curator review 1000 limit is too tough

[IDK]

it should be unlimited
+ text limit too

[Chesmu]

Curators are considered marketing/sponsor agents, so there should be some kind of throttle for that. I would only complain if they limited normal user's review limit to that.

[Washell]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

A limit forces them to think and make choices.

So without a 2000 post limit, are you failing to think and make choices? Or does that only apply to the plebs?

I let it slide the first time, but if you can't see the difference between debates and conversations versus curated collections, we're done. Or are you grasping at straws because you don't actually have any sound arguments and example supported opinions on why it should be unlimited other than "people's tastes"?

How about this, if a curator plays each game for an average of 5 hours, and does two games a weekend, then it takes 19 years to reach the limit of a thousand games. How much worth do a thousand+ reviews have when the time spend must be almost nothing? Or if it's the work of a large group people who all will have slightly different opinions rendering a single solid curation moot?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

So without a 2000 post limit, are you failing to think and make choices? Or does that only apply to the plebs?

I let it slide the first time, but if you can't see the difference between debates and conversations versus curated collections, we're done.

I can see plenty of differences. Similarly, I'm sure you can see the difference between, say, videogames and books, or videogame recommendation systems and exhibitions of the works of Dutch masters. We both understand that analogy involves reframing a principle using a different item, and so the fact that there are differences between the items is inevitable...right?

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

Or are you grasping at straws because you don't actually have any sound arguments and example supported opinions on why it should be unlimited other than "people's tastes"?

It's the other way around: it should be unlimited because the only reasons to limit it are "people's tastes". They're just your tastes, so you're apparently okay with that.

Washell eredeti hozzászólása:

How about this, if a curator plays each game for an average of 5 hours, and does two games a weekend, then it takes 19 years to reach the limit of a thousand games. How much worth do a thousand+ reviews have when the time spend must be almost nothing? Or if it's the work of a large group people who all will have slightly different opinions rendering a single solid curation moot?

If you think curators shouldn't be able to be group works, you're welcome to make a new thread for that suggestion I guess. I don't have a problem with people working together; I've group-written plenty of things, it's not some kind of weird impossibility. Nor do I have a problem with people spending more weekly time on games than you guess they might. That's their business. If I don't think their curator suits me, I can just not follow it.

[Start_Running]

🐉 Chesmu ☠ eredeti hozzászólása:

Curators are considered marketing/sponsor agents, so there should be some kind of throttle for that. I would only complain if they limited normal user's review limit to that.

And thats it. Curators have to bloody curate and that means making choices as to which games deserve a space in their coveted curation list.

[MalikQayum]

this is the core problem with people that dislike curators, is the fact they don't know how they work, simple as that.

"How about this, if a curator plays each game for an average of 5 hours, and does two games a weekend, then it takes 19 years to reach the limit of a thousand games"

the math is so random on this it makes no sense, where does he get these numbers from?
is he saying a curator reviewer uses 5 hours on playing a game? i presume he assumes one has to complete the game in order to curate it.. and the 5 hours are just insane.. as if all games have content for 5 hours and not to mention why is he assuming a person can only pay 2 games a week..

but the worst part about what Warshell is doing is the fact he does the math for 1 person... when most curators at least the bigger ones are runned by multiple of people.

so how is he not taking that into account, i will tell you, because it doesn't fit his narrative that curators should not be allowed to curate more than a set limit.

the reason for why there shouldn't be a silly limit, is because you don't stop recommending a game because you hit a limit.

[Start_Running]

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

this is the core problem with people that dislike curators, is the fact they don't know how they work, simple as that.

"How about this, if a curator plays each game for an average of 5 hours, and does two games a weekend, then it takes 19 years to reach the limit of a thousand games"

FUN FACT:
Curators do not have to play or even own the games they curate. Interesting how few people remember this and how few curators mention this little tidbit.

but the worst part about what Warshell is doing is the fact he does the math for 1 person... when most curators at least the bigger ones are runned by multiple of people.

