I went through that text a couple of times. Instructions is indeed the most objective score, and I think I need not add anything to this guideline.

Before the old thread about this topic sinks I better add some quotes which led to the agreement of the four above categories. On the basis of these quotes I propose to deduce the text for the four categories.

Anastasia: “is this new, is this first, is this creative, is this better, is it inspiring.”

UTILITY: BRANDNEWCAR: “Overall Usefulness” ANASTASIA: ” fitness for some purpose or worth to some end.” “able to be used, esp. in a helpful, practical, or effective way.” TANNEUR: “if the utility is useful to a scenario/campaign and to what degree.” ANASTASIA: “1) Utility/Usefulness ~ Has the capacity to be useful in any particular aspect of the game, including game play, and scenario design. ~ Utility is, does, or has the capacity, for what it is intended to be or do. (To include consideration for ease of use if applicable.)” TANNEUR: “Novelty is included already in utility AND creativity.” ANASTASIA: “PLAYABILITY This could be given consideration in the Utility category, as Ingo's idea for 'ease of use' was. I believe playability can be considered within that category.” “ UTILITY/PLAYABILITY” TANNEUR: “to include playable units or even a small scenario can be creative, it can be useful, it can be educational/instructive.” Luke: “Is the utility useful for the designer who downloaded it? How effective is the utility when applied to a scenario?”

CREATIVITY: INGO: “Creativity: I agree with Tanneur99 that this should also be a part of the rating. There will be a few exceptions where it'll be difficult to judge creativity, when the utility consists of sounds. How about Creativity/Novelty Value?” ANASTASIA: “the fact that something is not new, original, first, or necessarily creative, but perhaps it is the better volcano,” INGO: “I'm still for that double "novelty value/creativity" because I consider it to be a more general word. Originality is a part of it, creativity is a part of it, ingenuity is a part of it. My definition of Novelty Value/Creativity is: Does this utility give downloaders something that they haven't got yet? Is it something that has been there many times, is it just a rip-off from somebody else's template, or was some original thinking involved?” ANASTASIA: “ingenuity: -having or showing cleverness or creativity, esp. in designing or in solving problems.” “Novelty -the quality of being strikingly new or unusual. a new or different thing or occurrence. Value -inherent worth, importance, merit, or usefulness. Creativity -characterized by originality or imagination.” TANNEUR: “The first of course has a high creativity” “The question is, if number two is different and if it is still creative” ANASTASIA: “I do believe that Ingo's 'Novelty' is already absorbed by, and into a 'Creativity' category as you do.” INGO: “I'm still proposing a double category of novelty value/creativity. novelty value = something new for the downloaders creativity = the designer created something, thought it up himself, shaped it himself, designed and finished it himself. Novelty value can, but it need not automatically be absorbed by creativity.” “Yes, a creative utility will always have a novelty value: e.g. a designer creates a sensational new eyecandy trick. This is creative and has a novelty value because it's new. But no, a utility with novelty value need not be creative. Best example: A collection of good sounds from the web, or one or two hidden units would give people something new.” BNC: “I'm very much for the Novelty/Creativity section as it gives the leighway needed for such a range of diverse utilities.” ANASTASIA: “I think we might be stuck with the Novelty Value/Creativity category for now.” ENRIQUE: “problem with Novelty/Creativity category. How does the reviewer decide if he gives points for the Novelty or for the Creativity ? Is it up to him or will there be really good examples provided in the tutorial as to what should be rated as Novelty and what should be rated as Creativity ?” INGO:” choice open for reviewers. Some might rate both, some might decide to take one of them into account... depending on which of the two fits better” “Creativity applies to files which are the creative work of the designer” “- a self-made program - trigger or map design tricks - self-made sound files.” “ Novelty Value applies to collections of things” “royalty-free sounds from the web - hidden units.” “ The question to ask is: Are those sounds/ hidden units etc. really something that has not been at the Blacksmith before, or have they already been there in another utility?” Disclaimer: HG discourage the use of copyrighted material which might violate the rights of third parties. “I am arguing from a designer’s view” “"Novelty Value" also applies to utilities that explain how to do something: e.g. RMS instructional texts, or even trigger tutorials which explain basic stuff for newcomers. Here, novelty value can answer the question: Has such a tutorial been there before?” TANNEUR: “New and useful is in my category Utility” INGO: “Would originality fit better than Novelty?” ANASTASIA: “Novelty/Creativity ~ In inventing or producing original, creative, artistic, or innovative work. ~ the process of so inventing or producing a Utility with any of these qualities.” Ingo: “"~ giving access to new items that have not been discovered yet (e.g. hidden units or royalty-free sounds)". Anastasia: “2) Novelty/Creativity ~ In inventing or producing original, creative, artistic, or innovative works. ~ The process of so inventing, or producing a Utility to provide access to works including any or all of these qualities.” TANNEUR: “Novelty is included already in utility AND creativity.” “PLAYABILITY in CREATIVITY, but to include playable units or even a small scenario can be creative, it can be useful, and it can be educational/instructive.” Luke: “Is this the first utility of its kind? Is the utility in any way different to utilities uploaded prior to the utility in question?”

