How to: Golden Submissions

[Strolen]

Golden Submissions

Golden Submissions should be the best of the best, the cream of the crop, the top dog, and many other clichés that we could continue to list. Therefore, when you vote a sub as a Golden you are saying, "This is ONE of the BEST posts in the WORLD to which all others cannot even compare."

I say that to urge you to only vote for the top top top top top posts as a Golden. Somebody that earns a Golden is going to be hot stuff and idolized by the Strolenati for years to come. If you have a Golden...you are awesome.

But that doesn't really answer any questions though. So here are the mechanics behind it:

Cannot give a submission a Golden Vote until it is over 10 days old.
Since the vote is permanent, this is to ensure that a sub has properly seasoned before Golden's can be applied. Many things change after the first weeks of a sub from new comments that drive a change or updates to it because it is still fresh in the author's mind. When we vote Golden, it should be in a pretty final state and should have gone through the voting/commenting set of events.

XP Bonus:  10xp for getting the Golden vote regardless if it goes gold or not. There is no negative XP for those that don't think the sub is Golden worthy. The XP is yours to keep forever.

Requires a cumulative 3 votes to go Golden: So if I Golden something, that is 1, if somebody else disagrees then that brings it back to normal, 0. If 2 people say yes, 1 says no, then that is a cumulative 1 vote for Golden. A minimum of 3 people have to agree it is Golden.

Username ( ## ): Once you get to level 6 you will magically get the ability to vote on Golden's. At this point there will be a number next to your name that is a link to the Strolenati page where it will list all the pending Golden nominations that need your help deciding.  Use your votes wisely and DO NOT FEEL GUILTY if you don't believe it is a Golden. Vote true to your belief. If it does deserve a Golden, others will vote that way, no worries!

Q: I voted something Golden and now my vote is gone. Where did my vote go?
A: Your vote is still there, it just isn't showing. Votes are only visible on Golden's and on Golden Nominations. Golden's are ALWAYS being voted on. If somebody else Golden's it in the future then your vote will be shown again. Each person can only vote once on each Golden so make sure you mean it!

Q: I can't find the Golden Vote Buttons, where are they?
A: There are 2 conditions that this may happen:

• You are out of Hall of Honour votes. This will be in your top stat bar under HoH.
• You are not yet at a level to give out Golden Votes. You get the ability at level 6.

Otherwise the voting buttons on currently to the left of the submission under all the stats.

Q: Does a Golden vote take away a HoH vote?
A: Yes, it sure does. Whether you upvote or downvote a Golden, it will remove a HoH vote. Golden submission votes are very valuable and represent the best parts of the site so the vote, regardless of the direction, is pivotal in determining what we want to say is "The Best."

Q: If a sub has 3 Golden votes. Can a negative Golden vote knock it out of that status? or is it Permanent?
A: Yes, a negative vote will knock it out of golden but it will remain in nomination status until it reaches 0. You will always be able to vote on Golden's. As times change, so do Golden requirements. Look at us a couple years ago compared to now and what is available. Chances are some old Golden Subs won't hack it. If it is removed, perhaps the author will see this, edit it, and new members will decide it is worthy yet again. Golden's should slightly fluctuate depending on who finds them and votes for them.

[Pieh]

Clarification question and a suggestion, if I may: Does something Golden use up a Hall of Honour vote? What about a vote against Golden?

And, this might be complicated, what if you can only nominate something to Golden (I use nominate to mean the FIRST Golden vote on any submission) once per week? If something is truly top notch, then someone is sure to nominate it, then the rest of us can decide if they are right with our votes. There shouldn't be a need to nominate a sub for Golden more than once per week. I honestly don't think we have that many subs that deserve to be Golden and will be rooting through then as soon as I can.

I like what you have so far, Strolen. Let me know if my idea is doable/makes sense. I can make an attempt to clarify if I need to.

Edit: Ok, I went through and tried to weed through the Golden nominees  I'm suppose to vote on. And soon discovered I was out of Hall of Honour votes. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. I was hoping to vote "Yes" on all the ones that deserved it and "No" on those that I disagree with, but with only 2 votes a day, that can take about 20 days. I do not like this mechanically. I don't think I should lose a HoH option because I don't think something should be Golden. Sorry, Strolen, this doesn't work for me. Anyone else have any ideas?

