Purpose and Feedback thread

2008-11-17 11:43:16 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Everyone agrees that this is a good idea, and this is going to happen, but just to play devil's advocate, the bad thing about this is that as a verifier, you ought to be able to figure out stuff on your own by yourself. Without runner's comments, you notice something weird, bring it up, then it's explained by the runner, and you get some ensurance this way. You actually come to your own conclusions. With comments, you will be reassured by the runner and persuaded, in essence. This can be bad because stuff slips through that wouldn't otherwise.

Of course, runners could always pass notes on for the verifiers already (I've seen this before), and also the way to combat what I said above is for Mike to stress while providing the comments that the verifier should always watch first without the comments, then read through them to understand to reconcile any differences, and then rewatch areas of concern if necessary.

Essentia

2008-11-17 12:53:09 pm

Everything's better with Magitek

Quote from Enhasa:

Of course, runners could always pass notes on for the verifiers already (I've seen this before), and also the way to combat what I said above is for Mike to stress while providing the comments that the verifier should always watch first without the comments, then read through them to understand to reconcile any differences, and then rewatch areas of concern if necessary.

Sounds good to me.

Sir VG

2008-11-17 01:02:46 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from Enhasa:

Of course, runners could always pass notes on for the verifiers already (I've seen this before), and also the way to combat what I said above is for Mike to stress while providing the comments that the verifier should always watch first without the comments, then read through them to understand to reconcile any differences, and then rewatch areas of concern if necessary.

An idea that could be done is that the runner posts their comments as an attachment in the thread pertaining the game, something we can do now that we couldn't do in older versions of these boards.

xXIkuto

2008-11-17 02:59:23 pm

i mean good verifiers won't be persuaded no matter what the runner says if they know the game well. the comments pretty much give an explanation to things that could make no sense (i.e randomly stopping or something) to a verifier who hasn't exactly tried running the game. either way verifiers are supposed to be watching the run before reading the comments...it's the only way to see exactly what the comments are talkin about

otherwise shoot the verifier that reads the comments and goes "well the runner says its good, this looks fast, accept"

i do feel bad though that mike would have to individually send verifiers comments. maybe they could be put like in the same folder that the v-version of the run is on SDA somewhere, since it's like no space and then mike doesn't have to worry about the one guy who has a firewall or something and go through hell trying to send him comments Smiley

petrie911

2010-02-15 01:47:07 am

Everybody loves Hypnotoad!

In the "Runs needing verification" thread, would it be possible to list the number of verifiers a run currently has?

ninetigerr

2010-04-20 12:19:41 am

Why are runs which "have enough verifiers" listed in the list of "runs needing verification?"

petrie911

2010-04-20 12:25:12 am

Everybody loves Hypnotoad!

Quote from ninetigerr:

Why are runs which "have enough verifiers" listed in the list of "runs needing verification?"

Because nate won't encode a run until it has enough verifiers. However, sending nate the files and nate encoding them both take time, and during that time, it doesn't hurt to get more verifiers.

NoiseCrash

2010-04-20 08:26:33 am

@_@

If I'm reading the thread correctly a run needs at least three (sometimes two) verifiers to be considered to have "enough," but the run isn't taken off the list until it's actually ready for verification (as petrie911 said) or until there's 6+ verifiers.

mikwuyma

2010-06-05 08:20:17 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Sorry about the flood of verifications, but I'm just catching up after a few weeks of being lazy. I'm caught up as far as I know now, so there shouldn't be a flood like this for a while.

Sir VG

2010-06-05 11:18:25 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Hey, I don't mind floods. Especially ones with lots of accepts of runs by cool runners. Smiley

najzere

2010-08-13 05:22:38 am

Don't know if this has been asked before, but could links to verification threads be put on game run pages?

mikwuyma

2011-02-14 10:38:35 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I'm done with posting threads today, but I still have some more left for tomorrow.

Flip

2011-08-21 09:16:02 pm

1-Up!

Two things:

1) From now on, I'm not going to list a Reason: for unanimous accepts. If there is one dissenter, I'll still put one down but when 5/5 verifiers accept there's really nothing more for me to say.

2) I'm going to try and go through all of my verification private threads around the beginning of September to see which ones are being held back by verifiers that are AWOL. If you are in a verification thread that is from July or earlier please try and post your verification in the next 9-10 days.

YoukaiDragoon

2011-08-24 09:14:51 am

Quote from Flip:

1) From now on, I'm not going to list a Reason: for unanimous accepts. If there is one dissenter, I'll still put one down but when 5/5 verifiers accept there's really nothing more for me to say.