QUALITY: TANNEUR: “Visuel/Oral/Effectiv Impression=Appeal” INGO: “general appeal might also apply to sounds.” ANASTASIA: “audio: 1. of, concerning, or employing sound. 2. of, concerning, or employed in the reproduction or broadcasting of sound.“ INGO: “forth category such as "Quality”” “Sounds: Do the sounds all work, are the sounds discernible, is the overall sound OK or really lousy? Tutorial: Does the tutorial run smoothly? Patch: Does the patch make an overall good impression, is it an improvement? Graphics: Do they look good? Eye Candy: Does it look good? Does it look realistic?” ANASTASIA: “4) Significance/Impression ~ Utility's importance, value, quality, effect, depth, intention, content, point, emphasis, and/or magnitude regarding some aspect of the game. ~ The effect that an experience, or perception created while using a Utility and it's impact in regard to the game.” INGO: “Utilities which do have a playability factor could be covered in there, so could eye-candy utilities where the visual impression is an important part.” TANNEUR: “intended to be used for the different types of the utilities. VISUAL IMPRESSION or AUDIO IMPRESSION or EFFECTIVE IMPRESSION (see reply 71 and 55) I could add QUALITY IMPRESSION.” “most types of utilities might have bugs, the utility does not work in a scenario, in other words IS NOT PLAYABLE.” “sounds=AUDIO I. eye-candy=VISUAL I. map-copy=EFFECTIVE or QUALITY I.? triggers=EFFECTIVE I.” INGO: “Would "Quality" make this category clearer? This could include visual, audio or playable quality - the way the utility is designed, wrapped up etc.” ANASTASIA: “QUALITY ~A degree of value or excellence of a distinguishing feature or inherent characteristic; property or trait of a Utility. IMPRESSION ~The effect that an experience, or perception created while using a Utility and it's impact in regard to the game.” “I am choosing Quality because I think Impression, could cause some confusion to the average English reader.” Luke: “Does the quality of the utility live up to decent standards? Is this utility better than utilities released before?”

INSTRUCTIONS: BRANDNEWCAR: “Accessibility: How easy it is to use, considering what it does.” INGO: “"User-Friendliness", but I'm not sure if it is better. Clear instructions could factor into this (compare Tanneur's system).” TANNEUR: “instructions are used in the sense of instructions to use, instructions to do, explanations about” ANASTASIA: “3) Instructions/Directions ~ The act, process, or result of explaining, or giving directions to a Utility's purpose and use. ~ Instructions and explanations of a Utility's contents and/or it's use.” “INSTRUCTIONS/PLAYABILITY” TANNEUR: “to include playable units or even a small scenario can be creative, it can be useful, it can be educational/instructive.” Luke: “Are there any pre-game instructions? Are there any instructions while the utility is running? Is the author using proper English?”

