@DiedEnFreek : the words of Naut about moderation were clear : "The answer is simple: It's time. Moderating the queue with a handful of moderators devoured *a lot* of the time, I spent with whatthemovie since august 2008. Time I could have spent developing. As you are now voting on movies, so did we in the last 10 months. And let me tell you: I'm no movie expert myself (who is able to see the genious in every snapshot). We sometimes did a good job, releasing just the right shots but I can remeber times when people sent us to hell for rejecting their shots. There will never be a WTM which pleases everyone. We have to find the right balance."
That means that dictatorship is impossible. Because of the time, that moderators have not, and because of satisfaction, that will never be plenty for everyone, whatever the system chosen. I agree about the fact that the actual New Submissions system is unbalance and unfair, and so it's going far from the aim of Naut and tliff, far from "the right balance". So it requires adjustments. For the moment, I don't know what exactly, but I think it must be directed around ranks of voters, permissions of solvers/unsolvers, number of admitted shots/day. Please post a summary of all your thoughts here. --> http://forum.whatthemovie.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=347
@LePaposaure : how many moderators were there? I totally agree that N&T should have all the time possible to make the site even better and don't have to spend time moderating, but surely there must be others that can moderate if you ask around.
I don't know how many moderators are working on the site. I don't think moderators are the answers to balance the selection of screenshots. I guess the system can be upgrade to obtain fair rules that limit the involvement of people. I'm still conviced we need moderators, but not people who decide which shot has to be accepted and which has to be rejected.
one solution could be to only count positive votes, as the opposite of vote for deleting. but i have no idea what kind if effect that would have on the quality of the stills. perhaps worth doing an off-line experiment with that...
DiedEnFreek: there were 4 moderators during wtm 1. Because it took a lot of time to review all uploads, most of the time it was the decision of 1 or 2 people on each shot. There was a difference however: in the previous system, moderators would see the solution to the snapshots in the queue (so it was possible to change/add titles), which was the reason why there were so few (trust issues). With the current system, moderation (by everyone) is done without the answer, so I guess it would be possible to increase the privileges of more users and give them "protect" and "delete" abilities. The question of deciding who gets higher privileges remains though.
Also I say yet again (I feel like I'm posting the same things in all topics) that I personally don't see a real problem with the current snapshots in the Feature Films section. I'm not talking about shots that didn't make it, only about the ones that do make it, and I don't think they are all too easy, all from mainstream American movies, all with famous actors clearly recognizable. Complaints about rejected shots are not valid in the new system, because there have to be good ones that don't make it since there are so many uploads every day and only a fixed amount of accepted ones (which is something that was made on purpose because the previous flood of new shots wasn't a good thing). You have to look at what is accepted as a whole, and ignore what was not accepted (the hardest part being about ignoring the fact that *your* shots didn't make it sometimes).