A Proposed New Way for Voting Sites

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by Rellac, Sep 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Offline

    Rellac

    I saw a suggestion on another thread and I really feel that it didn't get enough attention. I'd like to give it its own thread in hopes that more people will pay attention.

    For too long have vote sites been dominated by bigger servers. Too long has the community been far too harsh on smaller servers. I would like to suggest an alternative way to sort servers by quality not quantity.

    Starting a new server, regardless of how amazing the system is, is a tough challenge for anyone. Every single vote site is dominated by the servers that have acquired plentiful players through advertisements. The top of the lists never have any of the smaller servers.

    Here is the suggestion I found:

    Of course, some tweaking here and there may be required, for example, discluding servers below a minimum threshold of players, to avoid a server owner voting for his own server once and being on the top of the boards because he's the only player on his server.

    I think this is definitely the way to go and would see a better minecraft community overall. Servers will be forced to become popular due to their well designed servers rather than the number of people they can bribe to vote.

    Of course, space for featured servers that have payed for advertisement is understandable, but I don't see why servers with more players should need to be at the top of every single vote list. Why not give the smaller servers a fighting chance?

    I hope that some of you will take this into consideration and do what's best for the community.
     
  2. Offline

    np98765

    I do like this idea (I saw the original thread), but the problem is most large voting sites will not. They're going to lose a lot of servers, as none of the big servers will be able to get to the top of the list.
     
  3. Offline

    chaseoes

    A big server could have 100 players, and have all 100 vote. Bringing them to the top of the list.

    However, now there's still an issue on how to order them. Looking at the example in the first post, Server_one and Server_two have the same rank. But when displayed one of them has to take priority - so which one will? The big one, or the small one? Chances are there's going to be hundreds of servers ending up with the exact same rank - and they will still have to be ordered somehow.

    Minestatus includes how long the server has been listed for in their equation. This put me at a real disadvantage when I joined the site because my server had more votes and better uptime than other servers, however they had a higher rank simply because they joined the site a month earlier. And how long it's been listed for is not an accurate measurement as to how long it's been around (I didn't list mine on Minestatus until like 6 months after I started it).

    One time my server made it to the first page of Minestatus for like two days. During the entire two days I don't think I gained a single player from it (at the time I also had a ProjectWonderful banner running at the top of it too) - and from that time on I stopped rewarding players for voting as it's useless if we don't benefit from it. I still don't encourage voting or reward for it. My server has gotten like 4 votes this month.
     
  4. Offline

    np98765

    I meant a server with more than 100 people... A big server. Thousands of people.

    Take one of those large servers like LegendaryCraft (>.<). Think of the amount of people that actually vote compared to the amount of new players they get every day. It would be very tough to get to the top few without paying to get the server "sponsored".
     
  5. Offline

    chaseoes

    I'm pretty sure 99% of their players vote daily, though. Most everyone who plays there longer than an hour. Random players who join and end up leaving an hour later shouldn't even be included in the "average" count if they don't play there.

    Also, using a month to determine it could be bad, as you might get a sudden influx of players one week and the rest of the month they're all gone - leaving you with a bad rank because your average was set high because of it.
     
  6. Offline

    Rellac

    If this were to happen with the current system, you'd still be ranked low anyway.

    This is pretty irrelevant


    also, if the big servers were to leave the vote sites because of this, where would they go?

    what kind of player is going to look on a server listing that sorts servers based on quantity when there's already listings of servers by quality? The big servers still have to stick round whether they like it or not.

    I'd also like to note that I've not said that paying for advertisement is necessarily a bad thing. I don't mind that they get a featured spot for their donations, what bugs me is when the servers that are sorted by votes are only ever at the top when they already have ridiculous numbers of players to begin with.
     
  7. Offline

    np98765

    I completely agree.

    However, being realistic, I don't think that the current system is going to change. I'd certainly love for it to -- it would bring so many new players -- but it's going to take a lot of work to make that change happen.

    Regarding big servers:
    Technically, they don't have to stick around whether they like it or not. It's not as if all of the server lists are going to change at once. It will be a slow and drawn-out task.

    Regardless, I do hope that this is one day the case with most major server lists.
     
  8. I don't think you can get the current serverlists to change, that would be a to great risk to them. I think that a new serverlist should emerge, similar to the one DrAgonmoray created.
    The smaller/medium servers is bigger as a whole, and if you can create a serverlist which use this kind of system I think it could become fairly large with time.

    Question: Does a large server have more problem getting players to vote then smaller server? This is without paying your users to vote.

    I personally think that its harder to obtain votes as a large server, just because the server becomes more impersonal than a small server. And I think more players is just passing through on a larger server, more new players as chaseoes mentioned

    I should also say that I have no experience whatsoever of running a large server, so my perspective is not 100% neutral.
     
  9. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    I have been running a server for a little over 6 months now, and my average players 20-30 players during the active hours. I encourage users to vote but stand no chance against any huge servers.
    The thing I have noticed, is to get a lot of new people you need to pay to advertise, which is bs.