[Strolen]

If negative voting doesn't have a limit then why should up voting?  Then it is easy and without penalty to downvote something and that isn't too fair either I don't think.

Look at it this way, Golden's have NOT worked properly for a long time. There was no way to identify a nomination in order to vote and even if you did stumble upon it, most didn't know they could or should vote. So right now everybody is at a disadvantage when it comes to Golden's and doing a review of them.

Golden's shouldn't be rushed through either, the vote you cast on a Golden is very valuable so some may prefer you pace yourself instead of going through a dozen or submissions in a day determining their Golden fate.

Golden's are in no rush, they are there, patiently awaiting a conscientious review and a determination. Some may be there for awhile, but there is no time limit and we are in no hurry. If you find HoH's that you like then go for it, if you find that you have some left over and have some time, perhaps it is time to weigh a Golden decision.

Plus, 20 days works wonderfully for me as I may hopefully entice you to return to make your call on a submission.

As for your other idea...it is brilliant actually and I need to try and figure out a way to mark that. I currently don't have a way to track only the nomination vote. On the list! Golden's need to be well earned and having a plethora of them cheapens them a bit.

[Pieh]

Golden's need to be well earned and having a plethora of them cheapens them a bit.

This is exactly my problem, and I consider 48 to be a plethora. I see your points about the no limit thing, but maybe make it separate  from HoH? What do you think of Golden votes "expiring" over time unless it is officially Golden (3 positive Votes)?

I mean, if a sub has only 1 Golden vote for a long time then one of two things is happening. No one has been checking out the Golden nominations, which is bad. Or no one else thinks it should be Golden, I which case it shouldn't be (Since there is a requisite 3 votes). Do I make sense? Please make a counter-point for the sake of discussion.

Edit: Question: If a sub has 3 Golden votes. Can a negative Golden vote knock it out of that status? or is it Permanent?

[manfred]

Well, at least we get some time with the Goldens now. Let's run with it for a while and see what happens... if the number decreases under 20 or so, I'd consider that fairly manageable.

[Strolen]

And as long as you voted, they won't continue to show up in your control panel. A good few of them are fairly recent but many of them have been nominated for a long time so I would like to be patient for awhile and see how they pan out.

If a sub has a 1 for a long time, then 6th level authors and not fulfilling a need of the Citadel and they shall be taken to the public square and ridiculed while forced to eat cabbage with some Texas heat hot sauce. I don't like the autoremove as it cheapens the person's vote through a systemic and impersonal rejection. If the sub is not worthy, then one of many people simply have to cast one vote to negate it and remove the Golden. I feel better about that because it was actually looked at and thought about vs. arbitrarily removing Golden's. A sub at 0 Golden votes ( +1 -1) will not show up on anybodies profile so it just takes one person's downvote to take it out of the running. Many of the those 48 only require a single vote to make it disappear, we just need people to do it so it is not one person's burden.

Question added to first post. Good conversation as well, we want to get this right!

[Moonlake]

I just got here through random browsing and while I've done some Golden voting once in a while, I am not really that diligent with it. However, after I read through this thread, I realise the rule has changed since I last knew of. At one point, Goldens were permanent rather than fluctuating constantly but now with the change to Golden being constantly reassessed, I think some coding logic has to be fixed on the Strolenati page. Currently, it's only presenting Golden nominations for me to vote on rather than all Goldens and Golden nominations that I haven't voted on. People could in theory still come across a Golden by accident and then might vote for/against it while on the actual sub but in most cases, the Goldens who have already attained Golden status will stay there purely due to lack of voting. So yeah, just want to point it out.

[valadaar]

Once it goes gold, I think it is intentional you can'd vote it down again. I am in that camp.

[Moonlake]

That was my impression of how the Goldens worked but that's not what Strolen announced up on his first post for this thread. To be honest, I'm neutral on this issue in the sense that I can see arguments for both ways although I'm slightly leaning towards established Goldens being able to be voted down away from Golden purely because of the fact that the Citadel had evolved drastically from its starting point and some early Goldens might have been less Golden-worthy. But then I haven't read every Golden there is so I cannot vouch for this really being the case.