Quite a few people still think the Siberian tiger and Amur tiger are 2 different animals, I wouldn't have any faith in casual players understanding the concept of what animal is a subspecies and what isn't.
Preparing for PZ2 metawishlist
- Thread starter Stygi
- Start date
This is exactly why we have to have a plan in place for subspecies do we write them off completely or sort them properly. Also we inevitably need to read through all the entries anyways since common names change alot depending on the region so adding notes based on if someone suggested a subspecies should be fine.
This is understandable. I am ok with the instructions outright saying no subspecies but people will inevitably add them so what to do then becomes the question what then.
Subspecies should not be on the public list it will just crowd the list and split votes unnecessary they only really come into play when the game actually releases and we have to split whichever ones show up against what people actually wanted so maybe we should start with no subspecies and if they show up sort them to species level and deal with splitting at a later date when we know more.
Easy. Direct them to another thread to discuss it further if they care that much.
Going with @Angeł point, how does trying to avoid including subspecies for obvious big name animals help with representation to what the community is actually voting for? We have subspecies for tigers, bears and who knows what else that people only care for that exact subspecies like say a kodiak bear or a european brown bear instead of just a generic brown bear. We can't assume this proposed sub-species selector is even going to be a thing because it simply gives frontier more work for less reward, in regard to the number of animals ingame that supposedly everyone cares so much about.
Frontier don't seem to understand themselves where to draw the line, the definition of subspecies is all over the place with animals like the formosan black bear, himalayan brown bear, timber wolf, takin, cougar etc. If the workload of such a meta-wishlist could be divided between 2-4 people, the idea of including subspecies will be no more of an issue than wanting to give everyone 150-200 animals per vote. I remember I only gave 25 animals for randomgoat's wishlist so the increase of animals is going to be insane once this catches on.
Frontier don't seem to understand themselves where to draw the line, the definition of subspecies is all over the place with animals like the formosan black bear, himalayan brown bear, timber wolf, takin, cougar etc. If the workload of such a meta-wishlist could be divided between 2-4 people, the idea of including subspecies will be no more of an issue than wanting to give everyone 150-200 animals per vote. I remember I only gave 25 animals for randomgoat's wishlist so the increase of animals is going to be insane once this catches on.
As someone who has spent a lot of time doing a large wishlist, the subspecies issue is much bigger than you are making it out to be. So much so that I refuse to discuss it further. If that's what you all want to do, count me out. Also, explain how the workload would be divided.
I stand by your decision and agree we shouldnt be encouraging more work discussing it further is pointless.
I would also like to add that sorting animals based on whether they are exhibit, flying aquatic or habitat is a much greater issue than people think because it means that you have to make a judgement call every time you reach animals that could go either way which will cause issues working with large numbers of people and lead to alot of mistakes where a common name doesnt immediately indicate that for instance a bird is primarily grounded or the size of a lizard. I am strongly against the idea of categorising the animals in this way as it will be a major headache for everyone.
Also there is a reason most wishlists are 25-50 animals because anything more than that and we get both more random picks to fill out the list and exponentially more work for us to sort. Sorting through hundreds of animals in 1 persons list makes the process much more difficult than a shorter list which will be a better representative of what the people want. A persons top 50 will provide a much more useful spread of data with more votes going to higher priority animals and less new animals shortening the list and making the choices more prominent.
I've been reading through everything and even though I haven't tried to keep track of a list before on here I have a suggestion that I think may be helpful: How about having users list the scientific name of each animal they wish to have included and then put the common name after it in parentheses? This way sub-species can be included and it would remove the issue of having to sort through animals with multiple common names. It also has the benefit of informing everyone of their common names in cases where some might be more regional specific.
It would be a bit more work on the users end but would also cause them to really look into the animals they are choosing and is simple enough to do through quick google search.....again just a thought
It would be a bit more work on the users end but would also cause them to really look into the animals they are choosing and is simple enough to do through quick google search.....again just a thought
this would be the best option I feel even if it lows the accessibility of the list slightlyI've been reading through everything and even though I haven't tried to keep track of a list before on here I have a suggestion that I think may be helpful: How about having users list the scientific name of each animal they wish to have included and then put the common name after it in parentheses? This way sub-species can be included and it would remove the issue of having to sort through animals with multiple common names. It also has the benefit of informing everyone of their common names in cases where some might be more regional specific.
It would be a bit more work on the users end but would also cause them to really look into the animals they are choosing and is simple enough to do through quick google search.....again just a thought
No problem, that's where I come in.
It's my job to scroll through lists with lots of very long numbers and find mistakes...and I love it.
When it comes to sorting and finding mistakes, I'm your woman.
I think that's a pretty smart idea!I've been reading through everything and even though I haven't tried to keep track of a list before on here I have a suggestion that I think may be helpful: How about having users list the scientific name of each animal they wish to have included and then put the common name after it in parentheses? This way sub-species can be included and it would remove the issue of having to sort through animals with multiple common names. It also has the benefit of informing everyone of their common names in cases where some might be more regional specific.
It would be a bit more work on the users end but would also cause them to really look into the animals they are choosing and is simple enough to do through quick google search.....again just a thought
Has anyone thought that we could possibly create a database?
I haven't worked with one for a while, but I know that you can simply enter the data, create a data sheet for each voter, and use a query to filter out the 100 most popular animals without having to go to the trouble of sorting them yourself. You then just have to make sure that the animal votes on the data sheets are clear and error-free.