    I'm not bragging or anything, but my server IS good, the members i have are very dedicated and online everyday, voting and donating. I rarely ever have people come on and say "This server sucks" and leave.
    I have well built spawns, the best plugins, and no lag.
    So with the committed votes I get, why can't I be at the top of a voting list? Just because legendarycraft and savage realms spend hundreds on advertising each month they get to be on top?

    It should not be based on which servers pay the most or just simply have the most votes.
    That doesn't mean that the big servers can't be on the top as well. But it shouldn't be because there big they get to.
    If you go on LegendaryCraft, the chat is spammed with new members joining. And yet the average 100-200 average members, when they get that many new members every few hours.

    Shouldn't it be based on how many members actually stay and LIKE this server, and not just for the free diamonds?
     
  10. Offline

    np98765

    It just can't. These sites have been established ever since multiplayer first came out, and they're not going to change. It's hard to encourage voting without any rewards (free diamonds), and that's just not going to happen.

    Although I do agree, we have to think realistically.
     
  11. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    That is true, the reason is the sites want more visitors (obviously). But if we really go into it, there can be a new system which allows the listing sites to still make money and keep all there big servers, but also fair on the server owner sides.

    No bare with me here, pretending this is all possible and can happen with the snap of my finger:

    Based on individual members, not overall:
    If a server has 100 members join every hour, but they all end up leaving in a half an hour, it still shows as them being big, but really that server could be a piece of shit, but there loaded with money to spend on advertising.

    Now think of this, what if there was a feature added to bukkit similar to the query system, but more advanced.
    It looks at each player, how long there online, and if there actually playing. If a server has 30 committed players, then they must like the server, if a server has 100 members that don't stay for more than an hour, the first server should be ranked the same or higher as the second server. Overall, it records records like this, and calculates to see which server TRULY deserves to be at the top.

    This could even removing the voting system, or limit it majorly. Maybe votes could only be once a month, then the results show at the end of the month.


    Please note, these are just ideas I have had, I know its highly complicated and may not happen, but this should trigger some more ideas.
     
    DrAgonmoray likes this.
  12. Offline

    DrAgonmoray

    Every so often people mention me and/or my old serverlist. It makes me feel good because people seem to have liked it, and also bad because I abandoned it.

    Gunnerrrrr
    That's how it should be, and you stated exactly why no server list does that:
    I really would've like to have done extensive stat tracking like that, but if I do that, large servers would be less inclined to use my server list, and I NEED them to use it.
     
  13. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    Well what do you guys think of my idea?
    Is it to "dreamy" or could it happen?
     
  14. Offline

    DrAgonmoray

    Unless there is a serverlist owner with a kind heart that is also good enough to implement such a system, it wont happen
     
  15. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    Well i was trying to state that, the list will still make money and have the "premium" servers and the big servers will still be at the top if they are really that good. Like i would image most of the big server would be at the top, but smaller servers have a chance too.
     
  16. Offline

    np98765

    Except that the first server list to do that would probably lose a lot of big servers, which are the potential customers (until people see how great of an idea it is). You're not going to find many little servers willing to pay a few hundred dollars for a banner at the top of the site.

    Now, if DrAgonmoray still had SC up, it would randomly choose one for a day... <3
     
  17. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    Take minestatus, the only way they make money is the premium bids, which i never see the top servers on there, just servers trying to get to the top, so they would still make a couple thousand each month.

    The top servers may remain on top, but smaller servers have the same chance.
     
  18. Offline

    TnT

    Some server lists make a great deal of money sticking to the status quo, and lets face it, most of the sorting options never get used. No large server owner will be happy changing the default view, as they will never get to the top of the list by mass voting. No small server can possibly make it to the top of the list through voting.

    Every server list I've seen that has any sort of cool new idea goes under before that idea can be fully realized, or has no player base (even if it has 100 servers, without people searching for servers on those lists, they are not effective). Thus, we either have cool new ideas that never get seen, or trying to convince an existing list to upset all their members by changing their strategy.

    I'm completely disillusioned by listing servers on server lists. 90% of my players have came through friends recommending my server to friends. I'm not even sure why I'm on 10+ lists anymore. They only help me when there is a new update for CraftBukkit out and my server is the first to update to it, even then, most of the new people I get jump on asking me "How did you get CraftBukkit for 'X' version (because they cannot find the dev builds)."
     
  19. Offline

    Rellac

    TnT

    The point of this thread is that I'm aiming it towards the server listings to grow some balls (for lack of a better term) against the bigger servers.

    I honestly believe that given the chance, implementing such a mechanism on an existing server listing would make it the popular option over the rest of them (any rational player would rather look at a listing sorted by quality over quantity) and, therefore, become the bigger player.

    Adding such an option would also give small servers the chance to become big servers. Which would allow these servers to pay for the advertisement instead of the bigger ones.



    At the very least, I would like to see the option to click a button to switch between the different methods of sorting. This would allow the bigger servers to have their way, whilst the smaller servers can still have a better chance.

