Discussion on Community Picks

Community Marketplace
1

Thank you for your participation in the Community Polls thus far. We have a few changes that will be implemented and wanted to get your opinions on them for the next community feature.

As before, this is a trial and the system is still in flux. We will continue to monitor the response and progress of the polls for the forseeable future to see where improvements can be made.

Below are the new featured slot time options we have come up with. We would like to get your thoughts on these options or if you have another option to consider please post it below!

We have two different ideas to improve the quality of featuring from the community poll. We have heard that the 2 month timeframe we currently use is far too long and we have come down to two new options for featuring that not only cover the winner but also those items that came in second and third on the list, which both increase exposure and fairness of the system.

Option #1

Limit featuring to:

3 weeks of the month - First place
2 weeks of the month - Second place
1 week of the month - Third place

To ensure we do not remove feature real estate from other featured slots, we would add additional featured slots to cover the second and third place slots. During the voting week we would have the first slot covered with the new voting poll as we have been doing the previous two months. This would allow for exposure for the majority of the month for the first place option while still giving time to the second and third place items.

Option #2

Limit featuring to:

2 weeks of the month - First place
1 week each - Second place and third place

This method reduces the total time an item is featured to 2 weeks for the community poll and gives time to both second and third place.

In both instances, we will be reducing the overall time that an item is featured as some in the community have requested while respecting the community’s decision for most popular new content.

We understand that there have been some frustrations that have come up regarding the Community picks and we are keeping these in mind during this process. However, we do not believe that removing the picks will be the right choice in the long term. Instead, we would like to improve the system we have implemented. The interactions and dialogue we have had with you, our community members, has been invaluable to helping improve the marketplace. As stated before, this is subject to change based on your feedback. We want to thank you all for working alongside us as we make changes to improve the marketplace experience.

2

I…don’t understand what you are talking about. Someone want to clue me in?

All I can grok is that it has something to do with the community pick(s) that suddenly started happening. I haven’t seen any polls anywhere. I certainly don’t understand the above options. What am I missing?

3

Normally you would limit the time if there are others waiting in the line. But I think when second and third place reach their limited time and they disappear, nothing else is waiting in the line to appear there as cycle isn’t finished yet until the first place also reaches it’s limited time and disappears. So maybe giving all three an equal exposure time can be more profitable for both sides. Otherwise, I think option 2 is better because it makes the polls more frequent and more people get the chance to go on the front.

Side note, [MENTION=49] [/MENTION] Since it’s either option 1 or 2, and both of them include the second and third places on the front, I would love it if you can go ahead and give this month’s second and third places the 1-2 week exposure time on the front page before the time runs out. Currently only the first place is featured.

Thanks.

4

[=CleanCut;648530]
I…don’t understand what you are talking about. Someone want to clue me in?

All I can grok is that it has something to do with the community pick(s) that suddenly started happening. I haven’t seen any polls anywhere. I certainly don’t understand the above options. What am I missing?
[/]

You probably missed this

I agree with . Limitting the exposure time was supposed to give more marketplace items a chance for a spotlight…
I if I remember right, the original intention of suggesting less exposure time was that one wanted to use the slots for different things.
I think exposing the first place in the first 2 weeks, the second place in the third week and the third place in the fourth week would be smart. Because this way, we would need only one “community pick slot” and could use the other 2 slots for stuff like

  1. “staff pick” (this could change every week if the staff thinks there is an interesting pack. But I think this pick should be made after seeing the other picks)
  2. “random pick” (this random pick could change every week)
  3. “bestseller pick”
  4. “unrated pick” (this could be a random pick of marketplace items that are rated maybe 2 or less times)
5

I’m all for whatever offers more exposure to many sellers. It shouldn’t just be one up there IMO. I also think the google account limits the amount of people who would participate in voting. Is there no way to handle the voting via the forums? Or is there a limit to how many options you can put in the poll?

[=rYuxq;648547]

I think exposing the first place in the first 2 weeks, the second place in the third week and the third place in the fourth week would be smart. Because this way, we would need only one “community pick slot” and could use the other 2 slots for stuff like…

[/]

I like this idea. Very efficient.