Everyone:
I regret to inform, that due to personal reasons I am suspending my participation in this discussion indefinitely.

Take courage!

Due to lack of updating and interest, this topic is no longer sticky. When both of these return at frequent intervals, I'll sticky it again.

Hey there Tanneur,i've brought this topic back to life.

So,i was just wondering how far you've finished with that tutorial and also we could continue discussing that review here.

[This message has been edited by Cknchaos (edited 10-22-2002 @ 10:51 AM).]

VERY Interesting read here, thanks for sharing these excerpts of your deliberations, Tanneur99 …

Very interesting indeed to see some of the thought processes involved.

Not asked, but just to say it:

I whole-heartily agree with Ingo’s conception as well as rationale for wishing the inclusion of ‘Novelty’ as a valid and important criteria.
It may well be a mistake to pre-suppose universality of usership or participants in this respect.
Those who will D/L a new utility and who will find in it something not necessarily new in item/object or substantively new – but will find innovative novelty, are most apt to recognize the category *Novelty.*
For all those who will not, it is moot – but a long way from nullifying it’s validity for the rest.
And – in such ‘scenario’, if you will – you may be likely to get some evaluations which will refer to the “Creativity” of something in reality not “new” beyond it’s novelty.

I don’t think these overlaps ought to detract from a more refined ability to evaluate Anything artists and innovators are contributing: to me, it seems punishing the lions for the sheep – if you’ll forgive my analogy.

I think Ingo has stated his view and reasoning with force and clarity and it is compelling-enough by its own internal logic as a category.

Those simply are not the same criteria – and one would be very hard-pressed to conjure a more fitting term to cover the “Novelty” category in a Utility evaluation.

The reflections on Quality are nearly as intriguing: but there one hits a wall with subjectivity in a particularly precarious light.
Perhaps one ought ask what is “most ideal?”
Is it numbers? Or is it, in the end – productivity, creativity and ‘helpfulness’ in/from a utility?
If 600 users rate a utility as having ‘poor quality’ and one user finds a ‘good’ quality in it which was until then MISSED – and uses that to greater advantage – that would be a good thing Despite the many.
What are the consequences of Seeking a rating of “Quality?”
And – indeed, what is it’s purpose and desire in that rating?
Everyone Will have an impression of the utility’s “quality” whether that is asked for or to be rated or not.
I for one, think that sufficient.
The risks posed to a utility’s service and service-longevity based on an evaluation That subjective and inevitable for each user who downloads and views it – outweigh it’s evaluative-usefulness (IMHO).

The pre-supposition there seems to be that “this utility has this quality in-itself:” – which is at-bottom a lie. The quality of anything is in it’s usefulness or delight to the viewer…

That utility which evokes my negative-evaluation regarding it’s quality, may be the same one you use to produce something of great beauty or effect…
So what’s the point in evaluating it under a pretense that *that* evaluation matters at all?

..Just my two cents…
Please pardon my intrusion…

-v/r –

- Lioness

@ Achaean Lionness

Thank you for your „two cents” and your interest in the topic.

The four categories above were the result of long discussions in the first utility thread. We all had different ideas about the categories to include. Novelty was found to be already in Utility and Creativity. If it is not new or at least has new aspects about a known thing, it can not be useful or creative. Playability aspects in a utility were found to be either useful (Utility), creative (Creativity) or educational/instructive (Instructions). So both categories were dropped and Ingo gave up on Novelty as a category. If you are interested how the agreement was reached, you find it under the below link somewhere at the end. Please do not top that one.

http://aok.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/aokcgi/display.cgi?action=ct&f=4,28617,0,all

Regarding Quality, a known utility can be of a better quality than the ones before, like the tenth volcano but the first with realistic eruptions and lava. If you rate sounds, quality is important. A new trigger/AI can be new, useful, creative, but still buggy, so the quality rating is touched.

