** glad I don't give them a full report... Some people are not designers and when they throw alot of bad design tips at you.. And you implement them.. What's going to happen then? You'll get pissed off at the person who gave you the ideas.

Great designers like guig0, rengirl and EG however are better suited for giving reports on websites than I am... Therefore I let them review whenever possible.. If I were to review it would look like..

"Hey man.. it was a pretty cool looking site.. Had problems with the nav system but other than that.. Great!"

Just my opinion.. :)

~~ playamarz ~~

[lava]

Originally posted by playamarz

1.
Especcially seeing as how I'm just a lonely "programmer". But..

2.
About the 20 post minimum rule.. Are you forgetting that Random can not "tally" up your post count anymore? So what happens when someone gets on here and doesn't know much about Flash MX.. or doesn't get on alotto help people out? I get on alot and I usually don't see many threads in Flash MX and Actionscript or Server Side Scripting that have 0 replies to them! What are these people suppose to do then?


3.
If you're a designer.. One of the biggest things can be word of mouth about your website... That is a good point.. But the fact is.. When you are a designer and you want to win awards for your site.. You need to work at that yourself.

4.
Kirupa does a great job of advertising the fact that he gives out awards and if someone stumbled in here and placed their site in the SOTW, then I don't think they should be limited to the number of posts that they contribute. I think this will turn more people away from posting their site than anything.

5.
As for the critiques... I have never posted a site nor have I ever given a critique.. Personally my critiques would be the one liners... And I think the person receiving them should be **** glad I don't give them a full report...

~~ playamarz ~~
wow, that you did a whole thing by yourself there..

1. it's spelled poorgrammer... hehe

2. I had forgotten about that..

3. So the people who aren't out to get an award shouldn't get one? I think they should be pleasantly surprised. With a sandwitch.

4. This was a consideration for SOTW at the beginning, but that died, and then we stared talking about some "extensive" site checks. I think min posts should definitely apply to that..

5. haha


P.S. Hey playa... you gonna be busy tonight? I'm posting the instructions on the template for the player when I get home.

[RenaissanceGirl]

Originally posted by playamarz
.. Had problems with the nav system...

Even if you're not a designer, you're still a surfer. A one liner like that is worth a lot. You don't have to post a detailed essay to give a valid critique. I have posted my site a couple times for a critique and I've gotten one-liners like "Popups don't work." It has helped me a lot.

[Marz]

I should be on for a little while... I'm coming down with a nasty *** stomach flu it seems.. it's been tiring me out the past couple of days...

And Ren girl.. Yeah I understand that and if I had the time I'd drop a line on people's sites :)

But typically I'm stuck iNR andom or I'm in the 3 help forums I go to.. aka MX, AS, and SS Scripting.

:beam: playamarz :player:

[Ryall]

ok... I've read enough without putting my thoughts out there... I think the current system is fine. It has potential to work far better, but the structure is there (I'm speaking of site check, and the ideas for that - SOTW is fine, well run and well executed) it just needs people to put forth the effort to make it better, ie members. My problem with the site check section is the "cushy reviews" in it. I have seen some of the worst designs ever placed in that section and people will say "good start", "I'd work on the colors", etc. I think that people need to be a little more hard nosed when reviewing otherwise no one is going to improve all that much. I know what is coming... "well why don't you get in there and give some harsh crit yourself?" I agree, but to be honest when I look at a thread, see a site that is terrible, and then read a bunch of these comments, I'd feel bad adding on that it really isn't anything I'd want to look at for more than 10 secs. Thats how I've felt from day one here. I'm not saying we need to be mean, but a little more honesty would be nice (cuz I've read comments that people can't really mean - I hope not).

Just trying to get away from the candy coated design world that seems to be popping up in forums all over the web - apparently everyone's good right now.

Peace