I believe for the future integrity of the database and continued success of Launchbox these basic database features are necessary and should be considered. Please add a "heavy DB revamp" option in the next poll, and link to this post so the community can decide on it. Thanks.
#1 Dedicated help. Jason has talked before about having another developer in the future. This new dev position should be someone working full-time on the database. At the very least, have someone part-time or a volunteer who is fully knowledged in the database working on features/fixes. The database is crucial to the Launchbox experience, but goes pretty much goes to the wayside when Jason goes back to working on features. It's a constant balance for Jason between Launchbox features, and database features. Jason seems to enjoy developing the app more, so the next paid position should be someone working on the database. If you can't pay someone, or can't justify paying someone, get a dedicated volunteer, vet them, and put them to work. Requests like this list could be directed to this person and implemented, instead of competing against more flashy features for the program.
Launchbox has been in development for years now, yet the very service that makes it all work is still in "Alpha". That's just crazy. We absolutely need an official (ACTIVE) person overseeing it.
#2 Protect correct Database data. Existing data values could be given a "this is correct" option that could be voted on by moderators. Once data hits a certain threshold of "correct" votes, it would become protected so that future changes could not be requested for this data. Data that hasn't been changed in years should also be marked as "correct". Moderators would have the option to flag "correct" data as invalid. Records should be kept on which games are constantly being changed so that it can be fixed 1 time with the correct values, and stop the users that keep modifying it. We should narrow the focus on completing a correct database, rather than moderators seeing absurd junk requests for popular games.
#3 Protect "complete" Platforms from duplicate/invalid games. New games for "complete" platforms, for example NES, should require a lot more votes than normal to add since by this point it's probably a user error in not finding that the game already exists. This would lead to less junk for moderators to sort through and fewer duplicates. Currently a request can made about any game or value. No one wants to moderate when the next 50 changes are someone adding Mario, Zelda, ect to the NES.
#4 Tiered levels of database moderators. Tiered moderator ranks could be a continuing incentive to moderate, and serve different functions. The lowest tier would just be the same as the current "moderator". Medium tier moderator would be unlocked at x10 the current DB moderator requirement. This would give double the voting power on any changes, and requested changes would say "Submitted by a veteran moderator".
Finally, Top tier moderators would have all previously mentioned perks, but would only be selected by Launchbox staff. They would be able to flag "correct" values (as mentioned above), as invalid with only 3 votes required from top tier moderators before it is accepted as invalid. They could also see which user submitted the changes, and have the option to submit a request to ban the user from suggesting changes. Finally, both medium tier and top tier moderators would have access to an exclusive forum section to congregate and also to suggest database changes/features to Launchbox Staff.
#5 FIX NAMES Platform names should be consistent. Either make all Platforms have its company as a prefix, or none of them. For example, all other consoles made by NEC have "NEC" in front, so "PC Engine SuperGrafx" should be changed to "NEC PC Engine SuperGrafx".
#6 Community Events. I think everyone can agree that at the very least, fan-art submitted should be relevant to the game or sequels to the game on the same console. However this is currently a moderation nightmare, and is heavily influenced by personal bias since no fan-art is "correct". The real question we should ask ourselves is what benefits does fan-art add, and is it worth it compared to an optional fan-art internet scrape upon import? Some fanart from the entire series can be fine, but this could potentially spoil later sequels or even events in the current game (dead characters, betrayals, ect). I don't know how this slipped through the cracks, but personally on my setup any game that has "taz" in it displays fan-art of the Tasmanian devil character for me. Basically, either require fan-art to be specific to the game/sequence of games, or remove it.
My solution is that I think we could do without fan-art. *EDIT: I don't mean reconstructions, those should definitely stay* It has no real quality standards so it leaves many high-quality fan-art submissions next to DeviantArt MS-paint fanart. It has no real moderation standards so it bogs down moderation. Seeing as there is no real limit on how much fan-art is "enough", it will constantly take up an ever-increasing amount of database space, increasing import times, but adding little to the experience or even degrading it at times (Tasmanian devil / spoilers). I'm sure many would be mad at the "loss of a feature" but an alternative could be that fan-art would optionally be scraped from the web as an import option.
@Jason Carr @Lordmonkus @neil9000 @Zombeaver @DOS76