Please feel free to intrude at any time.

@ Cknchaos

Thank you.

I was working on all categories at the same time, including a score breakdown, explaining how to rate each and every category. I will look into my notes to see what I can post in the topic tomorrow.

I never loaded the utility you reviewed. I was concerned about the multiple use of the word simple. Your explanations were sufficient.

Let us concentrate on the topic. You agree on Instructions? I you do, I propose Utility as the next category.

Thanks very much, Tanneur99,

Of course, I’m by nature inclined towards radical individualism and my philosophical-orientation will reflect that as well: owing to that, I’ve never made a good “pragmatist” … ..and I’m sure enough that the consensus reached is the best all-around for a diverse community to ‘use’ (not to understand philosophically).
There simply is nothing to discuss or ‘argue’ so to speak which isn’t purely academic at this point, I suppose.

The only elaboration I would, if I may is to follow up on this note:

“Novelty was found to be already in Utility and Creativity.”

That’s the point.
Well, I don’t see it’s inclusion in “Utility” as such, but it’s certainly included in “Creativity.”
But to allow also for “Novelty,” as a criterion, is a further refinement to the “Creativity” evaluation.

To my thinking, it only makes sense to include a “Novelty” category in this respect, since that would further distinguish the contents of the Utility in an ‘evaluative-description.”

Hope this makes sense so-stated…
I’m not arguing with anyone about anything – merely stating my view and opinion as it is.

As I say, I’m confident you all settled on those points in a result most-pragmatic for a diverse community to use.

It’s been delightful to have this little glimpse into the thought processes involved to that end tho’ – for which I repeat my thanks that you thought to share that here, as well…

Sorry I wasn't here for the first round...

-v/r –

- Lioness

Quote:

Yes,we agreed on instructions a long time ago.If i remember right,below are some of the points to be considered while reviewing this category:-

# Are there in-game instructions that describe what you are seeing?
# Are there detailed pe-game instructions(hints) which help the user create the following tricks or do the in-game instructions itself give the details?
# Are the instructions understandable(i.e has the author made use of proper english)?

But,i have come across some unusual cases where:-
1.The tricks are simple and self-explanatory,so the author did'nt really feel it necessary to give any details.

2.In the hints section,the author tells "To learn how to create the following tricks,look in the triggers sections".In the trigger section,the author has properly grouped and named the triggers according to the effect they perform and there are instructions in the "trigger description" which explain the purpose of that particular trigger.

3.The utility consists of map-copy tricks,so here too,the author did'nt really feel the need to give any details as it is easier to map-copy them.

So Tanneur,what's your opinion on reviewing the Instructions category in such cases.Also,would you like to add/remove anything from the points(#).

@ Achaean Lionness

Below an example where I rated novelty in the Utility category:

“UTILITY: The utility is in the eye-candy area, as the explosions do not add to the game. No novelty factor and the same volcano after 4 days can not be useful.
- Even if you had the same idea and you did not copy, as stated under author’s description, there is no utility for the second.

CREATIVITY: There is nothing new or creative, apart from having the same idea at almost the same time, to do a crater out of cliffs.”

Another example would be a utility at the blacksmith which used hidden units from Enrique Orduno’s Template. The items are very useful to designers and often used already. Disregarding the novelty factor in the Utility I would be forced to score high in that category, but how can it be useful, if it shows the same items we can find in another utility?

@ Cknchaos

Quote: “# Are there in-game instructions that describe what you are seeing? # Are there detailed pe-game instructions(hints) which help the user create the following tricks or do the in-game instructions itself give the details? # Are the instructions understandable(i.e has the author made use of proper english)?”

I think, hope that these points are covered. The first two are included in the above topic:

“-are the instructions and explanations of a Utility's content and/or use sufficient?”