But that shouldn't be a problem if several people are working on the data. That would also allow us to go up to 300 animals.
Speaking of which: I've thought about the number of votes again. What's really really annoying me at the moment is the sheer number of lists for PZ1. I haven't even participated in the newer ones because it got annoying at some point. I actually want to avoid this list madness for a sequel. PZ currently has just under 200 animals. If we allow fish and birds for PZ2, it might make sense to cover not just the base game but also the DLCs. But that's only possible if we create a database. I once worked with it in vocational school, but that was 10 years ago...Btw, you can also program Excel tables so that everything is sorted automatically with a click. But you also need a certain amount of know-how in VBA.
As suggested above I think we would either have a private group conversation or a discord server for us to discuss managing the list, I am not totally sure how we would divide the work but it depends on how many people will be helping, so far I think we have 4, me, @SuzieSky @Milurian @Fini and are waiting for a few other people to confirm whether or not they will take part
Last edited:
From my experience managing the foliage meta-wishlist, this won’t work. People don’t go through the effort of searching for the proper scientific name and I ended up having to do it myself which was a lot of work.I've been reading through everything and even though I haven't tried to keep track of a list before on here I have a suggestion that I think may be helpful: How about having users list the scientific name of each animal they wish to have included and then put the common name after it in parentheses? This way sub-species can be included and it would remove the issue of having to sort through animals with multiple common names. It also has the benefit of informing everyone of their common names in cases where some might be more regional specific.
It would be a bit more work on the users end but would also cause them to really look into the animals they are choosing and is simple enough to do through quick google search.....again just a thought
I think it’d be easier to go with common names and find a way to deal with the few species that have multiple equally common names in English.
And to facilitate list management let’s omit subspecies altogether. For the most tricky species (i.e. tigers, leopards, wolves, brown bears and domestics) there can always be a separate thread.
I’d be happy to help out with list management btw.
I have code that does this for the list I run.
I’m honestly fine with leaving subspecies out. Though I will say when it comes to the big subspecies: tigers and brown bears. That will pose a bit of a problem. Still, for the sake of ease I don’t blame wanting to simplify everything.
@SpookDoc has also shown strong interest I guess? Also suggested a new (to me) way to collect the data.
Which, at the end of the day, and given the latest discussions, how to collect the data seems to be the trickiest part.
I have a few questions here, addressed at different people:
- @SpookDoc this Microsoft Forms thing. I only quickly tried it yesterday so I probably only discovered the tip of the iceberg. It seems to be a very intuitive and more "standard" way to conduct such a survey. However, as good as that system can be to collect the data, can it be used to process it and present it in a consistent manner?
Also, making people go out of this forum to complete that survey might be a bigger issue than we, at first thought, envision. Always assume people's laziness for extra steps.
I'm also thinking: eg. one person votes for Elk, another for Wapiti. Would this therefore make Elk and Wapiti have one vote each despite being the same thing? Wouldn't you need to resort to Excel (or similar) for that anyway, as well as for spelling mistakes?
- Species/subspecies debate. I like the idea of forcing participants to submit scientific names, but that's solely based on my own selfish perspective as someone who run a meta-wishlist. Wouldn't that deter some people to post a wishlist at all? We all have to think that the average audience is people who like animals but don't have a deep and sharp knowledge on scientific names, species/subspecies categories or even decent internet-searching abilities altogether. We might be losing lots of potential participants this way, and always bear in mind that getting more and more people should be a priority.
- @SuzieSky that code you speak of: do you reckon it'd be easy to use by other people?
Also, I know you've made your point clear about subspecies. Fair enough. I also understand not wanting to include domestic breeds at this point. That could be done separately later down the line. However, do you think allowing very few exceptions for subespecies (we all know what I'm talking about: essentially lions, leopards, tigers, wolves and brown bears) would be such a big deal for you? Wouldn't that be a decent compromise if you make that exception clear in the OP? We'd be talking an extra 20-25 animals, compared to the thousands of species people would submit.
Mind you, I understand your point completely. Like, it's a pain that some people vote for generic grey wolf, and others vote for eg. Iberian wolf. But wouldn't we have the same situation with people requesting a "generic gibbon" vs. a Lar gibbon?
Last edited:
Just to throw my hat in the ring I think we should probably allow people to suggest up to 50 animals and probably limit it to just new stuff to not have to deal with that headache.
As for what counts as habitat/exhibit/whatever I think it's best to just leave it up to interpretation of the users. If someone thinks a tamarin should be a habitat animal then they should be able to include it, if they think it should be an exhibit animal then submit it on an exhibit list? I don't really think restricting will be useful especially when we have so many variables and have no idea what habitats/exhibits will be like in the sequel.
As for what counts as habitat/exhibit/whatever I think it's best to just leave it up to interpretation of the users. If someone thinks a tamarin should be a habitat animal then they should be able to include it, if they think it should be an exhibit animal then submit it on an exhibit list? I don't really think restricting will be useful especially when we have so many variables and have no idea what habitats/exhibits will be like in the sequel.
Would it make sense to breakdown the animals added? Like by animal group?
Like say I can use my waterfowl thread to gather the top 10 requested waterfowl and then just send the information over to one of you guys.
Like say I can use my waterfowl thread to gather the top 10 requested waterfowl and then just send the information over to one of you guys.