Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
It's been pointed out to me on several occasions that it's detrimental to have someone "claim" an encode and then not work on it for several days.
I encouraged the practice of posting to indicate that you're working on an encode to avoid duplication of effort; extending this to "claiming" an encode is, in my view, silly, particularly when one person is "claiming" several encodes at once. You can't possibly work on more than one - maybe two if you're really on top of things.
So, I'm asking all encoders to only indicate that they're working on one or two movies at most at any given time, particularly those that you are actively working on.
Also, don't use the word "claim"; this isn't a formal process like judging (except where publication is concerned).
That is all.
Joined: 5/25/2007
Posts: 399
Location: New England
I have a suggestion to make the encoding communication less obstrusive for (the majority of) people who just want to see comments about a submitted run: Indicate you're working on an encode by appending to the submission text (like with judging) rather than posting a message. This makes intuitive sense to me as well b/c these messages eg "working on HD encode" are processing-related, rather than commentary on the run itself.
Perhaps you could then figure out a standard way to inline the encodes just underneath (or above?) the player's comments -- making for both less message clutter and a more convenient/standardized user experience. Once the relevant encode(s) are posted, that text could be deleted.
Just a suggestion...you guys are the best!
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The problem with Lord Tom's suggestion is not all of our encoders have the ability to edit submission texts (that's a privilege restricted, at present, to vested editors and up).
Those that do have those privileges normally do add encodes to the header of the submission text.
How about just banning the whole claiming process?
Well, techincally, "claiming" is now banned.
However, if you are currently dumping a movie, it would be silly to have someone else start as well.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
DarkKobold wrote:
[[I]]f you are currently dumping a movie, it would be silly to have someone else start as well.
Exactly. As I said, I encouraged this in the first place to prevent duplication of effort. Those of you with long memories may remember a time when several encodes would turn up for popular runs whereas runs of less-well-known games would languish without encodes; this clearly wasn't the best use of our collective encoding talent.
I have a suggestion to make the encoding communication less obstrusive for (the majority of) people who just want to see comments about a submitted run: Indicate you're working on an encode by appending to the submission text (like with judging) rather than posting a message. This makes intuitive sense to me as well b/c these messages eg "working on HD encode" are processing-related, rather than commentary on the run itself.
Perhaps you could then figure out a standard way to inline the encodes just underneath (or above?) the player's comments -- making for both less message clutter and a more convenient/standardized user experience. Once the relevant encode(s) are posted, that text could be deleted.
Just a suggestion...you guys are the best!
No matter how I tell it, I just like to tell I'm doing the job.
If it really annoys people to post a reply telling I'm encoding, then what you said is a great idea.
But there's a single problem. Not all encoder is an editor.
How about just banning the whole claiming process?
Well, techincally, "claiming" is now banned.
However, if you are currently dumping a movie, it would be silly to have someone else start as well.
I'm not sure if the issue really is with dumping; I dump several videos ahead of time. Encoding takes a long time, and unless you've got a good rhythm down, odds are, you won't be able to process 7 dumps in a few days. The solution is simple; know your limits, and work within them. Is that asking too much? :\
good rhythm down, odds are, you won't be able to process 7 dumps in a few days. The solution is simple; know your limits, and work within them. Is that asking too much? :\
Yes, because most submissions get their views in the first day or two of sitting on the workbench. Hence why having an encode ASAP can get less popular movies the votes necessary to accept or reject. I would say the vast majority of people who watch a submission and vote will only do so if there is an encode to start.
It would take way too much overhead to change, but I'd love it if authors could voluntarily submit to a waiting area, where they wouldn't hit the workbench (and be viewable to the public) until they had an encode. This would help a lot of submissions get votes and views.
But, it is a pipe dream. It would take too much overhaul of the submission process.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
good rhythm down, odds are, you won't be able to process 7 dumps in a few days. The solution is simple; know your limits, and work within them. Is that asking too much? :\
Yes, because most submissions get their views in the first day or two of sitting on the workbench. Hence why having an encode ASAP can get less popular movies the votes necessary to accept or reject. I would say the vast majority of people who watch a submission and vote will only do so if there is an encode to start.
It would take way too much overhead to change, but I'd love it if authors could voluntarily submit to a waiting area, where they wouldn't hit the workbench (and be viewable to the public) until they had an encode. This would help a lot of submissions get votes and views.
But, it is a pipe dream. It would take too much overhaul of the submission process.
Some authors upload dumps. Those are fine for deciding whether you want to vote for it or not. HD and SD encodes only become relevant when they are set for publication; in fact, I think we'd have less issues if author's uploaded their dumps and encoders only worked on the ones that are ready for publication. I mean, I literally see claims minutes after a movie's been submitted. That's just silly.
