tricsi / upvote Goto Github PK

The current method of selecting games from a pool of unseen games ensures that as votes go on, vote pairings do not strictly increase in similarity. This means the end results are not necessarily accurate, since the order of votes matters. This has been borne out by a number of user reports that games remain widely divergent in quality as they continue voting.

The system should prioritise similarity over all other concerns, selecting from unseen games only after the pairings have been created for the round. This means probably also dropping the restriction on each voter only being able to vote on a game once (it should be possible to select unseen games as a second-order priority).

"You have voted for 210 entries out of 211" the voting page tells me correctly, but it fails to notice that this means I can no longer vote, as there is no other game to pair the last one with.
The "Start New Vote" button should be disabled in this case. Or, even better, the system could allow me to play the last game and at least leave a comment.

Make each Criteria label on the Voting page a link that opens a tooltip or just an anchor link into a new window, which explains more in detail what the Criteria is supposed to measure.

After playing the games I often want to check out their source code to see how they did it.

Adding a link to their GitHub repository would be a great feature, or even better: to their entry page. One could then like/share/check out the dev, etc. too.

The remaining time currently is shown as "4:9" instead of "4:09", etc.

I noticed that I sometimes would give the better game a lesser score than the other because of the number of criterion. A better game can be much better in two criteria and slightly poorer in the rest. It's a bit unfair that it would be rated lower than the other.

Perhaps there should be winners within the different criteria (top 10 most fun) and then a other scale for best game, like 0-6 which is the best game where game A might have 5 points and B 1 point.

After voting on around 160 games the vote was over, I would have been happy to continue playing through the remaining 40ish games and giving feedback.

Once the vote was over I was unsure on what I had and had not played, even if the feedback showed up as post jam feedback and was only open for a limited period.

If the voting page is too narrow, it stacks the games above and below, but the sliders are still left/right, with no obvious indication which side of the sliders apply to which game

If you are on a mobile device it should give you mobile games and on a desktop, it should show desktop games.

This shows the games in their best light but more importantly the mobile games with that use phone feature such as tilt will not work on desktop and keyboard games not working on mobile.

This is a proposal and not an issue per se.

The sliders are somewhat confusing on mobiles. For a LTR it might feel natural that sliding the handler to the right means down on mobile but for a RTL it's the opposite (even if most might understand you're LTR oriented). I also think the desktop version could be improved by a solution other than sliders.

Suggestion: Three buttons per category, an up arrow with a star at the left and a corresponding down arrow to the right. A neutral button in the middle could be a circle. On desktop the arrows would point to the left or the right of course. The active choice would be colored and not selected could be grey. This way you could also initiate the vote with grey icons forcing an active choice from the user even if the middle choice is picked.

Sometimes a game is not playable. This often happens for games in the server category, that require a second player and are just unplayable when there isn't one. But there are some other games, too, e.g. games requiring audio when you are on a public computer with muted speaker and no headphones.

It doesn't feel right to downvote the game just because you couldn't play it, but on the other hand, it doesn't feel right to give it good marks, either. Allowing to skip such games could help. When there is a game with many skips, the voting system could even try to prefer it when many people are currently voting, which would increase the chance for a server game to be playable and thus get the same number of votes as the other games.

Based on #37, adding the experts' comments might be a good idea so they would not need a different platform for that, devs could see the comments on one page (maybe highlighted).

On the page where you click "Start New Vote", it would be nice to see how many total votes you've completed for the current game jam, and maybe even global stats (how many total votes have been entered by all participants so far).

For bonus points, it could calculate the ideal number of votes to get to a relatively stable ranking (obviously the more the better, but there's probably some statistical number that represents "80% good enough"). So it's like a progress bar showing the community's votes so far.

I just wanted to suggest you add a dialogue box to confirm that the details are all correct. I played one game and wrote some comments, then absent minded hit the big button to send the message. Except it wasn't a message, it was a vote. Without playing the second game, or actually voting. Just a suggestion.

Thanks Tricsi!
~KeithK

I entered my game in the WebXR category, and due to the hardware necessary to play those I understand why that category isn't part of the 1vs1 battles.

But I was really looking forward to play and vote on entries from all other categories (Desktop, Mobile, Server, Web Monetization). Given I've got no stake in the outcome, I could be an even more impartial voter!

It's obvious that most games has been rated on desktop which makes it pointless to put an effort to make games responsive on mobile and other adaptations. A desktop/mobile game should get scores within the desktop category if the voter is using a desktop and mobile if on mobile (see #34). This will encourage better and working mobile games.
Special categories such as Web Monetization should have a slider of it's own, which is not used for top lists but the only one for that category. You could make a game that is far from top ranking in the desktop category but has a really smart integration of monetization.

When opening an entry from "entries" page in new tab a new session is started (a new GitHub login is needed).

I think it would be very useful to have a quick way to navigate to the next/previous entry (by ranking? by id?) without having to go back to "entries" page.

If there's a "max timer" on the Voting page, it should show up next to the existing timer (or instead of it?)

Ideally we could label both, e.g.:

2:30 remaining before you can place your vote

and then after you can vote:

[ SUBMIT VOTE - 52:30 remaining ]

It's unclear how to vote for a game that has good music or good sound effects (possibly technical?). This could probably do with its own category for voting.

I would like to filter the games by their category before voting so I can compare games from the same category only (i.e. Mobile or Server).

Adding a simple radio button selection with "Desktop" as default should be good enough for the frontend side.

looks like the vote comments are being “switched”, ex:
https://js13kvote.herokuapp.com/entry/28
https://js13kvote.herokuapp.com/entry/39

As a creator who just spent a month working on a game, I wish I didn't have to wait another 3 weeks to see what others think about it. Would it be possible to display the comments my game received even while the voting is still ongoing?

Backcountry has its source code hosted in a repo owned by a GitHub organization, https://github.com/piesku/backcountry, rather than in a repo owned by me (@stasm) or @michalbe. As a consequence, we can't vote.

This only happens on my laptop and might be hard to reproduce. If I wait for the counter to reach zero and hit submit nothing happens. I see that I get errors in the console log (400 I think) and the API responds with something like {error: error_vote_not_available}.

I get no feedback at all at the page and I'll get the same error if I press submit again. However if I wait a minute or so the vote is registered.

It seems like the javascript counter can end a bit earlier than the server opens up. Suggested solution is not to match the times but let the server accept submissions a minute or two earlier than when the submit button is expected to be enabled.

Browser: Chrome, OS: Windows 10

This year had a few games with cool accessibility options, like https://js13kgames.com/entries/repeewsenim, which could be used with a keyboard and screen reader. Would love to see accessibility added as a criteria so we can highlight games that went the added mile and added it.

I believe that the opinion of experts and organizers should still have value in the competition. Maybe each judge can add one extra point to 10 games of choice or something like this?

It might be useful for players and next year participants to read the comments of devs for previous year's games.

Also, the subdomain at js13kgames is now just "vote", it might be useful - before making it public - to retrain the votes and comments on permanent URLs so they could be reached at any time on them (i.e. search engines would not lead to broken links).

Force desktop vote to use a browser that's in the list of required browsers to support (latest Chrome and Firefox I think). One thing js13k should encourage is to use the latest standards to achieve results within the 13kb limitation. Perhaps ios support should be optional but encouraged so that you can uncheck ios and be able to use modern js without being punished.