Bad addon at the Motherlode

[Cham]

I don't believe in democracy even in politics. Just look at the US with Bush !

Well, ok, this is off topics

[alphap1us]

Ok, now I think we are getting somewhere. You are right that scientific accuracy is not a democratic standard, but I see no reason to believe that the average user of Celestia cannot make general quality judgements about an add-on as well as the skilled artists you mention. It is also a little unrealistic to plan systems that add extra steps between submission of an add-on and its inclusion in the catalog. This process takes far too long as it is and adding more will only delay it more.

Does anyone see objections to marking add-ons with an icon that indicates its scientifically accurate status? Coupled with a general measure of add-on quality, this would give most users all the info they ned to know. This is the solution that Harald and I prefer, as it benefits some add-ons, but does not cause an enormous amount of extra work for us.

We have also been working for many months on a way to package add-ons so that they are easy to install. Most modern add-ons are packaged correctly, but the old ones required a lot of work in some respect, just to get them to display correctly. Selden made a template zip package, but we could never agree on something that was easy enough, but also included all the instructions.

Cheers,
Joe

[Bob Hegwood]

Joe,

I still very much like the Comments/Rating ability to handle these issues.

If people would simply USE these resources to post their comments about
an add-on, then most of the other problems ought to repair themselves
shouldn't they?

I mean, if someone posts a comment telling people that one of my tours is
showing a non-realistic feature, then I'd certainly be interested in trying to
update the add-on.

Another idea... Any way to send a copy of the comments, when entered, to
the originator of the add-on? Perhaps this method could be used to let
someone at least know that someone has a problem with it.

Just a thought...

[Michael Kilderry]

1)
Establish a set of strict guidelines for what a Celestia Addon is. Then classify everything
that fall short of these guidelines as fan art. Fan art should include anything that is not real,
regardless of quality, of course.

-rthorvald

No offence Runar, but I don't agree, especially about fictional addons being considered as fan art. They should still be considered addons, but yes, we do need firm boundaries to split fact from fiction, to make sure people have an idea of what they are getting.

Ficticious: Runar, Jestr,...

Don't forget me! I like ficticious addons! I would really like to rate and give comments on them.

Michael Kilderry

[Guckytos]

I like that idea with an extra image (microskope) to designate the real addons, but this would have to be explained/showed on the first page of the motherlode in reaaaly huge letters, so that people who are new here know what that is about.
A reorganisation of the categories in the motherlode (like Addon and Fan art) would not be too good in my opinion.
But perhaps something like
Solar System
- Scientific
- Sol/Mercury.....
- Other
- Sol/Mercury......

And/Or the micorskope image??

I mean i am not the brightest one, when it comes to the scientific correctness of things like binary stars. So i have to trust people, that the addons on the motherlode are accurate.
A review board, like already discussed, which assigns that symbol to the addons would be a great help..

I don't think that the rating system on the ML is good on telling people how scientific accurate a thing is. And the comment section is a nice idea, but i doubt that people will read more than 5 short comments on an addon before downloading it or discarding the download (just thinking about my own habbit).

Well, now i have rambled a bit and told nothing really new. Just see my writing as a comment from a user that has only more or less rudimentary skills in astronomy and mostly uses Celestia for recreation and fascinating views of our great universe.
I use Celestia in two ways, one scientific, if going once again on a tour in the sol system or the nearby stars. And when i am doing this i want it to as accurate as possible. So addons that are in the scientific section should be scientific. Second way i use Celsetia is to go and take a look at the SciFi visions of others.

I would really appreciate a way to be able to distinguish between the two easily.

Regards,

Guckytos

[t00fri]

...

Ficticious: Runar, Jestr,...

Don't forget me! I like ficticious addons! I would really like to rate and give comments on them.

Michael Kilderry

I did not forget you. I have only made some suggestions of particularly experienced people. The quoted names just reflect my personal judgement and others may have different opinions.

Since Joe has decided against a formal refereeing system, the case seems closed anyway...In case of refereeing, it is of course /essential/ that all people acting as referees also have their own work refereed.

[rthorvald]

I don't agree, especially about fictional addons being considered as fan art.

Huh? But that is what it is! The term does not devaluate the value of any good work, it??s just a distinction
to separate it from the astronomy contributions (which furthers the main premise for Celestia??s existence).
Don??t take it so seriously...

Defining Addons as only projects that enhances the simulation would help us heighten the visibility of Celestia
as an educational tool. As a great side-effect, it will be much easier to classify contributions at the Motherlode, and it
makes the idea of a review board practical, since the number of objects that needs review will shrink to something manageable.

I see no reason to believe that the average user of Celestia cannot make general quality
judgements about an add-on as well as the skilled artists

Of course they can... But this judgement will mostly be personal opinion. Only people that knows a particular subject will
be able to vote on accuracy, and since specialists always is a minority, such votes would drown in votes cast for artistic
quality or adherence to Star Trek canon.

Joe, it seems your objections to a review board are mostly concerned with the workload and complexity of operating the
website. My suggestion would take care of that, as everything would continue as before - exept that Scientific addons
would be listed in a "Pending review" category until someone has tested it.

