I thought this would be a good idea for "obsoleting" outdated publications.
The discussion about unpublication has been brought up before but think this could be a good compromise. If this were published, any movie could be set as "obsoleted by" the publication grue. This can be useful in some publications where a movie is indeed obsolete (due to an abundance of new tricks, or a change in TASVideos quality standards) but has no movie for which to replace it.
The currently published any% version of Ocarina of Time is a good example where the current run is heavily outdated and improvable by about an _hour_! Yet we are nowhere near seeing an improvement. In such a case it could be obsoelted by the publication grue. This way the movie stays on the site (and treated just like any other obsoleted movie) but is not displayed as a current "record".
The actual movie file for this submission is moot. I picked .fm2 since it was text and allows me to explain the purpose of it. I chose rerecord counts and movie length as such that they wouldn't mess with site statistics in any meaningful way. If published it would be in its own unique "Grue" category so it would not interfere with movie lists.
I could have brought this up in a discussion thread but I thought a submission would be more appropriate and a better attention getter. Voting yes on publication of this is voting for this implementation of "unpublication". Any movies it would obsolete, however, should have their own poll or discussion beforehand.
Commence discussion.
On a side note, if published, I think we could have a lot of fun with the video file & screenshot ^_^
adelikat: Rejecting this submission due to not being popular by the audience.
adelikat: Changing system ID so that I can "grue" the Grue ID
I think I agree with Chef Stef agreeing with Mukki's post. There are some movies that would never be published nowadays because of the game choice or goals. A full movie of these, or an optimized improvement wouldn't really help much, and is in some cases unlikely to happen. There are only a few of these cases, but I think Mukki's solution of deleting the publication and setting the submission to rejected in those few cases might be a good idea.
For movies that can be improved, but where there is no fundamental flaw in the game choice, I'd say leave them as they are. If the can be improved, they will be one day. I also think there is nothing wrong with a movie getting outdated by new tricks that are found... that doesn't make the quality of the current movie worse, some things just aren't included. If the technical quality is really bad, than it was lucky to slip by the judging process once, but this is hard to check either way, and it will be obsoleted eventually. There is no need to label movies with known improvements... basically every published movie can be improved anyway.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I agree with Mukki
Delete F-zero and Top Gear. They break the rules, and one is highly boring (3.3 overall rating), while the other is improvable by 1'30" (for a 2' run).
OoT, while horribly out-dated and embarrasing, at least completes the game. Since the only true attempts at obsoletion have been just as embarrasing, I suggest retroactively obsoleting it with the "all quests" movie.
Overall, I find this too hackish of an idea to have many positive qualities. There are really only 3 movies that people bring up during these conversations, and they've already been mentioned.
On the other hand, in a similar way that some rejected grue submissions were revived for a chance at publication this past year, we could do a similar thing for questionable publications: send the discussion thread back to the workbench, reset the poll, and ask people if the movie should remain published. Then the same process is followed, with as much input gathered as possible.
Edit: I somewhat misunderstood the purpose of this proposed system, it still is a bit of a hackish way of dealing with the situation, but I can't think of a much better one other than outright deletion.
I don't agree that a players pride should be of more value than having a site with high quality movies. Removing movies that are not of high standards from the site sounds good to me.
I don't agree that a players pride should be of more value than having a site with high quality movies. Removing movies that are not of high standards from the site sounds good to me.
I would much rather see a good speedrun than no speedrun at all under a game listing. Even if the movie doesn't take advantage of certain superior routes and techniques.
--Unintentional MOD edit removed the first paragraph of this post, Oops :(--
as i said, instead of unpublishing runs, we should focus on improving them
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Mukki wrote:
I don't see any compelling reason to clutter the publication pages with grue publications.
This is a big misunderstanding. There would only be ONE grue publication, and it would obsolete various movies (theoretically). Also, as you can see from the submission itself the platform classification would be "Grue" thus it would not show up in any move listings.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
nicos wrote:
as i said, instead of unpublishing runs, we should focus on improving them
I agree 100%
However, people aren't. So what am I supposed to do as an admin? Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
I would like a way to handle the situation.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I think this idea in general is horrible.
