Make world reviews more consistent and more critical
complete
H
Hugo Zink
When looking at the public world request forms, it seems pretty self-evident that not all reviewers are actually doing their jobs. Worlds are rarely checked as thoroughly as they should be. Only on certain days do the "good" reviewers come out, and only
then
do they properly review stuff like avatar materials and dynamic bone transforms.This makes world reviews highly inconsistent, and makes the review's scrutiny entirely dependent on who happens to review it. And worse yet, some reviewers seem to not do their jobs properly. With the right timing, a user could submit a highly unoptimized or broken world, and have it almost guaranteed to be made public due to the reviewer.
Before the "avatar world" checkbox was implemented, worlds would often not be categorized as avatar worlds at all, further indicating the laziness of some reviewers.
Scrutiny and limits on public worlds can be a good thing. But they are utterly useless if only 20% of the review team cares about them. Please fix the underlying issue before you take another look at the limits.
Log In
Fax
marked this post as
complete
Thank you for the request! We launched Community Labs about 6 years ago, and worlds are no longer manually reviewed before being published.
H
Hugo Zink
There hasn't been an official response to this Canny, but it's pretty clear that the devs have stepped up their review process regardless. I'm pretty satisfied with how reviews are handled these days.
Zer0ᵛʳ
before you request something like that, check the guidelines
they state only 1 dynamic bone collider, which is ridiculous, not even beeing allowed to do 1 collider per hand...
Shelfen
There should be consistent guidelines the reviewers should follow, and there should be a few spot checks if the reviewers are doing their jobb, there is so much inconsistency in worlds, and there is to many worlds that has nothing in them, and is hiding allot of the good designed worlds, as the world tab get flooded every day...
GV-97
I know someone who tells people to upload their worlds on a certain day because there's a better chance it will actually get assigned to the proper category. I think things such as these should indeed be consistent. Quality control should be done by a single standard, not double, not triple or however many people review worlds.
I also enter plenty of worlds in VR that are near-unbearable, so the fact that people without VR supposedly test these things also blows my mind.
kawashirov
Agree, distribution of "bad" and "good" worlds is not depends on time, so it should be similar from day to day, however often it's possible to notice that in some days worlds get rejected with alot of (seems objective) reasons, but in other days almost all of words getting public w/o any notes. This seems very suspicious.
H
Hugo Zink
Case in point: https://i.imgur.com/6BHKj5s.png
This was a good review, with a downright
ridiculous
number of issues in these worlds. These worlds were rejected for good reason. 269 dynamic bones? Yikes.But then you scroll down a bit, and find reviews probably done by volunteers over the weekend: https://i.imgur.com/1rZ3LkN.png
As you can see, a pretty immense difference in quality. Now it
could
be that there truly were no issues in any
of these worlds, but I doubt it. At least two of these world names would never be approved normally under the new guidelines (cropped because I don't want to witch hunt).