Regarding proper English is covered in AngelSpineman’s tutorial. The Utility Tutorial is only covering the specific categories and score breakdowns of Utilities, but not replacing the original tutorial. A reviewer should read both tutorials and review utilities according to them. I will edit the topic later today to make that clear, good point I should have started with that.

Quote: “1.The tricks are simple and self-explanatory,so the author did'nt really feel it necessary to give any details.”

If that is your opinion you answer the question: “-are the instructions and explanations of a Utility's content and/or use sufficient?” with YES!

Quote: “2.In the hints section,the author tells "To learn how to create the following tricks,look in the triggers sections".In the trigger section,the author has properly grouped and named the triggers according to the effect they perform and there are instructions in the "trigger description" which explain the purpose of that particular trigger.

I am not sure what you mean. What does trigger section stand for?

Quote: “3.The utility consists of map-copy tricks,so here too,the author did'nt really feel the need to give any details as it is easier to map-copy them.”

The author is not obliged to disclose the details in that case. He offers to the designer a utility whose purpose is to use his new items via map copying.

A tough question is if he should explain how to map copy and I am afraid that I can not give a guideline in that case to each and every utility. The reviewer should have the right and feel free to interpret the guidelines. Take an eye-candy of new buildings to map copy for example. The utility is for inexperienced designers and probably the author should explain how to copy and paste, as this is a FAQ from beginners. I think LoRd_YuRi_NiNjA did explain this for one of his eye-candy utilities and I would probably round his rating up for that if necessary. Take Rasher’s or Ordono’s Template from where Ingo copied for Ulio. I do not think that the explanation would be necessary in their utility.

This topic has been edited 10/23/02

@ Thurdl01

I hope you don’t mind that I used parts of the text from your Random Map Script Reviewing Tutorial. Your text was too good to write everything new.

Quote:

the trigger section is the trigger menu where the triggers are created.What i meant was that ever so often,i see utilities where the author mentions "to learn how to do the following tricks,see the trigger menu".the author has properly grouped and named(labeled) the triggers according to the effect they perform and there are instructions in the "trigger description"(the message box that appears when you select a trigger) which explain the purpose of that particular trigger.

I'm sure in such a case too,the "-are the instructions and explanations of a Utility's content and/or use sufficient?" applies.But would you further go on to critisice the author for not giving the details on how to create the trick in the hints and causing inconvenience for the user by forcing him to go through the trigger menu?

Quote:

I thought as much.Map-copy tricks are complex as it requires buildings to be positioned in a very specific position and it most certainly would be a tough challenge for the author to explain how to place them in that position.

Quote:

Ah,i understand.Angel Spineman's tutorial has covered up "use of proper english" and -are the instructions and explanations of a Utility's content and/or use sufficient? has covered up "details given by in-game and pre-game instructions".

I just have one question regarding "-is the information on the author's description page usefull".In my opinion,while reviewing a utility,we should only be considering what is in the utility.I agree with you,a proper description on the page makes the diffrence between someone thinking "this utility has no descent desc.,it'll probably be no diffrent from the other ones i've d/l,why should i even bother" to someone thinking "this utility sounds interesting,i'd better give it a try".But somehow,i don't feel it right to be be considering the desc. page while reviewing the utility.

Quote:

That would only be in the case of a scenario,my friend.You see,when a designer submits a scenario/campaign,he/she usually expects compliments as well as feedback on how to improve his/her project which is very helpfull while designing further projects.However in the case of a utility,the author usually intends only on sharing an idea with his/her fellow designers and does'nt really expect having feedback being given on how to improve his/her trick.Keep in mind,the sole purpose of a utility is to help the user,not the author.

Giving feedback to an author on how to improve a certain trick in his/her utility is as similar to giving feedback to a designer on how to improve a certain trick being used in his/her project(i.e we either compliment or critisice a trick used,never do we give our opininion on how it can be improved,'cause if we do feel it can be improved,we would be better of submitting a seperate utility of our own putting forth our view.(which explains why we see many utilities based on the same trick).The bottom line is,i don't really feel utility reviews should be constructive.We can however,give advice on how to improve the presentation of the utility(i.e QUALITY & INSTRUCTIONS)

yoohoo.Tanneur,you still around?

