I think we are all pretty aware of how many low effort proposals are coming through these days, clogging up this subforum and hiding the stuff that people actually put effort into. As such, I think it is about time we got some quality standards in here. I'm not one to suggest specific methods for this, but we really need something that hides or removes proposals that are A: non-descriptive, low effort, and fail to contribute to discussion, or B: repeats of prior suggestions (especially if that prior suggestion was a high effort one). Most proposals these days are one or the other, so it is getting really annoying. Whaddya think? Update: well we now have a manual system in place to gather up the smaller proposals into a single thread. Makes sense really, as those types of proposals rarely needed a thread of their own.
The best proposal. This forum became so clogged down with low-effort shite that I just had to unsubscribe from it.
I agree the forums are clogged with too many proposals, many lack any info on the route and rolling stock they think should be in it. I say only post a route proposal if you are serious about seeing it added to the game. And watch and read the forums carefully to make sure that you are not posting something already proposed.
We are talking about low effort here. Effort so low that people won't even write words on their own post, much less write words in the search box. As such, I think simply deleting these would stop the problem for the most part, as it takes effort to rewrite the post.
The issue is is that there is nothing in the guidelines about it (i think). If the guidelines get changed, then a simple report button will do it. EDIT: Also, the forums don't need 30 thousand posts on TSW needing a steam engine.
I've seen one recently saying that they need to build the Edinburgh - Glasgow route with the 380. And that's it. They expect miracles to be done instantly and on their demand. (They - refers to the user that posted the thread)
I agree that some content control would be helpful. I'd also like to propose that DTG themselves should actually participate in the suggestions and proposals subforum. There have been hundreds of proposals and suggestions over the last the year, and DTG have not acted upon any of them. DTG don't even acknowlege the really popular proposal threads where members of the community have taken time and effort to put together comprehensive proposals.
I agree with the sentiment - but once you start deleting posts - it becomes a slippery slope - What I would recommend is a form that has required blocks of information that must be completed before it can be submitted - much better than mere guidelines that can be followed or not, or puts another job for a moderator to go through and decide if it meets the guidelines or not. Additional benefit of a form - would be easy then to incorporate the form into a database for tracking and searching purposes. Just a thought...
I don't think it is a slippery slope for this section of the forum. This part of the forums is for proposals. Any post that exhibits a severe lack of effort towards the idea they are putting forward is a waste of space and people's time. How can a proposal be taken seriously if someone doesn't think the new route/loco/feature that they are proposing is worth at least a few decent paragraphs (or even sentences).
Fine -- just wait till people start screaming -- "DTG deleted my post -- they do not want to hear from their customers" regardless of how much effort they put into said proposals.. Just been around the block a few times since Usenet days --
Well now the attempt is to condense it down into one thread. Not sure how long that'll last, as it appears someone could still post a 'one liner' outside of that thread, but if someone can keep up with moving posts into there then I don't see a problem. (And there's the route thread too.)
It takes seconds to merge threads, so if new one-liners get flagged I can quickly merge them in, if I haven't already seen it. I'd rather not be outright deleting people's suggestions, but I agree the flood of one-liners needs to be kept in check or there'd be too many threads to find the good, well laid out and detailed proposals. This idea seemed like a good compromise to me.
When would realistic track sounds will be implemented in TS1 and TSW. Right now only Loco sound is being focused.But loco sound is important when we are in cab. While railfanning and in the passenger coach we hear only track and wheel sounds.Pls check the sweet track sound in this video. must be implemented in any trainsim.
On proposals I think DTG should publish some guidelines about what a realistic route might be. Even some of the well documented proposals are so grand in concept (‘all of the London Underground’, ‘All Australian routes’) that they aren’t pratical, at least at this stage of TSW development. So some statement that concept routes should be (say) 75-100 miles in length and have two key loco proposals would make some sense. If people want to propose something longer then they should outline how it could be split (a la ECML in TS) and which portions should be done first. Now suggesting to people that there are limits (at least in the present stage of development) to how long and how complex routes could be might be something they don’t want to hear, but then it might engage people in some level of reality. At the moment we have people suggesting 400 mile routes and then complaining about the cost of 50 mile ones. Voting on proposals also needs to be standardized. I found myself reading one yesterday that suggested I could only vote ‘no’ if it was already included in the game. Perhaps I didn’t think that the DLR wasn’t a good idea for TS as you don’t drive the trains!