I see no need to have an "official" committee rating fiction, the User Vote System takes care of that...
And would still work for the Science Addon section too, as an additional popularity meter.

-rthorvald

[Cham]

Selden asked me to delete my message, because it was "inapropriate". Really, I don't agree with him on this. However, I accept to remove the content.

-- molesting deleted --

[alphap1us]

Runar,
After reviewing all your posts on this thread, I am not sure that I understand exactly what you are proposing. Woud there be three three separate "worlds" for add-ons - scientific, conceptual, and ficitional? And then scientific would have a "pending review" section? Please wrtie a little more. Thanks

Fridger,
Just to be clear, I don't have an objection to a review board, though I don't see a good reason to prefer it over just having a group of people we trust to pass judgements on accuracy. My objection was to having the review step come *in-between* add-on submission and listing. If we can get this review ball rolling, it will have to be on add-ons already listed, and then we'll have to add an icon, or move it to another section, or whatever we decide. Does this make sense?

Cheers,
Joe

[rthorvald]

I am not sure that I understand exactly what you are proposing. Woud there be three three separate "worlds" for add-ons - scientific, conceptual, and ficitional? And then scientific would have a "pending review" section?

Ok, i??ll try to be a little less incomphrehensible


Let??s pretend the Motherlode directory has three main categories:

1) Addons
... Contains everything exept what today is listed under "Fictional", together with a sub-directory named "Pending" or somesuch.

2) Fan-Art
... Contains everything fictional, together with everything that does not meet the criteria of being an Addon

3) Resources
... No change from today??s setup

The only real change from today??s setup will be to re-name 1) and 2), and add a subdirectory to 1.

Now, Everything in "pending" will stay there until the reviewers have tested it. If it passes, it is designated an "Addon" and moved to where it belongs. If not, it goes into the FanArt directory. under a suitable, existing sub-directory. To be listed as an addon, the work must be scientifically defendable.

The Addon Directory might possibly acommodate a "Conceptual" directory too, but i imagine the threshold for getting anything listed there should be rather high.

All this only requires the following:
1) A set of rules that defines what an Addon may be
2) one new directory - for Pending
3) any submitted work that the author wants listed as an Addon must be marked for it by the author - if not, it is automatically FanArt
4) A few volunteer experts that monitors the Pending dir.

-rthorvald

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

Just as a random tangential suggestion - can we have a separate ssc/stc section on the motherlode too? Just for ssc/stc files that don't have textures or anything (eg orbits for new asteroids, planets etc).

[t00fri]

Runar,
After reviewing all your posts on this thread, I am not sure that I understand exactly what you are proposing. Woud there be three three separate "worlds" for add-ons - scientific, conceptual, and ficitional? And then scientific would have a "pending review" section? Please wrtie a little more. Thanks

Fridger,
Just to be clear, I don't have an objection to a review board, though I don't see a good reason to prefer it over just having a group of people we trust to pass judgements on accuracy. My objection was to having the review step come *in-between* add-on submission and listing. If we can get this review ball rolling, it will have to be on add-ons already listed, and then we'll have to add an icon, or move it to another section, or whatever we decide. Does this make sense?

Cheers,
Joe

Joe,

what you are proposing, I certainly can see as one step into the right direction and it's clearly a 'shortcut kind of procedure'. You also mention a point that is not quite easy to overcome, except with your microscope label idea: The vast amount of already submitted add-ons, many of which would never satisfy at least my quality criteria.

On the other hand, I am very concerned to extend the quality assessment also to texture quality, for example. So at least another "label of honor" is needed.

Bad textures in Celestia are like using bad loudspeakers with a high-end hi-fi set!

In
http://www.shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6400

I have discussed today a number of "popular" dead-sins that an expert can easily spot in bad textures. I underwent the effort to check ML submissions with respect to such "quality-killers". The results were far from encouraging...

It was quite obvious that a number of ML "texture creators" have barely managed to even read the introduction of their image manipulation program's manual!

Various naive posts in the above cited thread clearly exemplify the prevailing trend: many people just want to go for the biggest textures available. No further questions asked! A microscope? No idea what it is good for...So what...

Joe, please do not misunderstand me. I would love to support the ML concept as a central repository for Celestia add-ons /wholeheartedly/! That's why I keep thinking intensively about possible scenarios that could make that great concept compatible with my personal quality standards!

For sure, I am strongly against the anonymous 'rating' philosophy that became so popular recently in E-bay, amazon etc. Judgement by ignorance!

OK, knowledge is a strong 'minority affair'. But what one can read in many of these unqualified reviews is hard to top.

This is just NOT my glass of beer


Bye Fridger

[alphap1us]

Just as a random tangential suggestion - can we have a separate ssc/stc section on the motherlode too? Just for ssc/stc files that don't have textures or anything (eg orbits for new asteroids, planets etc).

Currently, the textureless add-ons are listed among the ones that include textures and I think this is a good idea. It si the category that matters, right? And, most of the ones that do not include textures are clearly marked. If some are not, please notify us of which ones those are.

