Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[mibi]

Well, there would be too much arguing over which is what. DiM hates that idea and I share his view to a lesser degree, there just isn't a good way to place the ones that appear in multiple categories.

then we let them be in multiple categories.

If a map fits in multiple categories, list it in each one.

Take Battle of Actium for example.

It could fit into the list of:
military battles
abstract maps
Large maps (90+ territories)


Basically, there could be a drop-down menu above the list of games that includes each section, and within that section it would list all the maps that fit that category. Maps could be in multiple categories, because many of them fit more than one. So all the site would need is a list of every map for a given category, and have the drop-down menu have each category given. when you click the category, it only shows the maps in that list.

Wouldn't be too difficult to do. someone would just need to compile lists for each category of map.

EDIT: dang... herakilla fastposted me with pretty much the same post...

thats what I have been saying all along. lets get a system going thats actually useful, categories!

[mibi]

putting a map in more than 1 category is wrong. it means classic will only appear in geographical, while other maps will be in 2-4 categs. is that fair? i think not.

fair?... i don't see how it matters how many categories something is in as long as it in its proper category. classic could also be in 'medium sized' maps, or 'cartographers with size 42 shoes' or whatever.

[DiM]

thats what I have been saying all along. lets get a system going thats actually useful, categories!

categs are flawed.

go by theme and you'll have several maps put in more than 1 categ thus boosting their publicity (if i may say so)

go by complexity and you'll end up with a screwed up formula that doesn't really show complexity.

go by terit count and you won't offer enough info (but at least it's better than the other 2)

[edbeard]

I think we're starting to come to a consensus or at least an understanding.

1. splitting by categories is the best way to help out new users.

2. the best way OF splitting is by territory count

as DiM said in another thread,

you want something quick, play doodle. you want something long, play world 2.1.

couple that with the map info links and we're golden

[gimil]

I think we're starting to come to a consensus or at least an understanding.

1. splitting by categories is the best way to help out new users.

2. the best way OF splitting is by territory count

as DiM said in another thread,

you want something quick, play doodle. you want something long, play world 2.1.

couple that with the map info links and we're golden

And that ladies and gentlemen is our PM to lack

[mibi]

I think we're starting to come to a consensus or at least an understanding.

1. splitting by categories is the best way to help out new users.

2. the best way OF splitting is by territory count

as DiM said in another thread,

you want something quick, play doodle. you want something long, play world 2.1.

couple that with the map info links and we're golden

i certainly don't agree to that. I would rather see more useful categories that will help users find the type of maps they want to play.

[wcaclimbing]

putting a map in more than 1 category is wrong. it means classic will only appear in geographical, while other maps will be in 2-4 categs. is that fair? i think not.

Fair doesn't matter at all.

The map doesn't care what categories it gets into.
The mapmaker probably won't care if map X has more categories than the map they made.

go by theme and you'll have several maps put in more than 1 categ thus boosting their publicity (if i may say so)

Screw publicity for the maps, this is about organization, not "MY MAP IS IN MORE SECTIONS THAN YOUR MAP!!!!!11!!one!!! ITS TEH AWESOMER!"

Classic would have plenty of categories. it would be listed under:
All maps.
Sort by rating/comments.
Geographical.
Small maps.
And probably one or two others, depending on how we decide to sort them.

Yes, there are maps that fit in much more than that, but does it matter?
The map fits in the section, so let it be there.

If you dont like it or "its not fair" to the maps, then just dont use the sorted categories. Look though the "all" list like we do now. The "Sort by category" option is just that, AN OPTION. if you don't like it, just dont click the button that uses it

I was thinking more along the lines of each section having its own page, so we dont have multiple copies of the map on the same page. Like, if you click "geographical", it would send you to the list of all geographical maps on a different page. no other maps shown other than those that belong in the category.

Basically, you have your "all" list. you click "Geographical" in the drop-down menu at the top of the page, and then the page refreshes, but it shows only Geographic maps this time, none of the others are shown. Then it gives you options to go back to the "All" list or to chose a different category, or select a map and start your game directly from there.

It wouldn't be too hard to code at all. all it needs is a list of maps for each category that the site reads whenever that section is chosen.

[wcaclimbing]

I think we're starting to come to a consensus or at least an understanding.

1. splitting by categories is the best way to help out new users.

2. the best way OF splitting is by territory count

as DiM said in another thread,

you want something quick, play doodle. you want something long, play world 2.1.

couple that with the map info links and we're golden

i certainly don't agree to that. I would rather see more useful categories that will help users find the type of maps they want to play.

all we would need is [along with my previous post] is to decide what those "useful categories" are going to be.