We have a process for publishing movies, what process would there be for unpublishing, that someone finds one frame where it can be improved? We'd be effectively opening the door to flush every movie down the drain.
fruitbane wrote:
Rather than obsoleting, maybe there could be an icon or flag, like the star for starred runs, that indicates that it is known the run can be improved but simply hasn't been. Maybe a ripe fruit icon indicating the run is ripe for obsolescence. This, too, would preserve the history. It's just one extra metadata element/field in a database.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Personally, I think a much better implementation would be to add a new movie category called "Stale" or "Improvable by a large margin".
I can agree with these two sentiments. I think they're more sensible, than obsoleting by a fake movie.
However, the whole idea is a can of worms. If we get a substandard submission, why don't we just publish it as known improvable right off the bat, instead of rejecting it?
adelikat wrote:
This method offers a few advantages.
#1 it keeps the history chain in tact
Does it? Only in light of #4, but has to be manually updated in a separate form, which might as well be forgotten about, as it's an obsoleted movie.
adelikat wrote:
#2 obsoletion is currently coded as an "obsoleted by" system. It needs to be fed something, so this serves as an easy place holder
And there's a ton more to it than that.
The obsoletion system in turns generates hints to Google and other spiders how to index our site.
I made it so that a published movie should appear high in Google, while what it obsoleted should fade into the background.
In terms of using a search engine, this system would effectively make certain games with a TAS obsoleted in this method not appear in search results, leading those searching for us to turn elsewhere.
adelikat wrote:
#3 the publication page would serve as a place to see all movies obsoleted in this manner
How is that a good thing?
We want people to come to some random page, with bogus downloads, and dozens of links elsewhere?
adelikat wrote:
#4 should a movie be obsoleted this way then later improved, it can easily be changed so that the new movie obsoletes it instead.
See my response to #1.
moozooh wrote:
I agree with fruitbane and CtrlAltDestroy wholeheartedly.
Obsoleting movies this way is really no much different from unpublication, because this would effectively open the gates to saying "we don't want this movie here" to any outdated movie the staff doesn't particularly like, retroactively calling their publication a mistake.
I agree with this too. But also see what I said above.
I think we're better with an alternate system which doesn't phantom obsolete or unpublish runs.
Something more subjective may be a system where any movie with >10 voters and is below a rating of 4 is hidden by default. See Slashdot's rating system for example.
Basically, when you browse the site, you browse as seeing all publications over a certain score. You can click a button on the side to lower your standards and see more stuff.
Further, a voting system for requesting an update can be useful. Where we can have players of a certain rank and above vote on which movies they think can be improved and they'd like to see an improvement of (even if they're already of good quality and high rating). And the movie can be marked as such. We can tie it into awards, and offer an award for best obsoletion of anticipated obsoletions, to provide a bit more incentive to do so as well.
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.
Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
I would like a way to handle the situation.
we shouln't erase our own history :p
but if you find those movies realy hurting, you should edit the submition text with something like
"this movie was made XX years ago, and can easily be improved, give it a try"
of course there is a lie on the "easily" but at least it would give newcomers something to begin with...
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Nicos wrote:
we shouln't erase our own history :p
Which is precisely what spawned my idea of this grue. This gets rid of the run without removing for the site. And even better, should an improvement come along, it be changed so the improvement is the one doing the obsoletion. This allows business as usual, but in the meantime at least we aren't featuring something with a bad site image.
So what am I supposed to do as an admin? Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
I think that this would actually cause the sites image to get hurt rather than fixing it. If your going to publish this to unpublish old movies then thats basically chasing the people that you want to bring to this site away. And that doesnt make any sense.
If you want to do something about the old movies here, them maybe put something like a disclaimer somewhere rather thatn removing the author's work out of view.
I hope this helps in any decision.
I'd just tag the movie with a note that says something like "we are aware there are improvements to this movie; in case you still want to watch it, go ahead, enjoy" and move on.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
No. I think it's perfectly acceptable to keep old runs around, even if they're potentially improvable by a lot or have sibling runs that are much more impressive. Most of the people that don't visit the forum to a very large degree probably won't be bothered by the knowledge that something is not entirely optimal. Entertainment value doesn't age that quickly.
On a side note, I think that using a fake submission to remove such runs is a rather strange way to do it. It's kind of an abuse of the system since the movies themselves aren't really being obsoleted, and Grue is not a real run. That's of less concern, but still.
Bisqwit wrote:
I'd just tag the movie with a note that says something like "we are aware there are improvements to this movie; in case you still want to watch it, go ahead, enjoy" and move on.