Cheers,
Joe

[alphap1us]

Fridger,
The way I see it there are two distinct issues that are getting mixed up here.

1. General add-on quality, which the general public is capable of judging (Otherwise let's lock shatters.net and ML access so only those that we deem worthy of appreciating our work can see it. )

2. Scientific accuracy, which only a few experts can judge.

This is why I want to have two separate standards of judgement for each add-on. I am perfectly willing to let you and the others that you listed be in charge of the accuracy judgement that you propose.

So, do you agree that these are two distinct issues? Or is there something I am missing?

Cheers,
Joe

[t00fri]

Fridger,
The way I see it there are two distinct issues that are getting mixed up here.

1. General add-on quality, which the general public is capable of judging (Otherwise let's lock shatters.net and ML access so only those that we deem worthy of appreciating our work can see it. )

2. Scientific accuracy, which only a few experts can judge.

This is why I want to have two separate standards of judgement for each add-on. I am perfectly willing to let you and the others that you listed be in charge of the accuracy judgement that you propose.

So, do you agree that these are two distinct issues? Or is there something I am missing?

Cheers,
Joe

Joe,

I agree with your point 2), but disagree with your statement 1), as I have emphasized repeatedly. For me 1) and 2) are closely related.

You (and others) keep stating that the general public is able to judge easily whether a texture is of good or bad quality. I simply do not believe it and would easily be able to prove it.

Think of someone's first hi-fi set. Great-- gorgeous-- amazing-- incredible--...typical first exclamations of joy after switching on this rather mediocre piece of electronics for the first time!

Did you really never come across this most frequent phenomenon?? After listening for a month or two, the senses have learned a lot and the excitement has correspondingly reached a quite different, much lower level....

That's precisely the same with judging textures.

Chris keeps the Celestia's code quality high irrespective of whether the average user of today will be able to judge it.

The same attitude I am strongly advocating for Celestia's textures, data files and "all that". It's the philosophy behind a product that eventually decides whether it's going to turn into a brilliant achievement or remain just OK.

Sorry, that's really all I have to say here. It's perfectly fine with me, if your opinion is different. Then we can always leave things at the ML as they are...

Cheers,

Bye Fridger

[Bob Hegwood]

Another two-cents worth from the Peanut Gallery...

I personally would much rather have access to a low-quality, but highly
realistic texture, as opposed to a high-quality un-realistic texture.

I don't really care about such things as the size of the texture, because I
can't use anything over 2k on my machine anyway.

Dr. Schrempp is interested in quality from all aspects, and this is a
commendable goal. However, as we all know, there are very few among
us who can readily convert a raw image into a Celestia texture without
making a few mistakes.

If I may, does anyone recall the Ganymede texture which was purported
for use as a texture for Pluto? This is the kind of thing which
worries me.

I think that volunteers who'd like to research these kinds of accuracy
mistakes would be invaluable to the Motherlode. However, as I recall,
this "Pluto" texture came with Celestia in an earlier release,
did it not?

This was done perhaps because we had no textures for Pluto at the time,
and I believe that Dr. Schrempp corrected that problem.

If my memory is faulty here, I apologize. I do remember having
to tell someone that this texture was not correct, however.

To make a long story short, I believe that we should strive for quality
textures, but that realistic textures should be of even more
importance.

As an aside to Dr. Schrempp, and with all due respect sir, I think that
Joe is correct in his assessment of the situation here. The quality of a
texture is not nearly as important as its realism. Most users can satisfy
themselves as to the quality of the texture itself. It's a rare few
of you who can assess the reality of the texture though.

Take care, Bob

[t00fri]

Bob,

as I noted above already in my answer to Joe: I shall just give in . That costs me much less work, after all...

Bye Fridger

[bh]

Ahh!...is this the 'end' then, or just the beginning? Still trying to resolve a host for the shuttle and ISS but I want them to be as realistic as poss also...Cham is a fussy bugger so I'm working on this....Look out!....more to come I think!

Regards...bh.

[Bob Hegwood]

as I noted above already in my answer to Joe: I shall just give in . That costs me much less work, after all...

There you go... Now you're doing yourself a favor.

You don't want to go killing yourself over something that most people
are going to have different expectations about anyway.

LOVE YA Doc...

Keep up the good work.

[Dollan]

Coming in late on this, I know, but I've been stuck in bed for nigh a week...

But there can be and there often *is* a difference between fan-art and fictional add-ons (I'm not commenting on scientific add-ons because I am, frankly, not qualified).

In my mind, fan-art would include anything dealing with an established franchise, such as Star trek or Stargate, to name two examples. A straight fictional add-on would be something such as my ArcBuilder add-ons, which are meant to illustrate an original franchise. I would certainly hate to have my items listed as fan fiction, as this would imply that the ArcBuilders is not an original creation. The same could be said for the Orion's Arm worlds or the Lera system.

Anyway, this is a mere quibble for me. But I thought I'd add my opinion just to be a pain in the arse!

Otherwise, I'm all for a tested-for-accuracy scientific add-ons. As I said, I don't have a clue as to what is the best, realistic add-on for Titan or Jupiter or whatever.

...John, still in recovery...