Geographic and abstract are a must, along with number of territories.
Including a "new maps" section would also be good, showing everything what is new to the site so we can all find the new ones more easily.

[edbeard]

you're making this way too complicated. it has to be simple so that it's helpful. what you're proposing is all over the place. putting maps into multiple categories doesn't help. you want to separate ALL the maps into more manageable categories.


being able to choose to list the maps by size, map type, or complexity are three good ways to split everything up. Having those three choices (plus maybe the standard alphabetical or rating list) makes it easy for someone new to figure out what map they want to play.

[DiM]

bah, i'm tired of arguing for nothing.

i'll say it one more time and that will be it.

adding a gazillion categories will do more harm than good because then we'll have half the screen occupied with lots of sorting tabs. things must be kept simple, preferably in the current format and offer as much info as possible within a few clicks. what WM presented in his images is all we need. same format as we have now with some more info presented on the same page and with further info 1 click away.
i would agree with more categs if they were at least objective accurate and fair. but so far they aren't. theme isn't fair isn't accurate, complexity isn't objective accurate or fair. and terit number count while being all 3 it lacks the amount of info a sorting method would need to provide but i do agree with it more than the others.

[gimil]

I believe as well that things should be kept simple but im not going into detail tonight, its bed time

What i will suggest thou is that if we were to sue complexity as a rating, dont use some big formula, let each member rate a map on how complex they found it. Which im sure has already been suggested.

[mibi]

christ... you people arn't using your brains if you keep thinking that adding complex information will translate into a complex UI. This thread is turning into a merry-go-round of numb skullery.

where are the folks who actually know anything about proper and efficient UI?

[DiM]

what's UI?

[Telvannia]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

[mibi]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

mhm.

[DiM]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

mhm.

thanks tel.

now wtf is mhm.

mibi stop using all kinds of acronyms and stuff like that. not all people here have english as their native language.

[Telvannia]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

mhm.

thanks tel.

now wtf is mhm.

mibi stop using all kinds of acronyms and stuff like that. not all people here have english as their native language.

mhm, is a way of saying yes. An affirmative grunt sort of thing.

[DiM]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

mhm.

thanks tel.

now wtf is mhm.

mibi stop using all kinds of acronyms and stuff like that. not all people here have english as their native language.

mhm, is a way of saying yes. An affirmative grunt sort of thing.

couldn't he have said qft instead or i agree or i concur or something else.

an affirmative grunt

now enough spamming, mibi if you think people around here are too thick to imagine your ui then perhaps you should produce a few images, like wm did, and show us what you mean.

an image is worth 1000 words

[gimil]

what's UI?

Im pretty sure it is the User Interface. Or words to that affect.

mhm.

thanks tel.

now wtf is mhm.

mibi stop using all kinds of acronyms and stuff like that. not all people here have english as their native language.

mhm, is a way of saying yes. An affirmative grunt sort of thing.

couldn't he have said qft instead or i agree or i concur or something else.

an affirmative grunt

now enough spamming, mibi if you think people around here are too thick to imagine your ui then perhaps you should produce a few images, like wm did, and show us what you mean.

an image is worth 1000 words

agreed, just becasue its obvious in your head doesnt make it the same as everyone else. Not everyone thinks up ideas for a living after all

[bryguy]

i think that the map foundry was made so that people could argue over this without getting in trouble



oh, and after reading all this, my head hurts

[gimil]

i think that the map foundry was made so that people could argue over this without getting in trouble

all the foundry is, is a big place for big kids to come and shout at each other, ocassionally a good idea comes up and we all shake and make up

[bryguy]

i think that the map foundry was made so that people could argue over this without getting in trouble

all the foundry is, is a big place for big kids to come and shout at each other, ocassionally a good idea comes up and we all shake and make up

oh....



cool

[Coleman]

People can post whatever they want in this topic provided it is helpful to the argument. Showing agreement to each others ideas via mhm or whatever terminology you want to use is helpful to me and not spam. If you agree with either side of the issue please say something so I can have a better idea of where the majority lies.

[Coleman]

where are the folks who actually know anything about proper and efficient UI?

WidowMaker's and I are living happy and productive lives outside of this topic until the holidays are over.

[fireedud]

I like the category idea combined with the feedback idea.

Let's say you want to play an abstract map with resource pairs.

You'll get Dim's maps. To decide which one to play, you can look at the rating/feedback to find the best one.