@ Cknchaos

Yes, I am, just kind of busy at the moment, you have to be a little patient with me. I hope to answer today, latest tomorrow.

Thank you all for helping my eyes stand very weird.

It is a lot of reading material.

@ Cknchaos

Quote: “would you further go on to critisice the author for not giving the details on how to create the trick”

I guess I would, but could you give me an example to look at it. It depends if the hint section is completely empty, are there other information? But again, how does the reviewer evaluates it, is important. Was it sufficient for you? Would an inexpierienced player have problems? Was it possible to explain it with a few words in the hint section or did the trigger section the job better?

Quote: “we should only be considering what is in the utility”

How many utilities do you want me to download before I find what I am looking for? In the topic the sentence in question says “helpful” not “useful”. IMHO that it what it is about, the title and the description should help the user to find what he is looking for and you really pointed at the problem correctly, how can a utility sound interesting with a blank description page?

Quote: “But somehow,i don't feel it right to be be considering the desc. page while reviewing the utility.”

I know what you mean. The three questions that determine the rating for instruction have not the same value, this problem I would like to discuss with you when it comes to the score breakdown.

Quote: “the sole purpose of a utility is to help the user,not the author.”

Quote: “We can however,give advice on how to improve the presentation of the utility(i.e QUALITY & INSTRUCTIONS)

I agree, how would that read?

Always remember that review serves two purposes: one to give the visitor a better idea of what they are downloading and two, to give the author some explanation on your rating. Reviews ultimately benefit the entire community so keep that in mind as you write your reviews.

I worked on the modpack reviewing tutorial for a while until I finished it and I dissmissed a lot of uneccessary categories, which I feel you have to. The thing you have to ask yourself when choosing categories is, "For what reasons should someone download the utlility?". You may want to refer to my Modpack Reviewing Tutorial for some ideas on Usefulness and Quality.

For Utility, you really need to call it Usefulness, since the question is, "Is this utility useful?". Playability is not a factor in an utility, you're not looking for replayability, how fun it is, or bugs in it, you're looking for a reason as to why you would use it. See my Usefulness category for some ideas.

As for Creativity, I shot that one down myself with the modpack reviewing tutorial, since it just really wasn't a factor and I don't see how it would be with a utlity either. The point of a utility is to show people how to do something or to give people something to use, not whether or not the author was creative in making the utility. Although I do agree that Novelty Value should be a factor/category.

As for Quality, I'm all for it. See my Quality category for more ideas.

And as for Instructions, I really think its more of a part of usefullness. Basically, you're asking, "are the instructions useful?" Which should be one of the factors with usefullness.

Alright... To the top with you. A promise is a promise.

@ Luke

Thank you for the sticky.

I hope you will also take part in the discussion. You find your two cents so far in the last quote of each category in post 2 of this topic. You find your comment for Instructions “Are there any pre-game instructions?” in the first two questions of how to rate that specific category in the above topic.

@ Tevious

Thank you fort the link, I did copy your tutorial and will use your ideas.

Was your tutorial ever published in the SD Forum?

Quote: “For Utility, you really need to call it Usefulness, since the question is, "Is this utility useful?".”

We called it Utility because we ask is it useful? is it new? is it effective? To call it Usefulness restricts the category to the one question only.

Quote: “Although I do agree that Novelty Value should be a factor/category.”

I do agree with you and Novelty is the most important factor for a utility. That is why it is rated double. Above you see that under the category Utility we ask is it new? We will ask the same question under Creativity. Creativity and Utility can only become a high rating if the Novelty factor is undoubted.