Some authors upload dumps. Those are fine for deciding whether you want to vote for it or not. HD and SD encodes only become relevant when they are set for publication; in fact, I think we'd have less issues if author's uploaded their dumps and encoders only worked on the ones that are ready for publication. I mean, I literally see claims minutes after a movie's been submitted. That's just silly.
I'd agree if authors have their own dump prepared, there is no reason to rush to have an encode. However, an author with their own encode is a rarity, not the majority. Most authors can't do their own encodes. If a movie is encoded right away, that is a good thing.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Some authors upload dumps. Those are fine for deciding whether you want to vote for it or not. HD and SD encodes only become relevant when they are set for publication; in fact, I think we'd have less issues if author's uploaded their dumps and encoders only worked on the ones that are ready for publication. I mean, I literally see claims minutes after a movie's been submitted. That's just silly.
I'd agree if authors have their own dump prepared, there is no reason to rush to have an encode. However, an author with their own encode is a rarity, not the majority. Most authors can't do their own encodes. If a movie is encoded right away, that is a good thing.
OK, then here's an idea: how about we make it policy for encoders that they only work on published runs, and another class of user can just upload dumps? I mean, if the author of the run knows how to produce a high quality HD encode, that's their right, but having us do this kind of work for them is a privilege that should be earned by creating a TAS worth publishing.
Some authors upload dumps. Those are fine for deciding whether you want to vote for it or not. HD and SD encodes only become relevant when they are set for publication; in fact, I think we'd have less issues if author's uploaded their dumps and encoders only worked on the ones that are ready for publication. I mean, I literally see claims minutes after a movie's been submitted. That's just silly.
I'd agree if authors have their own dump prepared, there is no reason to rush to have an encode. However, an author with their own encode is a rarity, not the majority. Most authors can't do their own encodes. If a movie is encoded right away, that is a good thing.
OK, then here's an idea: how about we make it policy for encoders that they only work on published runs, and another class of user can just upload dumps? I mean, if the author of the run knows how to produce a high quality HD encode, that's their right, but having us do this kind of work for them is a privilege that should be earned by creating a TAS worth publishing.
This isnt a buisness & encoding work isnt the focus of TASVideos at all. So trying to forcefully split people into seperate jobs to maintain this isnt going to do much in the main run since this might cause people to stop encoding in general.
Some authors upload dumps. Those are fine for deciding whether you want to vote for it or not. HD and SD encodes only become relevant when they are set for publication; in fact, I think we'd have less issues if author's uploaded their dumps and encoders only worked on the ones that are ready for publication. I mean, I literally see claims minutes after a movie's been submitted. That's just silly.
I'd agree if authors have their own dump prepared, there is no reason to rush to have an encode. However, an author with their own encode is a rarity, not the majority. Most authors can't do their own encodes. If a movie is encoded right away, that is a good thing.
OK, then here's an idea: how about we make it policy for encoders that they only work on published runs, and another class of user can just upload dumps? I mean, if the author of the run knows how to produce a high quality HD encode, that's their right, but having us do this kind of work for them is a privilege that should be earned by creating a TAS worth publishing.
This isnt a buisness & encoding work isnt the focus of TASVideos at all. So trying to forcefully split people into seperate jobs to maintain this isnt going to do much in the main run since this might cause people to stop encoding in general.
I'm simply prioritizing. We'd have to have way more encoders than we currently have to create an HD / SD / 512kb of every submission. It's simply not a realistic goal. Uploading dumps for every submission is. I don't see how this would deter encoders from encoding; what do you mean?
OK, then here's an idea: how about we make it policy for encoders that they only work on published runs, and another class of user can just upload dumps? I mean, if the author of the run knows how to produce a high quality HD encode, that's their right, but having us do this kind of work for them is a privilege that should be earned by creating a TAS worth publishing.
Alright, I have to clear up this painful misconception on why we publish movies. Getting published isn't an 'earned privilege' due to hard work. In fact, lots of hard work has gone into submissions that were not published. Published movies represent the subset of movies the audience finds most entertaining, and thus best help the site provide entertaining movies of superhuman play.
All this talk of privilege and rights and earning and worth and etc sounds arrogant, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It also insults people who worked hard on a TAS that didn't get published due to game choice. It isn't that they didn't work hard enough, or don't "deserve it", it is because the movie doesn't represent what we want on the site.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
OK, then here's an idea: how about we make it policy for encoders that they only work on published runs, and another class of user can just upload dumps? I mean, if the author of the run knows how to produce a high quality HD encode, that's their right, but having us do this kind of work for them is a privilege that should be earned by creating a TAS worth publishing.