This makes a lot of sense but I must admit I kind of liked it because I could just scroll to the bottom before I read through all the comments and see the verdict/reason. Although if it saves you the time of having to read through all the comments and create the reason then definitely skip it.

Keep up the good work! Smiley

ZenicReverie

2011-08-24 10:35:30 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Pretty sure the verdict will still be there, as well as the congratulations message (or lack thereof).

Flip

2011-08-24 10:55:58 pm

1-Up!

Yes, this is shown in the most recent batch. The Reason is only gone if it's a unanimous accept, my Decision is always there regardless and my congratulations message or this run will be available for a month message will always be there. There's just no point to me repeating "it's a good run" and "it's a solid run" and "the run has great planning and execution." Yeah theoretically I could reject a run even if all verifiers accept it but I trust my verifiers enough to where I don't ever anticipate being in that scenario.

Flip

Edit history:

Flip: 2011-09-02 08:38:51 pm

2011-09-02 08:38:17 pm

1-Up!

In an effort to help less popular runs through verification, I've just added (has enough verifiers) to every run with 2 verifiers that has been waiting 6 months or more. If you notice an old run now has (has enough verifiers), please don't hesitate to offer.

edit: I'm about to go through all active verifications to find the ones being held up by AWOL verifiers.

Crit

2012-06-03 06:22:52 am

Can we have (roughly estimated) time for rejected runs? I see timing happens after verification, but if it is never published there is no way to find it out.

Flip

2012-06-16 05:07:58 pm

1-Up!

Only if verifiers bother to time it.

IsraeliRD

2012-06-16 08:31:49 pm

Dragon Power Supreme

I'm timing runs while they're in verification, so I'll go ahead and post times for runs rejected. I'll do for the ones from June onwards. If you'd like for a run from previous months please PM me.

General Vagueness

2012-06-26 02:26:41 pm

Faster than the speed of love

How does someone know if they know a game well enough to be a verifier for it? Also this was probably answered somewhere (I at least checked the Verification Evangelism thread) but it's relevant here, what if someone has done a run or verified one or more and they're considering doing the other (run/verify)? What kind of conflicts of interest do the admins check for, if any?

moooh

2012-06-26 03:07:32 pm

Exoray

You should know the game well enough to be able to measure the quality of the run. This usually means that you have played through the game several times and know how all game mechanics work. You should be able to spot mistakes that someone who hasn't played the game before would not have seen.

Preferrably when verifying a game you have actually been trying to run it yourself, or been part of trick finding/route planning. This ofc is not mandatory and with some more obscure games it might be enough to just have finished the game and learned what is considered fast and what is not.

Verification is open among the verifiers and the result visible to the public. There is no need for us to check for any conflict of interest as it is pretty obvious if a verifier would be trying to affect the result of a verification without sound reasons.

General Vagueness

2012-06-27 07:47:12 pm

Faster than the speed of love

Quote from moooh:

You should know the game well enough to be able to measure the quality of the run. This usually means that you have played through the game several times and know how all game mechanics work. You should be able to spot mistakes that someone who hasn't played the game before would not have seen.

Preferrably when verifying a game you have actually been trying to run it yourself, or been part of trick finding/route planning. This ofc is not mandatory and with some more obscure games it might be enough to just have finished the game and learned what is considered fast and what is not.

I think I get it, thanks.

Quote:

Verification is open among the verifiers and the result visible to the public. There is no need for us to check for any conflict of interest as it is pretty obvious if a verifier would be trying to affect the result of a verification without sound reasons.

I meant, what if a runner wanted to verify a game or a verifier wanted to submit a run, are there any rules about that?

[quote="moooh"]You should know the game well enough to be able to measure the quality of the run. This usually means that you have played through the game several times and know how all game mechanics work. You should be able to spot mistakes that someone who hasn't played the game before would not have seen.

Preferrably when verifying a game you have actually been trying to run it yourself, or been part of trick finding/route planning. This ofc is not mandatory and with some more obscure games it might be enough to just have finished the game and learned what is considered fast and what is not.[/quote]

I think I get it, thanks.

[quote]Verification is open among the verifiers and the result visible to the public. There is no need for us to check for any conflict of interest as it is pretty obvious if a verifier would be trying to affect the result of a verification without sound reasons.[/quote]

I meant, what if a runner wanted to verify a game or a verifier wanted to submit a run, are there any rules about that?

UraniumAnchor

2012-06-27 07:56:31 pm

Not a walrus

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question, but there's no reason you can't verify somebody else's run just because you've run the game yourself, or submit a run on a game you've done a verification for, if that's what you're asking.

Flip

2012-06-27 09:57:39 pm

1-Up!

It happens sometimes that verifiers beat the run they're verifying and submit an improvement.