    Everyone loves options.
     
  20. Offline

    TnT

    Rellac
    I look forward to seeing that, but what I'm saying is I won't hold by breath for it.
     
  21. Offline

    MinecraftMP

    As a server list owner, I will try to jump in the discussion.

    First hello to some users of my server list, (Hello TnT and Gunner ;))

    Whatever solution you will choose, you will always end up with the same problem: there are several thousand of servers and you need a way to automatically sort them.

    When I've started to code Minecraft Multiplayer, my goal was to make a server list using the classic ranking system but add also some tools for small servers to be found.

    Why, mainly stick to the classic ranking system? Because if you don't do it, there is no chance you succeed. What do I mean by succeed? Get enough players searching for servers.

    Because ranking system based on vote give you backlinks. Backlinks give you a better position in search engine. A better position in search engine give you lot of visitors. That's all and it's simple.


    Also, as I've told, I've added also some tools for small players to be found:

    - a complete search form with lot of options to found the server of your needs
    - server list that you can browse by versions, themes, plugins, countries

    Also I'm always open to suggestions/ideas from my users.



    To finish: I have done some test with the first suggestion on this thread. If I apply this on my list, I end up with at least 500 servers with the same rank. So, and after??

    You need criteria to give them a different rank. You think vote is not the good idea... If I play on a server, and that server sucks. Will I vote for it? No, I go play on a different one.

    I think that if people vote for a server, it must be worth it.

    Can you summarize for me your automatically way of sorting thousand servers by quality? At least I could see if it can be done on my list.

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2016
  22. Nice to see someone more experienced in this taking time answering.

    Which formula where you using then? If I may ask.

    With no risk no reward ;)

    Oh didn't thought of that. Keep the vote I say, but remove the reward.
    I don't like the current system(vote = diamond). And sad but true, if you don't use it, there is no chance you succeed.

    Yes indeed, but I think some of the rewards for voting has an inpact on it.
    10 Emeralds, 10 Diamonds & $10,000 EACH VOTE :eek:
     
  23. Offline

    MinecraftMP

    The rank is based on:

    - Uptime
    - Votes
    - A little bonus based on your registration date
    - A bonus for every Google +1 or Facebook "like" a server page receive (it's like diamond on PlanetMinecraft)
    - A bonus is you use Minecraft advanced query
     
    sillyrosster and madmac like this.
  24. Offline

    chaseoes

    Called it!
     
  25. Okay, but this does not tell me much. Isn't this the regular way of doing it? You said you got 500 servers on the same rank with the idea in the first post, but without a brief knowing how you give out your points its a useless fact.
    I understand if you don't want to give out the exact formula, but atleast explain how you implemented the idea on your list and then got that result.
     
  26. Offline

    MinecraftMP

    I think you have misunderstood what I said. When I said that I got 500 servers on the same rank, it's by doing test on background without users seeing it.
     
  27. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    Can you say exactly how you did it?
     
  28. Apperently I did, but what numbers did you use on your test then? I want to know how 500 servers could place themselves at the very same rank? Where does the idea fail? And what can we do to fix it.

    Thank you

    /th3cleaner

     
  29. Offline

    Gunnerrrrr

    Me and MinecraftMP had a quite long conversation about this yesterday, and he made some good points against it, but this could be possible with some work.
     
  30. Offline

    MinecraftMP

    I used the idea suggested by the author of this thread. My list store already the average players connected.
    Then I just make a ratio between this value and the number of votes. I end up with a lot of servers with approx. same score.


    Back to the subject, some users talk about listing servers based on quality.

    Quality of what? Building on the server? How nice are the staff of the servers? How nice are the players on the server? How many events are done on the server to entertain players?
    Yes, it could be nice if we could list servers with that, but it's impossible. You can just do that for 10 servers by testing them manually. And even that way, it's not fair, because it depend on your point of view.


    The actual ranking system is not so unfair if you really think about it.

    Uptime
    It represent the quality of the host or the lack of knowledge of the server's administrator

    It could be improve with a ping value to detect lag, but if I ping a server in Texas, while my check server is in France, it will not be relevant.

    Registration date
    Giving a bonus based on date also help to make a difference between a server that was just created (and maybe will be closed in the next hours) and a server that is registered since 6 months and still running.

    Yes, it's not perfect, because you can have a server running for years before your register on a list... But it's like a site and search engine: it's your job as admin/owner to stay in touch about new list.... And all list (including mine) doesn't take lot of time to register on.

    Number of votes
    It represent the players of a server and in a way it's quality. Like I say before, why would players vote for a server if it sucks?
    Maybe I will say something false, but for the moment you can't vote on a list directly in game, true? So, players that vote, are players that visit the server's site and choose to vote!! It recquires an effort and again, why would they do that, if the server does not please them?

    But I don't want to mean, that is there no solution for small servers.

    In the coming weeks/months, I will try to add some new features on my list to help small / unknow servers.
    I don't want to give details (maybe my competitors are watching ;))

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2016
    sillyrosster likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page