Alright, I have to clear up a painful misconception on why we publish movies. Getting published isn't an 'earned privilege' due to hard work. In fact, lots of hard work has gone into publications that were not published. Published movies represent the subset of movies the audience finds most entertaining, and thus best help the site provide entertaining movies of superhuman play.
All this talk of privilege and rights and earning and worth and etc sounds arrogant, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I apologize for my tone. All I'm trying to say is that publication has some benefits, and I think an HD encode should be one of them. Inevitably, I know that we have no means of controlling what an encoder does. All I'm saying is we should be encouraging encoders to meet our priorities, and from what I understand, we both agree the most important thing is that submissions have streams quickly, and that publications have HD, SD, and 512kb files. One way of fulfilling this goal is to encourage all users to upload dumps of runs in the submissions. This includes encoders as well, and I'm not sure why I was suggesting a different user group earlier.
It is my understanding that most encoders care more about keeping the site running than the particular run they are encoding. Sure, I have favorites, but I'll encode games I've never played just to help out the site. So, assuming that the people who encode for submissions don't love every single run they are doing HD encodes for, I'm not sure why they'd be against this seemingly time saving idea.
Btw, when an encode has been done, simply editing the submission text (to embed the youtube video or whatever) will not cause the forum listing to show that there's something new in that thread. Unless someone makes a new post on the thread, many people might miss the encode (and hence not vote).
In that sense at least when an encode is available making a post about it might be a good idea.
That's true, I often find myself checking back repeatedly on some threads on the Workbench just to see if an encode has already/finally been added. Would it be feasible to slightly modify the thread names to indicate an encode has been added? I'm thinking of something simple like this:
#3111: Comicalflop's N64 Yoshi's Story "any%" in 11:00.23 (not yet encoded)
#3111: Comicalflop's N64 Yoshi's Story "any%" in 11:00.23 (encoding)
#3111: Comicalflop's N64 Yoshi's Story "any%" in 11:00.23
One downside could be that this'd maybe make the Workbench look like a total mess. Adding a status column would probably be a better idea, but I don't know how easy it'd be to implement that. Anyway, it would be nice having a way to check on the status without having to open the respective threads.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
I agree with Kuwaga's suggestion, if it is put in form of a Vested Editor/Publisher exclusive subset of radio box buttons (Essentially, splitting the submissions current status into Judging status and Encoding status).
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Add a checkbox for encode & allow 'Encoders' to check it.
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: 5/25/2007
Posts: 399
Location: New England
Checkbox/encode status sounds like a great idea if not too difficult to implement. Perhaps for display purposes there could be status icons that go next to the movie name, rather than a separte column - that would make it visible from the front page and main submit page.
I guess it's an admin call whether giving encoders edit priveleges is worth it on the forum-clutter issue. It'd be nice to get that communication out of the forums, however it's accomplished, but no big deal - most important is you're able to coordinate your encodes (whether it's "claiming" or not isn't relevant to me as a player/viewer).
Well, for whatever reason, people seemed to have dropped my idea, so I'll leave it at this: if you are submitting a TAS, I recommend dumping the AVI, uploading it to YouTube, and including it in the submission text. If you don't know how to do that, or you don't have an uncapped account for your long TAS, please contact me and I will help you / upload to my channel. If you are an encoder, please, prioritize your encodes towards accepted runs, and if you want to provide a streaming link for a submission that is missing it, please just upload the dumped AVI. If everyone thinks this is bad to include in the encoder guidelines, then it doesn't have to be added, but I don't see where all the negativity is coming from.
Well, for whatever reason, people seemed to have dropped my idea, so I'll leave it at this: if you are submitting a TAS, I recommend dumping the AVI, uploading it to YouTube, and including it in the submission text. If you don't know how to do that, or you don't have an uncapped account for your long TAS, please contact me and I will help you / upload to my channel. If you are an encoder, please, prioritize your encodes towards accepted runs, and if you want to provide a streaming link for a submission that is missing it, please just upload the dumped AVI. If everyone thinks this is bad to include in the encoder guidelines, then it doesn't have to be added, but I don't see where all the negativity is coming from.
I think this is a good idea.
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
Normally i would say Yes, but thennI thought "its not the same hack" so ill stick with meh.
Even simpler than radio buttons and status icons, there is a phpBB2 mod that allows topics to have a description, I have it installed on a forum I maintain:
And from the admin panel you can do the magic to allow only encoders:
I am not sure if it can be found on the phpBB website since they deprecated phpBB2, but I have it saved in a backup folder and I'd be glad to mirror it for you, if needed.
And from the admin panel you can do the magic to allow only encoders:
I am not sure if it can be found on the phpBB website since they deprecated phpBB2, but I have it saved in a backup folder and I'd be glad to mirror it for you, if needed.
