Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I personally doubt that tag is necessary. Either it's just a part of heavy glitches, or it's a part of major skips, or a game doesn't have a boss :D But what's the other way to know what's really deserving than making a new poll? There you go guys.
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3042Y.html
Which is included in
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3041Y.html
as of now.
PS: post your thoughts about "Extreme resource management" as a possible new tag. It's obviously significant, since the level it's showcased here is mostly TAS-only, and it's also a great way to tell if a TAS is well-done. "Extreme resource management" is a sign of a good TASin taste :)
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
BTW, adelikat said earlier, he believes that any run which skips the final boss, even if the final boss alone was skipped, and the other 99% of the game is played, the run should be branched as "game-end glitch".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6438
Location: The land down under.
I personally don't mind the additional tags to games.
IRC chat about 2 days ago my proper thoughts of it.
[2014-05-23 18:59:16] <Spikestuff> But it helps the searching. So I kinda like it in that way because I want to search TASes that are glitched and skips everything how we have it is search up glitch branch you get everything this redefines it more and I like it more
So what my statement means if you don't understand it is that having more is fine, it's easier to condense the amount of results you can get if you combine two together.
Keep something that cleans the site a little more, especially if it's a little more helpful for the user.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
It's the other way around.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
Wait, isn't this poll basically asking the same thing as that other poll?
No, they are not asking the same thing.
This poll is skewed towards viewing tags as clutter, and wants to claim that this particular tag can be swallowed up by another tag.
The other poll is skewed towards viewing tags as search options, and therefore, the only consideration is usefulness, with clutter and potential similarity ignored.
In my personal opinion, I also think the poll choices in this poll are highly biased towards a certain viewpoint, whereas the other poll is closer to neutral.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
This poll focuses on the current state of things. For now, it shows that the tag is not that significant and the clutter can be noticed. Probably the issue will be covered after some improvements to the movie module happen. But the main problem I have with it is logical redundancy.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If there was near equality of the sets, then I would see logical redundancy. However, I do not see a near superset being a logical redundancy.
However, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
No, they are not asking the same thing.
This poll is skewed towards...
The other poll is skewed towards...
Yes, that's my point. They're basically asking the same thing but worded in a different way, so that they're both likely to get the exact opposite result. Not exactly practical ;)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Radiant wrote:
Yes, that's my point. They're basically asking the same thing but worded in a different way, so that they're both likely to get the exact opposite result. Not exactly practical ;)
Well, in feos's opinion, search abilities and the difference between equality and non-equal supersets are unimportant. He is trying to convince me that a superset implies redundancy, and that there are also clutter concerns.
To sway me, he created this poll built upon his bias.
It's for exactly reasons like this I don't take polls too seriously. One should read How to Lie with Statistics to understand these issues better.
I created the other poll to counterbalance the bias presented in this one. I would be very surprised if they don't show opposite results.
In conclusion, don't trust the polls, see what people have to say, and weigh the strength of their arguments.
To me, strong arguments will go through user psychology, what their needs are, how certain things may help or hurt.
To me, weak arguments are ones which are based upon a current but correctable issues with the site's interface.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
If people don't feel a need, and express it, who can then claim they do need that thing?
The other poll might have asked "do you need an option to do such a search?" and it would fit the user's minds. It instead asks "should we allow something you may not need?"
If no one really needs it, why should one allow it? If some set of things is already exhaustive, it's a bad habit to add something else. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
To clarify my position better:
I don't accept the argument that a near superset means the smaller entity should be removed. If I did accept the argument, then I'd have to go one stop further and notice that Heavy glitch abuse is also a near superset of Major skip glitch.
Since http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3041Y.html is nearly included in http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3055Y.html does that mean we should remove it? I think we're all agreeing no, and therefore I'm going to focus more on what is best for the user, and not theoretical conceptual problems.
I don't accept the argument that we need to limit tags because of clutter, because that's an argument to improve the site interface, not cripple a useful feature we have. I agree that we need to improve the site interface.
Therefore, to me, whether we should have a tag or not boils down to the following:
1) Does it provide useful information that is not implied by other tags?
2) Does it improve the ability to find kinds of runs on the site which a user may be looking for?
3) Are the runs listed by the tag not nearly ubiquitous, meaning, it can be used to locate an important minority subset of runs that we have. (If it's ubiquitous / majority, just browse the site directly. One doesn't place the word "the" in the glossary of a book.)