And?

the reason for why there shouldn't be a silly limit, is because you don't stop recommending a game because you hit a limit.

The reason there is a limit is because curation means selecting the most fitting. If you hit the limit then you need to look at the other 1000 games and figure which one needs to be bumped off to make room. IOf you can't manage that...well then you missed the entire point of curation.

Personally i'd like the limit to be dropped back to 500.

[cinedine]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

cinedine eredeti hozzászólása:

That's contrary to curation.

Given that the limit is currently two thousand and the world hasn't imploded, I think this concern is pretty overblown. Steam isn't a museum, it's a videogame shop; "curators" here are just helping customers figure out what to buy. If you don't think the name fits the function, that's fine, but that's a naming issue, feel free to make a suggestion to change it. All this acting like these lists are high art that needs gatekeeping is very silly.

The name was chosen in respect to the function they should have played.
A curator should help you find games with specific content, gameplay, or features. For example you can follow a F2P curator, a anime game one or a co-op one. Or a "games that channel/magazine/podcast has played" in regard to "influencers".

I also don't know why you think I elevate games onto the level of high art. Curators are a tool to find games actually worth playing in among felt thousands of thousands of games. Old one, new ones, good ones, bad ones, ... nobody needs yet another list of popular games and certainly no one needs yet another bottomless list to look through.

If you want random people to give their opinion on random games that's what the user reviews are for. If they are big enough to have a decent audience, they are probably also big enough to other channels for their reviews that are far better than Steam's blurbs.

1000 games is far more than big gaming magazines with multiple reviewers AND freelancers manage in *years*.
You harper on about giving "thoughts about a game". If one person manages to give their thoughts on 1000 games, their thoughts are not based on playing these games. That's what wrong with it. And as Washell said, if multiple people give their "thoughts" about something, how comparable are they?

...
...
Fun Fact: my local supermarkt actually does curate their offers and cycles out stuff that doesn't sell for stuff that does sell. They also don't try to sell me a TV, a jackhammer, a yacht, and apples but have a limited product range they maintain. And within that range they have a price range they maintain.
It's almost as if they are strapped for space and thus have to make decissions on what to put on display, what to sell online only and what's absolutely not their business.

[Gus the Crocodile]

cinedine eredeti hozzászólása:

I also don't know why you think I elevate games onto the level of high art. Curators are a tool to find games actually worth playing in among felt thousands of thousands of games. Old one, new ones, good ones, bad ones, ... nobody needs yet another list of popular games and certainly no one needs yet another bottomless list to look through.

The "high art" thing was probably me getting you mixed up with Mr Dutch Masters up there, but the world of museums and galleries is where curators live, and you've been appealing to the word's traditional meaning to direct the way you feel it should be interpreted here.

Again, if you don't want "bottomless lists" or lists of popular games showing up in your recommendations from curators, then don't follow people making those. "Problem" solved.

cinedine eredeti hozzászólása:

If you want random people to give their opinion on random games that's what the user reviews are for. If they are big enough to have a decent audience, they are probably also big enough to other channels for their reviews that are far better than Steam's blurbs.

Everyone is a 'random person' to people unfamiliar with them. Literally everyone who has a Steam curator could be writing those recommendations somewhere else, and yeah, many of them no doubt do. But the whole point of the curator system is that it's integrated into the store, so you don't have to check other channels all the time while you're shopping.

cinedine eredeti hozzászólása:

1000 games is far more than big gaming magazines with multiple reviewers AND freelancers manage in *years*.

Okay, cool; so are lots of other numbers. So as I asked before, how do you pick the one "correct" number for your limit? All I'm proposing is that we don't actually have to declare a correct number. Everyone can choose for themselves what they find useful.

All this top-down, arbitrary "limit it to ways that seem sensible to me" stuff is the same approach that people have been rightly opposing when it's been regularly suggested in various ways to do with Greenlight, Early Access, "quality control" etc over the years. We don't need to impose arbitrary restrictions based on what some people think.

cinedine eredeti hozzászólása:

You harper on about giving "thoughts about a game". If one person manages to give their thoughts on 1000 games, their thoughts are not based on playing these games. That's what wrong with it. And as Washell said, if multiple people give their "thoughts" about something, how comparable are they?

