Preparing for PZ2 metawishlist
- Thread starter Stygi
- Start date
What would be an example of generic vote?
Gibbon
I see. Well, unlike with subspecies, I don't have personally anything against discarding generic votes, but I can see if both subspecies and generic votes are disallowed, it creating confusion with "layman" participants.
For example, I can see same people that don't know differences between Lar and Crested Gibbon voting for a Grizzly Bear.
The idea of the main list, as I see it, is that it goes by species.
However, in addition we can use the metadata to compile some 'categories' and see which groups are in high demand. The same was done with the original list. It will be an addition to, rather than a replacement of, the species list.
You are confusing quality for quantity. More participants will give a higher quantity, but is unrelated to quality. Having informed responses will yield better quality, but is unrelated to quantity.
Education decision simply means being cognizant about which specific species you want added, and not something arbitrary like “parrot” or “monkey”. If you are indifferent to a specific species, it should not be difficult to pick one at random and copy-paste the Latin names.
Latin names for many species are on Wikipedia right next to the common name. It’s not rocket surgery to copy-paste from the most widely used online encyclopedia.
The majority of the playerbase also pays no attention to content creators, no matter their presence. Most people just mind their own business when playing singleplayer games with a distantly connected “online multiplayer” mode.
Once again, the solution is education. If someone’s answer is missing details, teach them what to do next for their submission to count.
lol no, the list is to represent the overall wishes of the community, therefore more responses make the list more legitimate as it more accurately represents the wants of the community, this means that a list with more responses is of higher quality because it more accurately fulfils its intentions
Well but at least the people that do follow them can vote. Like i said DeLady's survey got a lot of votes.
@Mjmannella I guess the debate about Latin names can go on forever and I understand your view but I agree to disagree I guess. I think you highly underestimate how that silly extra step of checking the latin name can deter people from participating. In my experience running a meta-wishlist, I can guarantee you the best thing is always to assume the laziness or indifference of the average PZ player or internet/forum user. There are even plenty of PZ veterans and active members of this community that have never submitted a list simply because they couldn't be bothered.
The quality of each individual response can arguably be better based on your 'education' argument, which is a very controversial one to begin with because nobody needs to be educated to make a submission. They just need a list of animals they want, some can give a deeper thought to it but you can't ask or expect everyone to do so. If someone just copy-pastes the PZ1 list of animals and follows the basic rules, that list is equally valid and valuable.
But regardless of that, the quality of the whole output, aka the actual meta-wishlist, is undoubtedly hindered if less people participate. Okay, technically it's not quality I guess, I'll give you that, but power, relevance or representativeness, which is the ultimate goal of this project. It's a basic thing in statistics.
The quality of each individual response can arguably be better based on your 'education' argument, which is a very controversial one to begin with because nobody needs to be educated to make a submission. They just need a list of animals they want, some can give a deeper thought to it but you can't ask or expect everyone to do so. If someone just copy-pastes the PZ1 list of animals and follows the basic rules, that list is equally valid and valuable.
But regardless of that, the quality of the whole output, aka the actual meta-wishlist, is undoubtedly hindered if less people participate. Okay, technically it's not quality I guess, I'll give you that, but power, relevance or representativeness, which is the ultimate goal of this project. It's a basic thing in statistics.
Last edited:
I can confirm I would be one of those people, it’s just way too much for me. I don’t have the time or interest to comb through and copy and paste 150 scientific names.
The best case scenario is we get as large of a sample size as possible, the forum can be its own echo chamber. So it’s good to have as many people as possible. It’s much easier to spread around a google doc to get as many people as possible. With as little barrier to entry as possible.
To me the point is that every person's vote has the same validity regardless of who they are or their level of knowledge/ignorance.
Someone who doesn't know or care about the difference between a Red River Hog and a Wild Boar will still buy PZ2. And their list(regardless of how us Zoo nerds think about how it is compiled) that they put together in 15 minutes has just as much validity as someone who spent hours researching the exact species/sub species they want.
For me, I'm an animal lover, but my knowledge is clearly quite a bit below most everyone else here about taxonomy and all that jazz. If I had to submit the Latin names, I would probably just do a quick list of 20-30 of my most wanted animals max. No way I'm gonna do that for a list of 100+ animals...and it's not that it isn't worth my time, it's that I don't like the idea so I wouldn't do it - with no shade at all being thrown to Mjmannella.
Someone who doesn't know or care about the difference between a Red River Hog and a Wild Boar will still buy PZ2. And their list(regardless of how us Zoo nerds think about how it is compiled) that they put together in 15 minutes has just as much validity as someone who spent hours researching the exact species/sub species they want.
For me, I'm an animal lover, but my knowledge is clearly quite a bit below most everyone else here about taxonomy and all that jazz. If I had to submit the Latin names, I would probably just do a quick list of 20-30 of my most wanted animals max. No way I'm gonna do that for a list of 100+ animals...and it's not that it isn't worth my time, it's that I don't like the idea so I wouldn't do it - with no shade at all being thrown to Mjmannella.
I've just sent a private Discord invitation to the relevant people to coordinate and work together. Please if I've missed someone willing to work on this let me know.
I'd love an invite
More responses means more data, it doesn’t change what the data tells the collector. Therefore, having more data does not have any bearing on the quality of said data. Legitimacy of data is based on what each piece of data regardless of the collective stream of data. Therefore, having more data does not inherently mean it is of higher quality.
And a survey with just 1 extra part that’s super easy to check can also be promoted by said content creators. It doesn’t have to be a binary.
If I assume people will be lazy, I then assume that I will also teach them so they can take the next steps to give qualitative data. Being thorough doesn’t have to be a daunting task. Just communicate clearly and individually as need-be.
Nobody needs to be educated, but educating people may be necessary for everyone to make informed decisions. Otherwise, you’re left with ambiguous data that can’t be properly organized.
Developers also need specific species to implement, so having that qualitative data is absolutely relevant to this purview so the devs adds exactly which species the people want to see added.
Or we just have a lower maximum and not worry about this workload.
I don't know why are we still having this discussion. It's been thoroughly explained by many members here. Quality of data is not that relevant for Meta Wishlist. Quantity is.
Because the number one goal of the Meta Wishlist is to get as many members of community as possible to vote.
To assure that we need to make participation as simple as possible.
It's cool to want to educate people, but Meta Wishlist isn't a place for that.
My point is that those numbers are irrelevant if it doesn’t clearly communicate what people want to see in the game. Frontier could add a dingiso to fill the role of a tree-kangaroo, but that’s not what people expect when they throw down “tree-kanagroo” as a generic response. Having that extra step helps give clarity for more direct communication between the community and the developers.
I agree but for that isn't necessary to write the scientific name of the animal.
But like i said i don't think the list should only Say "duck", "crane", "tamarin", etc. because there are preferences of what specific species or subspecies people want to see in game.
Like you said, i couldn't care less about getting the dingiso but i do want a tree kangaroo, and not just any tree kangaroo i want either matchie's or goodfellow's. And which one gets more votes should be reflected in the list.
But we can be somewhat specific without needing to use scientific terminology.
The Latin names give clarity to exactly which species are preferred. Some species have several common names, and some common names are shared between species. But Latin names are essentially customised so these issues don't occur. It's an objective and clear criteria because many species either have Latin names or are in the process of acquiring them.
I can't understand why the idea came up in the first place of forcing the "why wasn't there dolphins in the oceania pack" crowd to look up and write 150 scientific names which means both parties have to waste time translating what that is into plain english. People like me who do have a good understanding of animals but don't know more than 10 scientific names off the top of their head would consider skipping such a wishlist.