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Nach wrote:
I don't accept the argument that a near superset means the smaller entity should be removed. If I did accept the argument, then I'd have to go one stop further and notice that Heavy glitch abuse is also a near superset of Major skip glitch.
Let's actually examine that assumption. As of now, "Major skip glitch" is technically a part of "Heavy glitch abuse". But in fact, how people percept the idea of "Heavy glitch abuse" is similar to how our movies looked before "instant skips to game ends" became popular. Floating out of bounds is a heavy glitch abuse. That may be a general answer to some layman that might ask what is it. And when someone imagines "instant skip to end", it feels somewhat bigger of an abuse than we usually do here. Hence it needs a bigger name.
If you approach to it this way, these 2 tags express different things, different levels of glitch abuse. If they don't, some of them may be tweaked.
What is your answer to this question: why wouldn't we tag all kinds of glitch abuse that exists?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
If you approach to it this way, these 2 tags express different things, different levels of glitch abuse.
This is the exact argument that subsets and supersets are not equal, thank you for making my point for me.
feos wrote:
What is your answer to this question: why wouldn't we tag all kinds of glitch abuse that exists?
If it's a significant kind of glitch abuse that is present in several runs, it should be subject to the 3 criteria I listed earlier. If it passes, it should be tagged.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
If you approach to it this way, these 2 tags express different things, different levels of glitch abuse.
This is the exact argument that subsets and supersets are not equal, thank you for making my point for me.
Yeah, except we are talking about 2 different tag pairs. I'm saying that the idea under "Heavy glitch abuse" is different from "Major skip glitch". If the difference isn't expressed well enough, we should improve the names.
And yes, skipping a boss still feels like the same glitchiness level as floating OoB. They both are included into the idea that "Heavy glitch abuse" always used to represent.
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
What is your answer to this question: why wouldn't we tag all kinds of glitch abuse that exists?
If it's a significant kind of glitch abuse that is present in several runs, it should be subject to the 3 criteria I listed earlier. If it passes, it should be tagged.
1) Does it provide useful information that is not implied by other tags?
"Heavy glitch abuse" term doesn't address any of the methods that we actually use within that glitchiness level. Does it mean none of them is implied and we must add them all?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
And yes, skipping a boss still feels like the same glitchiness level as floating OoB.
Nach wrote:
BTW, adelikat said earlier, he believes that any run which skips the final boss, even if the final boss alone was skipped, and the other 99% of the game is played, the run should be branched as "game-end glitch".
If adelikat thinks a certain tag is the crux of an entire branch scheme, then it seems more than plain out of bounds.
As for the rest of the arguments you're making, they all seem to be based on some altruistic vision of the site you have which I'm not familiar with, or appear to me attack some other issue as opposed to the problem at hand.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
If adelikat thinks boss skips should be tagged as "Major skip glitch", then it's a subset of another idea.
Nach wrote:
As for the rest of the arguments you're making, they all seem to be based on some altruistic vision of the site you have which I'm not familiar with.
And yes, I expected you to fail talking about real matters. Let's go personal now.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Well, "boss skip glitch" has the advantage of being clear and objectively definable.
"Major skip glitch" strikes me as very similar to "major glitch abuse", and both of those are subjective, and not applied consistently.
TAS'ing is about precision, so being precise in tagging is a good thing. If that means breaking up a vague superset tag into clearer subset tags, that's clearly an improvement.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I said enough times how "clear" is subjective.
Radiant wrote:
"Major skip glitch" strikes me as very similar to "major glitch abuse", and both of those are subjective, and not applied consistently.
So you don't think when majority of the game is skipped needs a tag? No problem. But as I said, "heavy glitch abuse" is usually understood as not as heavy as skipping to game end. ACE and game end skips make that tag somewhat "medium glitch abuse" now. True, it was heavy when it was added. Now that level of glitchiness isn't maximal.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
For me, "heavy glitch abuse" is not how heavy glitch is.
It's how frequently they used, or how many of them.
So, if there is one ACE to game end, I would not say that it's "heavy glitch abuse".
About clutter of tags. I would like to see button "see all tags" for each movie. Most expensive (common) tags are always visible, and all other tags - is hidden until you press "see all tags". As result, you may have a lot of tags for same movie, including very specific tags.
Tags - for search, if you want more info, see publication and description.