"Comparable"? Why does that need to be my standard?

For instance, one of the curators I follow is the RPS one. That's based off the opinions of multiple people. So what? As long as I find their recommendations and their writing interesting or useful etc, why would it matter to me that there's more than one person on their staff? Now, they're only at ~350 curator reviews or so, but if some other team was spending more time on it and their audience were happy for them to continue, I don't see a reason why they should be prevented from continuing.

[MalikQayum]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

this is the core problem with people that dislike curators, is the fact they don't know how they work, simple as that.

"How about this, if a curator plays each game for an average of 5 hours, and does two games a weekend, then it takes 19 years to reach the limit of a thousand games"

FUN FACT:
Curators do not have to play or even own the games they curate. Interesting how few people remember this and how few curators mention this little tidbit.

You are quoting me here, yet i do not see anywhere in that quoted part i said anything remotely closed to whatever that response let to.
(I know how a curator works i operate a pretty successful one.)

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

but the worst part about what Warshell is doing is the fact he does the math for 1 person... when most curators at least the bigger ones are runned by multiple of people.

And?

You split my response here, and clearly can't read, i quoted the bit Warshell said about his math with using 1 person thinking it would take 19 years to do 1000 games because he made up his own variables.
(If english is not your native language then lets try this in your language.)

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

the reason for why there shouldn't be a silly limit, is because you don't stop recommending a game because you hit a limit.

The reason there is a limit is because curation means selecting the most fitting. If you hit the limit then you need to look at the other 1000 games and figure which one needs to be bumped off to make room. IOf you can't manage that...well then you missed the entire point of curation.

Personally i'd like the limit to be dropped back to 500.

this is the only bit, you should have quoted from me, since this is the only thing that has anything to do with something i wrote.

and you are wrong, if a curator wants to recommend every game in the store then they should be allowed to do that. The follower of that curator should perhaps consider if that then means this curator is for them. The ones that think the same should then follow it, nobody is forced to follow a curator, you get that?

[MalikQayum]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

For instance, one of the curators I follow is the RPS one. That's based off the opinions of multiple people. So what? As long as I find their recommendations and their writing interesting or useful etc, why would it matter to me that there's more than one person on their staff? Now, they're only at ~350 curator reviews or so, but if some other team was spending more time on it and their audience were happy for them to continue, I don't see a reason why they should be prevented from continuing.

You can tell that these people really don't know much, since they first thought the limit was 1000 and i had to then tell them it was 2000.

They fail to understand that a curator can be more than 1 person, which makes sense because valve set the limit to 5 packages per curator that can be sent and max 100 packages can be sent by a developer/publisher in total for that appid.

so curators definitely are not just 1 person, what would 1 person do with potentially 5 copies of a game?
(I am not saying a curator can't be one person, but the curators that do hit this limit usually are curators that are more organized and does it in a bigger scale with a team bigger than 1.)

I myself have a team of 8-10 people, and i would want a much bigger team than that, hitting that limit is just a matter of time then.

[Start_Running]

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

The reason there is a limit is because curation means selecting the most fitting. If you hit the limit then you need to look at the other 1000 games and figure which one needs to be bumped off to make room. IOf you can't manage that...well then you missed the entire point of curation.

Personally i'd like the limit to be dropped back to 500.

this is the only bit, you should have quoted from me, since this is the only thing that has anything to do with something i wrote.

and you are wrong, if a curator wants to recommend every game in the store then they should be allowed to do that. The follower of that curator should perhaps consider if that then means this curator is for them. The ones that think the same should then follow it, nobody is forced to follow a curator, you get that?

OIfv they recommend everything in the store then THEY AREN"T CURATING.
If the idea of actually having to select and choose between two or more things is a problem, then they have no business being a curator., on Steam. they can always do their own curator thing on their own website.