6

[=;648534]
Normally you would limit the time if there are others waiting in the line. But I think when second and third place reach their limited time and they disappear, nothing else is waiting in the line to appear there as cycle isn’t finished yet until the first place also reaches it’s limited time and disappears. So maybe giving all three an equal exposure time can be more profitable for both sides. Otherwise, I think option 2 is better because it makes the polls more frequent and more people get the chance to go on the front.

Also the google poll abuse is still a thing.

Side note, Since it’s either option 1 or 2, and both of them include the second and third places on the front, I would love it if you can go ahead and give this month’s second and third places the 1-2 week exposure time on the front page before the time runs out. Currently only the first place is featured.

Thanks.
[/]

Hi ,

Thank you for your feedback. The google poll abuse is something we are tackling separately. I’m not sure what you mean by waiting in line. In the first option, we would place additional content in the featured slots after the second and third packs went down. This guarantees a featured space for them for an allotted amount of time, after which other content would be featured until the next poll. Polling will still happen once a month, the only difference here is the length of time in which features are shown.

If you have additional ideas for how this should be handled, we are more than happy to hear them! The ideas above are what we have come up with that would satisfy the current frustrations we have seen with the system in place while still ensuring the communities’ voice is heard. Having said that, we are willing to consider alternative options. We will be implementing these features starting next month, after we have an idea of what is requested.

For Cleancut, there are polls that we have set up each month during the first week of the month to select what content to feature from the previous month’s released content. This is made available on the forums and recently we have begun adding the poll to the featured section in the featured slot during the week it is available. We are currently working on ways to improve this system to allow for not only more visibility but to ensure it is something that the community wants, which thus far the reaction has been predominantly positive and seems to be desirable. With modifications to the current time frame and what is featured, we hope that it will continue to grow and be a part of the marketplace community. If you have any additional questions about the community featured slots, please feel free to reach out to me and I’ll be happy to help.

Thanks,

7

I think SE_JonF is right. I’m all for whatever offers more exposure to many sellers.

8

Im going to pick option 3.

No community picks.
I am all for more exposure, but not something so easily manipulated as this.

10

I’m down with the no voting packs option :stuck_out_tongue: Otherwise… option 2. The shorter the better IMO. If new packs have had enough exposure to get voted for, then they don’t really need more IMO.

11

I’m happy to see improvements on that part

If choosing from these option then my vote goes for Option #2.

As for Community picks overall I’m not sure I’m getting the concept behind. Promotion is a marketing tool that gives exposure for seller and value for user. We’re voting for already promoted asset(Well, it’s been promised in 3rd paragraph, yet this is not happening at the moment. Let’s assume rotation does exist) to promote it again immediately. How the one is chosen? It depends on creator marketing abilities and how well known this asset is. First winner was Dungeon creator plugin which was awesome and was known for ages. Current winner is Linter by Allar who managed to collect more people than others due marketing skills. It’s a popularity contest which result in promoting already promoted and well known asset within same time frame.

IMHO the real problem is that promised rotation is absent. Each week we’re getting ~30 new assets(usually less), only 5(sometimes less) of them promoted during the week. To put in perspective, during month we’re getting ~120 asset and community see only 20 on the frontpage. Without community picks 7-9 new assets could be promoted on the front page and it possible to update frontpage 3 or 4 times per week to show everything being released. Every asset will get at least 2 days window span to have a chance to be noticed. It might be not perfect as well, but IMHO it is much better than promoting only 20% of weekly batch and then 1% of monthly batch for even longer periods

12

So to sum up I think we all agree on these:

  1. The shorter the feature time, the more chance for others, the better.
  2. First place in the first 2 weeks, the second place in the third week and the third place in the fourth week.
  3. 2 more slots for other “picks” such as random pick, high rated pick.
  4. Giving all packages the chance to participate in every poll until they are selected.
  5. It’s frustrating to only have newly released packages participate in the poll and never let the loser packages participate again in future polls. Let alone that the newly released packages have 1 week time on the front already in the “new content” section.
  6. A better way for voting i.e the person voting for a package has to enter his order ID of that package. This way no one can vote twice no matter how many accounts they have.

My own preference for the pick is to not have users/sellers nor staff involved in which package is picked. Some easy rules can be used to let the system decide what packages are picked based on the ratings, number of sales, revenue generated etc. Voting is never going to be fair.

