From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Voting rules[edit]

Here's how the voting works, if anyone's interested:

  1. Each nomination has support and oppose votes; the former counts as +1 and the latter as -1.
  2. A week before the end of every month, the nomination with the highest net count is chosen to be that month's collaboration.
    • For ties, the first one nominated is chosen.
  3. At the end of every month, any nomination with a net count of less than 1 and a time since nomination greater than six months, is removed. Any nominations older than 1 year will be removed.

Suggestions[edit]

As you may have noticed, no one really votes "oppose" on these, because why oppose a collaboration? Any collaboration is good, right? However, that's the only way to get old nominations off the page. Here are my suggestions:

  1. If a nomination is approaching the six month mark, force yourself to make a decision one way or the other. If you want to work on that collaboration vote in support, and if you don't, vote for oppose. No hard feelings, this is just a cleanup move.
  2. Change the requirements for removal to six months from the last time someone voted on it, regardless of net votes. This will clean up the nominations that either no one cares about anymore, or that a single person nominated and no one was interested.

This assumes that getting old nominations off the page is what's wanted. I'm in favor of it (obviously), as it seems pointless to have entries that will just sit there forever because no one cares about them. Post some opinions! - najzereT 08:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If this was a collaboration for a collaboration (err...) then I'd be in support. How about another rule...
  1. If a vote has no support but more than four or five opposes, it gets removed.
Maybe change the numbers a bit. Also something I notice is that hardly anyone apart from the admins and people who use SW a lot take part in any of these votes unless they actually nominate the guide. Because I'm sure there's more users interested in some of these games, but the only ones who seem to vote are the what you might call "SW locals". Like Afro Samurai which was the collab for February. The only page that was created in that guide was an achievements page. Not exactly what I'd call a collaboration.--Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally liked seeing the failed ones up there as a reminder of what to think about for these. The collaborations tend to be hit or miss with results. It is nice however to be able to give an early guide some extra attention. Unless it is the most obscure unpopular old game that a user can come up with or it doesn’t qualify I don’t see much reason to oppose a suggested guide (on second thought I would probally oppose a completion level 4 or higher guide. Not much left to add to doesn’t sound like a fun collaboration).--Zaiqukaj
@Melon: It's doubtful that a nomination would have zero supports, as the person nominating it is likely to support it (#~~~~ is in the template). Anyway, as it is now if the oppose votes are equal to or greater than the supports, it will be removed after six months. As always, there's not much we can do about who decides to participate. The link to Collaboration of the Month is on the front page, so its visibility can't really get much higher.
@Zaiqukaj: I know it's tough to put "oppose" on something, since like I said, collaborations are a good thing. Maybe we need a different word for it (if we want to get rid of old ones). Maybe after six months, a nomination could start getting "cleanup" votes, that wouldn't affect the support/oppose votes, but would cleanup the page if it got some arbitrary number (3? 5?). Also, I had to laugh about level 4 and higher, 'cause I just supported Chrono Trigger for the exact opposite reason. :P Better go put your oppose on it! - najzereT 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That made me laugh too now that I look at the guide. After taking a look at the guide and considering other factors I’m on the fence on opposing or supporting. Honestly since I haven’t played the game before I can’t tell if the walkthrough is missing anything (though I do recognize it for being popular) but it looks like proof reading is all that’s left there. The appendices could use some images. I think what I said earlier may simply be a personal bias now. Once a guide looks awesome and done I don’t want to work on it. :P --Zaiqukaj 07:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Previous Collaborations of the Month[edit]

It would be nice to see a list of previous Collaborations on the Month, maybe as a section in the StrategyWiki:Collaboration of the Month page.--Pelago 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page? It's linked at the top of the CotM page – you're saying it shouldn't be a subpage? — najzereT 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, embarrassingly I had overlooked that link! I have left it as a subpage but drawn attention to it by making a new section. Please revert if you don't agree.--Pelago 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New mechanics[edit]

I propose getting rid of the "oppose" section on nominations and changing the "Voting" heading to something else (like "Decisions" or something). The reason is, by signing under oppose, someone may feel they're being antagonistic toward the nominator, and the nominator may indeed take it that way. Also, you may not oppose the nomination, per se, but just don't want to work on it. Either way, the oppose section languishes. I think it should be enough to just look at whether the nomination has been supported and then pick the one with the most support. Along with this, I think a workable way to remove nominations would be after six months from the last support. I feel like giving a supporter six opportunities to have their guide chosen is fair, and if it's been passed over that many times, it ought to just be removed to keep the page tidy. — najzereT 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They are removed 6 months after the original nomination. The oppose isn't really necessary, as people can still leave negative comments explaining why they didn't support it. If a guide is nominated as a collaboration in good faith, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed nomination indefinately (and I don't really see it becoming a problem since we leave it up for 6 months). If this page starts getting more voters, and more nominations, we can always switch to weekly collabs, or a faster cleanup time. -- Prod (Talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
They're only removed after six months if the net voting is at zero. If we removed the oppose section, they would all be at least at a one, so it would take twelve months. The problem I see with indefinite nominations is that at some point the support of it is no longer valid, as interest has waned and some or all supporters may not even be around anymore. If that's of no concern, we'd get as much value out of picking any guide on the site at random for collaboration of the month. — najzereT 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying we remove them after 6 months irrespective of votes. I do agree that 6 months is probably too long but it keeps at least a few guides on the list. We need more people nominating and voting, and as traffic grows it will automatically grow. It used to be a much bigger problem earlier on, which is why we had oppose as well (not enough supports to distinguish). -- Prod (Talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Six months is not very long on this site. We can shorten the period if more voters appear. Removing the oppose section would not affect the voting process. Lets do it. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side-note, I have some ideas on a more admin-centric use of the page, so not having guides to choose from won't be a problem. — najzereT 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)