Re: The Quiz Evaluation Discussion/Debate
121. hozzászólás - 2011.02.26. 14:23:16
121. hozzászólás - 2011.02.26. 14:23:16
Do not think that this is the system we implemented right at the start (on the original servers) and it didn't change since. It changed a lot.
At the beginning, we had a very complicated system (something like Viridiel suggested...) Every question was evaluated by multiple players. If a huge majortiy accepted the question, it went through. If a huge majority rejected it, it got rejected. The system was checking the evaluators performance. If someone accepted too many questions which were rejected at the end, or vica versa, he lost the evaluator status.
Looks like the perfect system, right? Well, it didn't worked. At all. Tragical questions were accepted, and sometimes perfect questions were rejected. Why? Because the more people do a job, the less responsibilty they have, and the more of them has "suboptimal" skills and intelligence.
At the end, we realized that the result will be much more efficient, if we choose only a very few, but very intelligent, skilled and devoted people who do this right.
Back to the issue of accepting "sub-optimal" questions and correcting them. Believe or not, at the beginning, we did this. We did not want to make anyone unhappy by rejecting the question he/she worked on. So we accepted everything we could turn into a good question by correcting it. It was a horrible - and I mean, a HORRIBLE - amount of work. Like 20x or 30x more work like now. It was impossible to continue it on the long term. Yeah, yeah, we could select 20 more admins who do this, but there is no capacity for that, either in terms of rewarding them, or checking if they are doing their job right.
Same stands for writing an explanation for rejecting. And not only it would be a lot more work - then we would have to provide a kind of "customer service" line where people could argue about the explanation? It wouldn't make anything easier. 98% of the time whenever a question gets rejected, the reason is plain obvious from the automatic response and quiz rules, and even when it's not, people would just argue with the explanation as well.
And check it out - there are a lot of players, who have hundreds of accepted questions, and only a few rejected. So the system works. Yes, there are people too who have a lot of questions rejected - and eventually they give up on writing questions. But in most cases, this is not because the system is wrong, but because there are some people who are not that good at writing questions. Fortunately, the game is 100% enjoyable even without the quiz-writing aspect, it is left for those who really enjoy it, and are really good at it.
At the beginning, we had a very complicated system (something like Viridiel suggested...) Every question was evaluated by multiple players. If a huge majortiy accepted the question, it went through. If a huge majority rejected it, it got rejected. The system was checking the evaluators performance. If someone accepted too many questions which were rejected at the end, or vica versa, he lost the evaluator status.
Looks like the perfect system, right? Well, it didn't worked. At all. Tragical questions were accepted, and sometimes perfect questions were rejected. Why? Because the more people do a job, the less responsibilty they have, and the more of them has "suboptimal" skills and intelligence.
At the end, we realized that the result will be much more efficient, if we choose only a very few, but very intelligent, skilled and devoted people who do this right.
Back to the issue of accepting "sub-optimal" questions and correcting them. Believe or not, at the beginning, we did this. We did not want to make anyone unhappy by rejecting the question he/she worked on. So we accepted everything we could turn into a good question by correcting it. It was a horrible - and I mean, a HORRIBLE - amount of work. Like 20x or 30x more work like now. It was impossible to continue it on the long term. Yeah, yeah, we could select 20 more admins who do this, but there is no capacity for that, either in terms of rewarding them, or checking if they are doing their job right.
Same stands for writing an explanation for rejecting. And not only it would be a lot more work - then we would have to provide a kind of "customer service" line where people could argue about the explanation? It wouldn't make anything easier. 98% of the time whenever a question gets rejected, the reason is plain obvious from the automatic response and quiz rules, and even when it's not, people would just argue with the explanation as well.
And check it out - there are a lot of players, who have hundreds of accepted questions, and only a few rejected. So the system works. Yes, there are people too who have a lot of questions rejected - and eventually they give up on writing questions. But in most cases, this is not because the system is wrong, but because there are some people who are not that good at writing questions. Fortunately, the game is 100% enjoyable even without the quiz-writing aspect, it is left for those who really enjoy it, and are really good at it.
Pontszám: 5