Equal exposure for more maps

[Karsten75]

Currently 4 maps are featured every time someone loads the maps download page.  This is nice and I think it is a good way to give older maps more exposure, but I also think there should be other ways to allow older maps more exposure.

Some thoughts:

More map selection criteria would allow users to "slice and dice" the maps more to their liking.

In the map selection criteria, the list of maps returned should be randomized so different maps are can be on the first screen of selected maps.

Maybe a few other ways, since I think that the chances of hitting a map in the 4 "featured" maps is getting pretty slim now that we have over 2,000 maps.

[UpperKEES]

I agree. My thoughts:

- I would love a sorting option (maybe besides a randomly displayed list).
- The 4 random maps should be from different authors.
- The random maps should match the filter criteria.
- I would indeed love more filters, like: number of comments, number of downloads, difficulty rating and number of scores.
- I should be possible to combine filters.

[J]

I agree everything here.

[Blaze]

I agree everything here.

Doubled.

[J]

The sort by ... function was active by 300 maps. Why it´s deleted ???

[UpperKEES]

See here: http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=623

[usofat25]

I've always wanted to see an Average Downloads/Map sort for users.

Ex. If the total number of downloads for all a submitter's maps adds up to 2500, and they've submitted 20 maps, then its an average of 125.

This does a couple things. I think it would increase exposure for older maps and older users, since the oldest maps tend to have the most downloads. It would also probably favor map creators that have made unique maps, as we often see maps that have four or five variations not downloaded as much.

On another point, regardless of sorting systems, we need to find a new way of organizing the numbers for map pages. Eventually you're just going to run out of space on the bottom. What then, have different rows? It's not too difficult to code some arrays within arrays so there is a 1-10, 11-20, 21-x option.

[SPIFFEN]

Maybe maps that dont have gotten an rating and/or more than 1+ score posted ,
should have an bigger chance to get on the - Four Random Maps to "wet" your interest - .
Or the other way around , that maps with many ratings and/or many scores ,
will get up more often in - Four Random Maps to "wet" your interest - .

An 1% bigger chance might help ,
or it might mess up everything =P

Maybe someone else has an better idea of how to solve this ?

[Colin]

This was Virgil's opinion on a similar topic.

Sorting....  I might add some sorting back in.  I may start by adding some more 'fliters' at the top, though (top 10 lists or something).  Both sorting and top 10 are a little tricky in that they can promote 'interesting' behavior.  For instance, sorting by rank encourages map makers to vote 5 for their own maps and 1 for everybody else (yes, people do this).  Sorting by number of comments, encourages people to post meaningless comments.  Etc...

None of these things are really fatal or even that big of a deal, they are just small things that can often produce results different than originally expected.

In any case, I'll probably start adding some of these things back in and see how it works out.

I would have to agree with Virgil's statement, and,
I believe that the "sort by map maker" option is
sufficient.

However, I believe that it should be changed so that
map authors have to submit a certain amount of maps
to get on that list, because as we have it now,
he list is long and makes it difficult to find the map
authors you want.

Most of the list length is filled with authors who only
submitted 1 map. 

The only filter I would want to see, is a list of authors
in order of how many maps they have submitted. (of
course SPIFFEN would be on top). 

[UpperKEES]

I think both the random maps and the author list are fine as they are.

Regarding the random maps on top: every single map has equal changes. If a map doesn't have ratings or scores there's probably a reason for that and I wouldn't like more 'bad' maps in there.

Regarding the author list: behind the name you see the amount of maps by that author, so it's easy to select the productive map makers.

What I would like (and many people including myself have asked many times before) is more filter and/or sorting options. I don't like it that I am constrained in finding the maps of my likings in a dark forest of 4000 maps. Virgil has a different opinion about this however; he is afraid the popular maps will get more popular and the less popular maps will get even less popular. Of course there's a truth in that, but this is the case on every site with downloads. The drawback would be that some people would try to artificially increase the number of downloads, ratings, comments and scores. I guess this is the main reason Virgil removed the sort options that were available in the past and I understand that.