[MalikQayum]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

OIfv they recommend everything in the store then THEY AREN"T CURATING.
If the idea of actually having to select and choose between two or more things is a problem, then they have no business being a curator., on Steam. they can always do their own curator thing on their own website.

You are making up a hypothetical scenario where a curator would recommend everything in the store, have you seen such a curator that has curated (recommended) the about 38000 games in the steam store? obviously not because the limit is 2000 curator reviews, so what are you on about?
a curator doesn't only recommend titles, it seems that you don't understand what is being said in this topic at all. the limit is 2000 curator reviews that goes for not recommended, recommended and informative curator reviews as a total.

You impose your standards and views on what a curator is suppose to be like as if you speak for valve, trying to tell us what the definition of a curator is in the optic of valve.

Yet i don't see you quoting anything relevant (steam curator faqs/guidelines or articles where valve is quoted from or something valve themselves has said.) that would support your diluted idea of what a curator is.

now feel free to educate yourself:
https://store.steampowered.com/curators/aboutcurators/
https://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/

remember to quote something tangible that can support your far fetched arguments about what curators are suppose to be like.

EDIT: to sum it up, having a limit is silly, which is probably also why valve has changed the limit not once but twice already and all it does is basically limit bigger curators from properly functioning.
but i have no doubts that eventually valve will again increase the limit as that is how it usually goes.

[Start_Running]

MalikQayum eredeti hozzászólása:

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

OIfv they recommend everything in the store then THEY AREN"T CURATING.
If the idea of actually having to select and choose between two or more things is a problem, then they have no business being a curator., on Steam. they can always do their own curator thing on their own website.

You are making up a hypothetical scenario where a curator would recommend everything in the store, have you seen such a curator that has curated the about 38000 games in the steam store? obviously not because the limit is 2000 curator reviews, so what are you on about?

You're the one who introduced the hypothetical.

You impose your standards and views on what a curator is suppose to be like as if you speak for valve, trying to tell us what the definition of a curator is in the optic of valve.

And which definition of curator are you using?
Because pretty much every definition I've seen pretty much lines up with the 'subject specialist' idea. A curator is in charge of selection. Which means you have to select. You have to choose. and Limiting the amount of entries helps make sure that what is chosen are the exmplars of the curator's chosen theme.

Yet i don't see you quoting anything relevant (steam curator faqs/guidelines or articles where valve is quoted from or something valve themselves has said.) that would support your diluted idea of what a curator is.

One would think that the word itself would be enough. Its kinda like when you apply for a dog breeder's license they don't define the term 'dog'. Its assumed that you had that much understanding to begin with.

now feel free to educate yourself:
https://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/

Nothing in there goes against anything i have said m8.

remember to quote something tangible that can support your far fetched arguments about what curators are suppose to be.

Likewise.

Here's the thing. Its not that Valve even prevents you from doing more than 1000. You justy have to create a different group. So again, if you can't manage the task of actually choosing what deserves to be on your list...then maybe you aren't cut out for the system and should GYOW.

[MalikQayum]

you are mentioning 1000 again, and i said about 3 times now that the limit has been increased a long time ago to 2000.
since you are essentially just asking question to my questions and not actually answering probably because you are unable to answer them.
but that is an occuring theme with you, looking at most your post in various topics as they are designed often to just make a post rather than to contribute.

I feel, i have said the things that needed to be said and i feel like @Gus the Crocodile has also pointed out something valid that covers this topic.

i will now unsub from this and for the future don't try to get into a discussion with me, i wont be interested in it as i mentioned already i don't feel like you contribute to anything other than just writing random stuff.
so to sum it up: don't quote me, if you do quote me don't expect an answer because answering you here let me to write 3 responses i did not need to.

[76561198868894950]

technical limitations, not by design. this was stated by a Valve employee in the beta iirc

side question: do you guys have access to custom images & backgrounds or is that still a whitelist only thing?