Jump to content
LaunchBox Community Forums

Recommended Posts

Fixing the Database:

 

#1 Dedicated Help: 

The database is crucial to the Launchbox experience, but it seems to always go to the wayside in favor of flashier features. It's even somehow still in "Alpha". So why not let Jason handle Launchbox development, and have designated volunteer(s) or a paid staff member handle the database? 

 

#2 Protect Correct Data:  

Values in the database should have an "Is this is correct?" option next to them that is only visible to moderators. Selecting "Yes" on this option + games that haven't been changed in years would go into the current DB change approval queue with a poll for mods asking: "Is this correct?". Once there are a very significant number of "yes" votes, the data would no longer be open for requests to change it. Moderators would also have the option to flag previously marked "correct" data as invalid.

Records should be kept on which games are constantly being changed so that they can be fixed 1 time, marked as correct, and everyone moves on. We should narrow our focus on completing a correct database, rather than wasting moderator time on junk requests for popular games.

 

#3 Protect "complete" Platforms: 

Changes to "complete" platforms (for example: NES, SNES) should require much more votes than normal to pass. This would lead to less junk for moderators to sort through and fewer duplicates. Currently a request can be made about any game or value. No one wants to moderate when the next several changes are just someone adding Mario, Zelda, etc to the NES.

 

#4 Moderator Ranks:

Moderator ranks could be a continuing incentive and could serve many different functions. 

The Lowest tier would just be the same as the current moderator.

Medium tier would be unlocked at x20 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". 

Top tier moderators would have all previously mentioned perks, but would only be selected by Launchbox staff. Their votes would count significantly more than a regular vote. They would also have the option to suggest a timeout or ban on users.

Both medium tier and top tier moderators would have access to an exclusive forum section to discuss the database & suggest database changes/features.  

Finally, anyone who has submitted a very significant amount of work to a certain platform should get a badge/tag marking them as a "Platform Expert".

 

#5 Fix Platform Names/Organization: 

Platform names should be consistent. Either make all Platforms have their 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". Platforms should also be grouped together by their company.

 

 

Please add a "Database Revamp" option in the next poll so the community can decide on this.

 

@Jason Carr @Lordmonkus @neil9000 @Zombeaver @DOS76 @RetroHumanoid @Charco @Retro808 @keltoigael @kmoney

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only wish is that they fix the delete bug that makes cleaning duplicates and other images a gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Codeman, I will be putting an item on the next poll to do some work on the games database. However, a lot of your requests here are not in the plans for the games database at all, such as dedicated help, data protection, and moderator ranks. The LaunchBox Games Database is the most open games database available on the web, and that is by design. I wanted to create something that was completely maintained and moderated by the community, and I believe that we've succeeded in that. I don't want the direction and the data to be determined by a small handful of people, I want it to be determined by everyone and anyone who's interested, which is really the aim for an open database.

Of course there are drawbacks to that approach, but I'm not interested in going back on it and changing the whole objective. The item that I put on the poll will most likely focus on performance improvements and streamlining the processes rather than core changes like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Suhrvivor said:

My only wish is that they fix the delete bug that makes cleaning duplicates and other images a gamble.

If this is still happening, I should definitely take a look at it. I'll get on it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Other bug being that trying to add, modify or delete alternative name(s) sometimes produces an error. Doesn't happen that often though and is probably a problem with specific database entries (corrupted?), but yeah.

Edited by Jakatsu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image fields could do with a revamp.
The current Box 3D needs splitting into two fields for front and back 3D box views.
Cassette front and back media fields need to be added. Currently, people submit cassette images under cart.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jason Carr said:

Hi @Codeman, I will be putting an item on the next poll to do some work on the games database. However, a lot of your requests here are not in the plans for the games database at all, such as dedicated help, data protection, and moderator ranks. The LaunchBox Games Database is the most open games database available on the web, and that is by design. I wanted to create something that was completely maintained and moderated by the community, and I believe that we've succeeded in that. I don't want the direction and the data to be determined by a small handful of people, I want it to be determined by everyone and anyone who's interested, which is really the aim for an open database.

Of course there are drawbacks to that approach, but I'm not interested in going back on it and changing the whole objective. The item that I put on the poll will most likely focus on performance improvements and streamlining the processes rather than core changes like this.

How is awarding ranks based on work & time invested in the database not community driven? Should heavily used platforms with correct information be left as open as others the sake of being left open? 

Disregard the ranks and dedicated support if you must, but will you at least consider:

a: Conforming to 1 unified naming structure of platforms / better organization of platforms

b: Adding some safe-guards to popular data (Mario, Zelda, ect) so current moderators don't have to waste time with bad requests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure from reading Jason's response B isn't going to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Codeman said:

How is awarding ranks based on work & time invested in the database not community driven? Should heavily used platforms with correct information be left as open as others the sake of being left open? 

It's not for the sake of leaving them open. It's for the sake of community-driven data instead of putting the "power" in the hands of a small handful of people. I don't want ranks, because I don't want any particular people to hold more weight than anyone else. That's a problem with some other sites.

44 minutes ago, Codeman said:

a: Conforming to 1 unified naming structure of platforms / better organization of platforms

That is planned. I believe there's only a very small handful of issues, but those platforms do need to be renamed.

45 minutes ago, Codeman said:

b: Adding some safe-guards to popular data (Mario, Zelda, ect) so current moderators don't have to waste time with bad requests

Unfortunately I don't know of any algorithm that lets us identify "perfect" data that is 100% guaranteed to be correct, so that we can mark it as such and not allow it to be changed. I know we could have people go through and do that, but even that would be subject to errors because people aren't perfect, which ultimately brings us back to the problem with ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jason Carr said:

It's not for the sake of leaving them open. It's for the sake of community-driven data instead of putting the "power" in the hands of a small handful of people. I don't want ranks, because I don't want any particular people to hold more weight than anyone else. That's a problem with some other sites.

That is planned. I believe there's only a very small handful of issues, but those platforms do need to be renamed.

Unfortunately I don't know of any algorithm that lets us identify "perfect" data that is 100% guaranteed to be correct, so that we can mark it as such and not allow it to be changed. I know we could have people go through and do that, but even that would be subject to errors because people aren't perfect, which ultimately brings us back to the problem with ranks.

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...