Quote: “for Instructions, I really think its more of a part of usefullness”

I fear that including the instructions into the Utility category could under/overvalue the ratings for Utility compared to Quality and Creativity. A new groundbreaking utility gets downgraded in the Utility rating only because of a lack of instructions. The utility can be very useful for designers by itself, even though the instructions are not, as to eliminate Instructions as a category would underrate its accessibility and by that its use.

@ Tanneur

Quote:

Damn,i remember seeing a utility like this a long time ago,but i can't seem to remember it's name.I'll tell you when i find it.

Quote:

i'm not very sure about Quality as we still have to get to that.As far as instructions go,if the utility provided poor instructions on how to create the included tricks,then we could advice the author on how he could improve his utility by providing better help for the user in his next possible creation.

I guess that answers all my questions regarding the category "INSTRUCTIONS".Unless you have something to ask,it's onward to "UTILITY".

@ Tevious

before i start,i'd like to note how utility's and modpacks are related.It'll be a lot easier while comparing.Modpacks are basically eye-candy and since they are used by installing,it's pretty similar to mapcopy eye-candys.(i.e Modpacks are more or less mapcopy eye-candy utilities)

Quote:

Utility literally means "to make use of"(i.e usefullness)

Quote:

that's quite obvious.

Quote:

here's where my earlier comparison comes into play.Keep in mind,we are'nt rating the creativity of the author,rather the creativity of the trick involved.In the case of modpacks,most modpacks are original ideas,so creativity is'nt really a category here.But in the case of utilities,we see many utilities based on the same idea.So,checking how this utility is different from similar utilities released before it is very important.

Quote:

we too agreed on this category,I'm sure we will look at it.

Quote:

LOL,"UTILITY" checks the usefullness of the utility and nothing else.As earlier said,as modpacks are similar to mapcopy utilities,explaining how to create the modpack is'nt neccesary and is quite frankly impossible.So,i agree "INSTRUCTIONS" cannot be considered either.But in the case of a utility,many of them being trigger trick utilities.Without proper explanations on how to create the tricks,the user cannot make use of them in his scenario.Afterall triggers cannot be copied or installed.

@ Tanneur99:

I'm afraid I don't have the time to participate, but I'm following this discussion with great interest.

Quote:

Its stickied in the Modpack Forum for now and is likely in the process of being official. Spineman doesn't want to mess with the Download sections and add the categories at the moment because he doesn't want to mess the Download sections up after he just got them working. It'll probably be added to the new Download system whenever he finishes it.

Quote:

I still think you should call it Usefulness.

Quote:

I'm talking about the same thing. It's pretty much the same "creativity" involved. In other words, what you said is what I meant.

Quote:

I also had Originality as a possible category once. There are some modpack ideas that were done more than once. But whether the idea has been done before should not be a factor. Even if a mod has been done before, it could be an improvement over the previous one or different in some way. If someone made a campaign on Tamerlane, should it get marked down because it's been done before? Nope. I found it to be best to avoid getting into Originality.

Quote:

I understand now. I was thinking of the category as "How useful the Instructions are?", rather than if it explains itself well enough on how to do what the utility is.

[This message has been edited by Tevious (edited 10-28-2002 @ 04:35 PM).]

Quote:

Oh,i see.

Quote:

Who ever said anything about undermining a utility since it's been done before.It would be rated high on creativity if it were "an improvement over the previous one or different in some way".

@ Tevious

Thank you for your helpful insights. I would like to finish instructions first and then do the other categories, to discuss further.

@ Cknchaos

Quote: “Unless you have something to ask,it's onward to "UTILITY".

Yes, could we have a look at the quotes in post 2, did I miss something important? Do the 3 questions to ask reflect sufficient what has to be rated in that category?

-does the title of the download reflect the purpose of the utility?

-is the information on the author’s description page helpful?

-are the instructions and explanations of a Utility's content and/or use sufficient?