13

[=;648728]
I’m down with the no voting packs option :stuck_out_tongue: Otherwise… option 2. The shorter the better IMO. If new packs have had enough exposure to get voted for, then they don’t really need more IMO.
[/]

I agree with this.

14

[=;648887]
So to sum up I think we all agree on these:

  1. The shorter the feature time, the more chance for others, the better.
  2. First place in the first 2 weeks, the second place in the third week and the third place in the fourth week.
  3. 2 more slots for other “picks” such as random pick, high rated pick.
  4. Giving all packages the chance to participate in every poll until they are selected.
  5. It’s frustrating to only have newly released packages participate in the poll and never let the loser packages participate again in future polls. Let alone that the newly released packages have 1 week time on the front already in the “new content” section.
  6. A better way for voting i.e the person voting for a package has to enter his order ID of that package. This way no one can vote twice no matter how many accounts they have.

My own preference for the pick is to not have users/sellers nor staff involved in which package is picked. Some easy rules can be used to let the system decide what packages are picked based on the ratings, number of sales, revenue generated etc. Voting is never going to be fair.
[/]

+1
Though I am not sure if limiting voting to buyers is a wise idea, I think the voting should be done through the marketplace. Because then the staff wouldnt need to create polls every time and all marketplace assets could participate in the votings.
And only people who have bought a few assets or spend a certain amount of money on the marketplace should be allowed to vote. This way, no one would try to make new accounts just to give multiple votes.

15

[=rYuxq;648938]
And only people who have bought a few assets or spend a certain amount of money on the marketplace should be allowed to vote. This way, no one would try to make new accounts just to give multiple votes.
[/]

To be “community pick” it means your content should be tried out and approved by the community members. If you don’t own a package and have no idea about it, how can you recommend it to others? and it still leaves the abuse door open.

16

[=;650944]
To be “community pick” it means your content should be tried out and approved by the community members. If you don’t own a package and have no idea about it, how can you recommend it to others? and it still leaves the abuse door open.
[/]

Your suggestion on the other hand may be a disadvantage to e.g. expensive assets, since they are less likely to bought immediately. And I may be naive, but I dont expect people who are “regular customers” to abuse their right…

17

Don’t want to sound like a douche, but…
There is already system with votes/ratings that exists since Marketplace creation and only clients are allowed to vote. If we’re having these community votes then I would prefer for Epic put emphasis on already existing features which provide more data and much harder to abuse/misuse than google polls.
It could be so much more only if put focus on THIS voting instead of creating another lesser one and forcing it. For example one slot for weekly high rated assets, one for monthly high rated, one for all time high rated assets. Add ability to sort assets by already existing data and boom we have something usable.

18

[=;650989]
Don’t want to sound like a douche, but…
There is already system with votes/ratings that exists since Marketplace creation and only clients are allowed to vote. If we’re having these community votes then I would prefer for Epic put emphasis on already existing features which provide more data and much harder to abuse/misuse than google polls.
It could be so much more only if put focus on THIS voting instead of creating another lesser one and forcing it. For example one slot for weekly high rated assets, one for monthly high rated, one for all time high rated assets. Add ability to sort assets by already existing data and boom we have something usable.
[/]

finally, a good alternative (which should not have been the alternative) suggestion.
Add an email after a week or two asking the person to vote/leave a comment about the package and bam.

19

I feel the current community spotlight is the same as “the Rich get richer”, where high selling assets are then promoted more and get even more sales, where as the lesser known/more expensive assets go unnoticed. I also feel there is a large disconnect about voting in these monthly polls. I think it should all be done in the launcher, or at least have an option to do so because as it currently stands its really only marketplace sellers and a few other people who are even aware of the voting.

20

[=;653572]
I feel the current community spotlight is the same as “the Rich get richer”, where high selling assets are then promoted more and get even more sales, where as the lesser known/more expensive assets go unnoticed. I also feel there is a large disconnect about voting in these monthly polls. I think it should all be done in the launcher, or at least have an option to do so because as it currently stands its really only marketplace sellers and a few other people who are even aware of the voting.
[/]

I’m going to have to agree. Highlighting by popularity means that only already-successful projects get highlighted. It’s not helpful to the rest of the content creators.

Not sure what to suggest instead, though.