MrxxXXXxx

[ctaulbee]

QUOTE (Bazzah @ Jan 31 2016, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We must also remember that there is a difference between considering a contributor and considering a designer. A contributor CAN just 'slap' a cover together as long as it is good enough quality. A contributor is normally someone who is starting out in the hobby. MrxxXXXxx's uploads are not designer quality, but they are contributor quality.

I get that Baz and it makes sense but all this other discussion on time and so forth is a mute point simply because you don't make any difference access wise between a contributor & designer.

Do you not see the problem with that thinking?

What that creates is a situation where by no one is motivated to become a designer or to advance at all, I mean they get the whole deal by just being a contributor.

I'm not arguing how this works, it works as intended.

I'm saying it's broken from the point of view that it does not do what is "needed" and that is "motivate improvement" or "regular contributions".

I mean from the view of many-- I'm sure the thinking is "why improve if I can get all I want without doing more than the bare minimum", am I the only one that sees this side of it?

That said, based on your request for further input I think would be better to just leave the approval to contributor as is.

The change should be restrictions on that group.

1. Keep unlimited access to resources so they can get stuff to improve.

2. Limit Gallery downloads for that group to 1 for 1, ie you upload one item it's approved you can download one item.

[Kernie]

QUOTE (ctaulbee @ Jan 31 2016, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mean from the view of many-- I'm sure the thinking is "why improve if I can get all I want without doing more than the bare minimum", am I the only one that sees this side of it?

I see your point, ctaulbee.

For the record, I realize that my "not yet" vote was unfair to Mrxxxwhatever... but I also couldn't honestly vote "yes" based on such lazily designed covers. I think some of his covers were pushing the limits of what we should accept here.

Bazz, I don't believe a waiting period before proving oneself will help the site. People will simply go elsewhere where they can get more immediate access.

I think ctaulbee is on to something with limiting access to contributors. Maybe not a 1:1 scenario, but for every cover/label you upload, you can download 20-50-100 (?) items from the gallery. That way, contributors can still get more than they give, but it's not the unlimited access that they currently enjoy. (Although this idea leaves some discussion about what to do for current contributors: grandfather them in under old rules, make new rules effective immediately, or new rules take effect upon a member's status renewal?)

Giving members like MrxxxXXYZ unlimited access to our entire gallery based off of bare-minimum, poorly-crafted contributions hasn't sat right with me. I'm glad that we're finally discussing some changes.

Thanks for being open to amending the rules.

[easylife]

wont 1 on 1 just mean the gallery gets filled quicker with tat. hell if i was told 1 on 1 and i could get away with two posters and synopsis or even a label that just consists of a poter, even if the whole cuts off the main characters head, then id be banging out tat by the bucket load to get free covers. Hey NR, and before you say it my stuff aint that bad

[Kernie]

QUOTE (easylife @ Jan 31 2016, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wont 1 on 1 just mean the gallery gets filled quicker with tat. hell if i was told 1 on 1 and i could get away with two posters and synopsis or even a label that just consists of a poter, even if the whole cuts off the main characters head, then id be banging out tat by the bucket load to get free covers.

You have a valid point as well. Perhaps we need to tighten the reigns on what we actually approve to the gallery. I believe that's what this whole issue is about anyway.

[ctaulbee]

A ratio makes sense most credit sites use one maybe 1-3 but I would caution on going very high as you will defeat the whole intent of it if you do.

Can't go backwards the site does not "track when" a person becomes a contributor, they are either in the group or they are not.

So any that have download a lot but contributed very little would be caught in the net, not so sure that is really a bad thing, I could run a query on that group Baz to see who would be affected by such a change and how much out of ratio they currently are.

[ctaulbee]

QUOTE (Kernie @ Jan 31 2016, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have a valid point as well. Perhaps we need to tighten the reigns on what we actually approve to the gallery. I believe that's what this whole issue is about anyway.

I was going to say that is all controlled by what is allowed in, no one in that group can just dump a unlimited number of anything in there.

So if that happens it would be due to a breakdown in some other area.

[bazzah]

I am always open to new ideas to better the site, for example I like the idea of a ratio download for contributors. But that is if it is possible to implement it into the site. We could also update the prove yourself rules to say that covers that are deemed to have a small amount of effort put into them, such as two posters and a title treatment, can not be accepted for proving yourself. And this decision will be decided by the designers of the site in a poll. It would allow designers more say too, in what they believe to be good enough.

[easylife]

QUOTE (ctaulbee @ Jan 31 2016, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to say that is all controlled by what is allowed in, no one in that group can just dump a unlimited number of anything in there.

so thats gonna change, at the moment the only thing checked is image quality

QUOTE (Bazzah @ Jan 31 2016, 10:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We could also update the prove yourself rules to say that covers that are deemed to have a small amount of effort put into them, such as two posters and a title treatment, can not be accepted for proving yourself.

If its just prove yourself, wht to stop people banging out tat afterwards, especially if its 1 on 1 downloads. If things are to change, wouldnt it be best to have an overhaul in stead of just tinkering around with the rules?

[sauron]

QUOTE (easylife @ Jan 31 2016, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If its just prove yourself, wht to stop people banging out tat afterwards, especially if its 1 on 1 downloads. If things are to change, wouldnt it be best to have an overhaul in stead of just tinkering around with the rules?

Their covers would still have to be approved so if it's possible I suppose we could add a 3 strike rule? If they don't follow to the rules they get a warning and then if they continue the strikes come into place and after 3 they get demoted and would have to go through the process of gaining contributor access again?

[Bunny Dojo]

Adding a small download requirement to the criteria would be an inexact but stat-based way of confirming someone has uploaded covers which other people found useful or interesting. Whether a cover needs 3-5 downloads in order to qualify or a designer needs 30-50 downloads total, either would help confirm actual Contribution.

If you subtract views by people in this thread, MrxxXXXxx likely has fewer than 5 downloads total so far.