And most important is, how to do the score breakdown for these questions. O.K. We start the score breakdown. The moment we agree it goes up. I am not sure yet how to fill the gap to get a fair rating. Anybody has some ideas?

1 - Very Poor: None of the above. The utility has a misleading title, empty or no helpful information on the author’s description page, insufficient instructions and explanations of the Utility's content and/or its use and no possibility of its replication.

2 - Poor:

3 - Average:

4 - Good: The title of the download reflects the purpose of the utility, the information on the author’s description page is helpful, the instructions and explanations of the utility's content and/or use are sufficient and show the possibility of its replication.

5 - Excellent: The title of the download reflects the purpose of the utility, the information on the author’s description page is excellent, the instructions and explanations of the utility's content and/or use are excellent and show the possibility of its replication.

I think that it depends how much a utility, that has been done before, is an improvement and better to decide to mark it down or not. I tried to find that out with my volcano reviews, which I fear I have to do again when this tutorial becomes official.
Sometimes I felt the next volcano deserves higher, sometimes the same rating even though it was better. Finally there was one that had everything, was better, different, big improvement, with eruptions, hot and cold lava, looked good, playable/creative elements to destroy buildings, kill people in the lava or walking up. In short, that volcano after many others deserved the highest rating.

Quote:

It's okay with me.Wait,maybe you should rewrite the second sentence as "does the information on the author's description page inform the user of the content of the utility" or something like that.The main purpose of the desc. page is to be helpfull as in informing the user on the content of the utility,not helpfull as in instructing how to create the included tricks).New reviewer's may get confused.

Quote:

Quote:

hmmmmm,i thought providing sufficient instructions was enough to help the user create the trick(i.e the author deserves a 5 for providing enough details to recreate the trick).I mean,could you define what "excellent instructions" are and how they differ from "sufficient instructions"?

As for the score breakdown:

2-Poor: The title of the download reflects the purpose of the utility, empty or no usefull information on the author's desc. page, the instructions and explanations of the utility's content and/or use are insufficient/blank and donot show the possibility of its replication.

3-Average: The title of the download reflects the purpose of the utility, the information on the author’s description page is helpful, however the instructions and explanations of the utility's content and/or use are insufficient/blank and donot show the possibility of its replication.(a fine example which can be found in most utilities).

@ Cknchaos

Yes, that makes it easier. I change the second and third sentence.

-does the title of the download reflect the purpose of the utility?

-does the information on the author’s description page explain the utility’s content?

-are the instructions and explanations of a utility's use or replication sufficient?

That will also change the score breakdown!

Could you review my Utilities please?

Magic amazon,leave a request at the "do you want a review" with the utilities you want reviewed.I will review them once the tutorial is complete.

CATEGORY CHANGE !

After I read again the posts of Archaen Lionness and Trevious, the last review of Dark_Aro and mailed Ingo van Thiel for some assistance, I came to the conclusion to disregard the question if a utility is new under the UTILITY category, to change the CREATIVITY category into NOVELTY and to also rate creativity, if applicable, under NOVELTY.

That's fine with me.Novelty does sound like a better category to me.

But are'nt we still discussing the score breakdown for INSTRUCTIONS and you have'nt answered my questions yet.

Quote:

*ahem* ...if i may?

Excellent Instructions: A Newbie could do (whatever the utility is for) following those instructions.

Sufficient Instructions: A person with some experience could do (whatever the utility is for) following those instructions, but a newbie might be left in the dark.

JH

Thank you Jawn henry.I guess that does explain the diffrence.I sure hope Tanneur has a similar opinion 'cause if he does,he may have to rewrite those points,it is a bit confusing.

@ All

I am still busy with real life and regarding AoK with play testing. The moment that’s done this topic will progress faster.

@ Jawn Henry

Thank you for explaining my point.

@ Cknchaos

Sorry I thought the category change was more important than the score breakdown. I have to rewrite the points, as we changed the questions for Instructions. Please be patient and I count on you for propositions.