I think this is a better idea. In fact, you might even want to consider showing the tag only to users that are logged in. Given that the average viewer has a hard time understanding the concept of tool-assisted speedruns to begin with, I'd imagine a tag like that would not matter all that much in any case.
For clarity, to the unregistered users we might just want to say "this is a relatively old run. try looking at this newer, more impressive run of the same game."
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Bisqwit wrote:
I'd just tag the movie with a note that says something like "we are aware there are improvements to this movie; in case you still want to watch it, go ahead, enjoy" and move on.
What about Top Gear, which is no more than a glorified WIP, and people clearly haven't enjoyed watching it?
For all intents and purposes, I've never been a huge fan of having an entirely static publication system, where one decision is made, and that decision should stay until the end of time. It's because of this mentality that we still have movies like Combatribes and B.O.B. Having an occasional review of the content we provide shouldn't be seen as erasing history, it should be seen as us making an attempt to keep our "product" at as high of a quality as we deem appropriate. Self-inspection is a way to grow, not something to fear.
I saw a really good suggestion for the tag of movies that we're trying to deal with here. Something along the lines of "new time saving techniques found." This implies that the movie was considered good for the time it was published, but progress has obsoleted it.
We have a process for publishing movies, what process would there be for unpublishing, that someone finds one frame where it can be improved? We'd be effectively opening the door to flush every movie down the drain.
Yes, I can see how a movie being improvable by 1 hour is the exact same thing as a movie being improvable by 1 frame. Completely equivalent, and both should be retroactively rejected, yes.
Why does this same pattern of "logic" always ensue in this type of discussions? Someone makes a suggestion and then someone else will invariably and without fail present a completely ridiculous slippery slope argument to counter it.
The slippery slope argument is not valid, has never been valid and will never be valid. Especially when it's so over the top and exaggerated as this one. (The difference between 1 hour and 1 frame is something like 5 orders of magnitude, which could just as well be astronomical in this context.) Please stop using it. It just doesn't work.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
We have a process for publishing movies, what process would there be for unpublishing, that someone finds one frame where it can be improved? We'd be effectively opening the door to flush every movie down the drain.
Yes, I can see how a movie being improvable by 1 hour is the exact same thing as a movie being improvable by 1 frame. Completely equivalent, and both should be retroactively rejected, yes.
Why does this same pattern of "logic" always ensue in this type of discussions? Someone makes a suggestion and then someone else will invariably and without fail present a completely ridiculous slippery slope argument to counter it.
The slippery slope argument is not valid, has never been valid and will never be valid. Especially when it's so over the top and exaggerated as this one. (The difference between 1 hour and 1 frame is something like 5 orders of magnitude, which could just as well be astronomical in this context.) Please stop using it. It just doesn't work.
The point in the argument is that we have no quantification setup for this obsoletion idea. Until there is one, 1 frame is exactly equal to 1 hour as well as 100 hours.
If there is some method which can quantify it however, then you would be correct.
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.
The point in the argument is that we have no quantification setup for this obsoletion idea.
Lots of things here can't be precisely quantified, but they don't need to. That's why we have a voting and a judging system: To overcome that problem. How do you quantify, for example, whether a submission is worthy of publication? You can't. That's why there's a voting and judging system in place. Just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
The point in the argument is that we have no quantification setup for this obsoletion idea.
Lots of things here can't be precisely quantified, but they don't need to. That's why we have a voting and a judging system: To overcome that problem. How do you quantify, for example, whether a submission is worthy of publication? You can't. That's why there's a voting and judging system in place. Just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Now you're saying exactly what I just said.
"We have a process for publishing movies, what process would there be for unpublishing, that someone finds one frame where it can be improved?"
Notice, it's a question.
Also notice the bolded part, what system do we use? There has been no talk as of yet how it would work exactly. Now you mention voting and judging. Okay, does that mean each movie has to be periodically reviewed? What system do you propose?
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.
I don't see how it's "embarassing", given that at the time most of these movies were pretty comparable to what you'd see back then
why not just add a note in the video description that the movie is fairly outdated? better than having a ghost publication obsoleting 27 different movies.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I'm amazed I'm about to say this, but...
I agree with Warp.
Retuning candidates to the workbench for discussion and judgement is how we've dealt with submissions and previously grue-d submissions, it would be the natural place for discussion to occur regarding unpublication. Discussion leading to a judgement is the basis for our system already, and I don't see it failing for a decision as serious as these.
