Conquer Club

...what makes a good post? What are the kinds of posts that you like to get?
I thought it would be interesting if we all spoke about what is the best "shape" for a post in here.

Is it a post where they just give you suggestions and say why? Do you like it in a paragraph or split up into sections? Long or short?

Alright, since you asked: I appreciate posts that add something - anything - to the discussion. The best posts are specific about what somebody identifies as a problem and suggests possible changes. For example...

sully800 wrote:I agree that the yellow livened up the map a bit and it definitely made the Rte 66 territories stand out more. However visibility of the yellow armies on the yellow background is a real concern, and I think the yellow was a bit too strong judging by the general discontent of everyone posting.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached with white signs and a yellow glow or border to still distinguish them from the other territories?

Sully raises a specific visual concern, explains why this element negatively impacts the map, and suggests an alternative.

The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...

sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right

This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.

(what about posts where people just display a laughing smiley)?

oaktown wrote:Alright, since you asked: I appreciate posts that add something - anything - to the discussion. The best posts are specific about what somebody identifies as a problem and suggests possible changes. For example...

sully800 wrote:I agree that the yellow livened up the map a bit and it definitely made the Rte 66 territories stand out more. However visibility of the yellow armies on the yellow background is a real concern, and I think the yellow was a bit too strong judging by the general discontent of everyone posting.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached with white signs and a yellow glow or border to still distinguish them from the other territories?

Sully raises a specific visual concern, explains why this element negatively impacts the map, and suggests an alternative.

The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...

sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right

This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.

Now Oak, ah I am not even going to bother...

sailorseal wrote:Now Oak, ah I am not even going to bother...

Oh come on.

.44

I agree with what Oak said - vague comments are useless. It's also a pain when someone posts comments that have all been addressed, or are marked in the first post as "please don't comment on this, I know these things need changing already." Here's an example:

sailorseal wrote:Graphically it is kind of dark. The assault routes are kind of dull looking and at first glance I did not notice them. I like the colors and the mountains.The bridges should be changed. The line of text at the way bottom is very hard to read.
Nice map!

Self-contradictory posts generally don't help anyone. It's really helpful when somebody contradicts themselves.

sailorseal wrote:Now Oak, ah I am not even going to bother...

You're right of course, sailorseal... I'm just blowing off some post-moderator steam.

But I stand my my above comments about what makes for good feedback - don't just say good or bad, tell me why.

As much as I love being flamed, I think this topic was made to talk about the kind of comments you like not the ones you don't like.

oaktown wrote:The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...

sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right

This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.

While I understand that it is difficult to give appropriate weight to opinions without reasons to back them up, I think it is a mistake to discourage people from posting simple "I agree" remarks. If someone tells you, for example, that the "orange is too bright", it would be good to see if there is some agreement before you leap in and make changes. Plus, these simple comments are a way for those just getting involved in the foundry to feel like they are contributing without putting all on the line. Once they get their feet wet, they are more likely to take the plunge with more thoughtful commentary.

oaktown wrote:The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...

sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right

This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.

A) I agree "I like it" posts are useless for honing a map

B) The second part, I semi-agree with you oaktown. When I entered in the Central America competition, my first draft was pretty ugly. I got the second draft looking so much better, and being so much better supported by the community, by noting all the different aspects of the map (borders, font, colour scheme, texture, etc), and tallying how many positive and negative comments I got on each. This helped me to determine the broader community support. Take this for example:

Mapmaker: Can I get some feedback on the borders please guys?

User A-Pos: I like the borders, I think they contrast well with the territories

User B-Pos: Yeah the borders are good

User C-Pos: Map is looking good, nice borders

User D-Neg: The borders just don't do it for me at all. They are far too thick, the shading on them isn't right, it looks too dark, and it just isn't right. I can't see half the territory names because of them, if this got quenched I wouldn't play it, it would give me a headache looking at those borders. You should try a different brush, like the one used on XYZ map. The borders there look fantastic, and are much better than the borders on your map. Did you think these borders would be fine? They're holding the map back, and sorely need to be redone. If I was Foundry Assistant, I wouldn't give you the graphics stamp til you changed them.

User E-Pos: Borders are fine, don't need any more work IMO

User F-Pos: Nice map, I like the borders, they fit well and don't need re-doing

User G-Pos: Ditto

Now, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that these comments are all from Foundry semi-regulars who aren't mods/admin/assistants, so they're not determining whether it gets stamped or not, but their opinion can be taken to be honest and intelligent. Some users would take D's comments to heart, given the length of them. Sometimes it's good to stand back and get a broader perspective though, see what the community at large thinks. I'd contemplate what D has to say, but if it's 6 for and 1 against, I'd be more inclined to keep the borders the way they are