Technique interpretation website idea.

For project proposals, updates, and volunteering. Please read the forum rules before posting.
Forum rules
HEMA Alliance approved projects are marked with an asterisk. You do not need to be a member to propose or contribute to a project, though you do need to be a member to be a project team lead. Non-Alliance projects that are for the primary benefit of the full HEMA community are welcome in this forum.
User avatar
John Harmston
Site Admin
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:27 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby John Harmston » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:09 pm

You guys raise some good points about the central importance of the videos.

Also, ideally, the video clips would focus on just that particular technique being discussed. They could also contain audio commentary explaining nuances.

I don't know if we would want to encourage certain guidelines also, such as recommended backgrounds, posing, lighting, etc. For instance, do we discourage music and encourage concise verbal explanations?

Ben, do you see any technical issues with "embedding" YouTube videos right in the page, rather than just a list of links that take them off the Wiktenauer?

Perhaps, what we do is have a volunteer write up the preliminary summary information, then have subsequent people copy that post, make edits, and post a new version to the same thread? That takes the general crowdsourcing approach of a wiki and makes it more kludgy, however it also is easy to do on a forum and allows for quick and easy discussion as the information evolves and grows...
John Harmston
Senior Instructor - True Edge Academy
HEMA Alliance Forum Admin
Lifetime Member, HEMA Alliance

User avatar
Ben Floyd
Site Admin
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Ben Floyd » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:44 pm

I believe embedding videos will slow down the page a small amount since you'll have to load each still image for the start frame of each video. Otherwise, you're not downloading the video until you hit 'play'.

Another idea is to have the top two or three vids posted on the main technique page. The page wouldn't include all videos for the technique or even the detailed written analysis for each, but this would allow for the most commonly 'liked' or viewed videos to get more visibility. The video section for each technique could then allow for more dedicated space for each vid and discussion.
Ben Floyd
HEMAA Lifetime Member
Krieg School of Historical Fencing, a HEMAA group

"A poor Stück will be executed by an ingenious mindful person much more usefully in the work, than the best one will be executed by a fool."

Ben Michels
HEMA Alliance Member
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Ben Michels » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:15 pm

John Harmston wrote:You guys raise some good points about the central importance of the videos.

Also, ideally, the video clips would focus on just that particular technique being discussed. They could also contain audio commentary explaining nuances.

I don't know if we would want to encourage certain guidelines also, such as recommended backgrounds, posing, lighting, etc. For instance, do we discourage music and encourage concise verbal explanations?

Ben, do you see any technical issues with "embedding" YouTube videos right in the page, rather than just a list of links that take them off the Wiktenauer?

Perhaps, what we do is have a volunteer write up the preliminary summary information, then have subsequent people copy that post, make edits, and post a new version to the same thread? That takes the general crowdsourcing approach of a wiki and makes it more kludgy, however it also is easy to do on a forum and allows for quick and easy discussion as the information evolves and grows...


The video should be specifically made for that technique and could include other techniques that usually fall under it in the manuals... like abnehmen or the windings after a zorn. As long as it's clear and there's both explanation and demonstration of how they perform the technique, I don't see much of a reason for consistent backgrounds, lighting and all that. Just 'make it clear'. I installed a tool that allows embedding of youtube videos on the wiki a year ago and unless we have 10+ videos on the page, I don't see there being too much of a loading time issue. If it does become one, it'd be pretty simple to just go through and replace them with links.

I actually prefer the 'discussion first, summary later' model that you originally proposed over a 'summary first' model. I feel like someone typing up a summary first may artificially limit the discussion to just what's in the summary and I think we would rather want to see full discussions on specific techniques. After the discussion starts to wind down, the original poster (or someone) can write up a high-level, basic summary that covers as many bases as possible.

We can try it one way and if it doesn't work well just change it for the next thread.

User avatar
KeithFarrell
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:02 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby KeithFarrell » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:48 pm

I quite like the idea of being able to "rate" video clips of interpretations so that the highest rated clips appear first, or even just so that people have an idea of which clips might be better than others.

The problem with that idea however is that it is vulnerable to attack. For example, someone posts his interpretation and gets all of his friends to rate his clip 10/10 and to rate all the other clips 1/10 so that his clip suddenly becomes the highest rated. Alternatively, people who simply don't like a person might make a point of maliciously rating down all clips by that person to discredit their online presence. Or someone might just feel like being a rebel and could vote random values for random clips just to screw up the playing field.

A simple solution could be that every user's every action is recorded in a log, and if a user makes three "unusual" actions in a row their account is flagged up for moderator review. This could become quite intensive for moderators though, and is getting into the realm of a serious piece of programming...
-- Keith Farrell --
Academy of Historical Arts: website Facebook blog
Fallen Rook Publishing: website Facebook

User avatar
Ben Floyd
Site Admin
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Ben Floyd » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:17 pm

You could simplify the voting to: 'like', 'neutral', and 'dislike', and then track them with a user logged poll or something.
Ben Floyd
HEMAA Lifetime Member
Krieg School of Historical Fencing, a HEMAA group

"A poor Stück will be executed by an ingenious mindful person much more usefully in the work, than the best one will be executed by a fool."

User avatar
KeithFarrell
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:02 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby KeithFarrell » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:32 am

Ben Floyd wrote:You could simplify the voting to: 'like', 'neutral', and 'dislike', and then track them with a user logged poll or something.


That would simplify matters, but would probably oversimplify things. If you are looking to be able to rank videos then you need some kind of quantitative measure, whereas "liking" things is very qualitative. You can "like" every video while still believing that some are better than others! Perhaps an easier system would be "not good", "mediocre", "good", "excellent" and encourage people only to use "excellent" when they feel a video is truly outstanding. At the moment on YouTube I have collected playlists for different weapon systems of over 100 clips, most of which fall into the "mediocre" category. Quite a few of them are pretty good, and a handful are exceptional. That is perhaps the best way to rank things I believe.
-- Keith Farrell --
Academy of Historical Arts: website Facebook blog
Fallen Rook Publishing: website Facebook

Craig Shackleton
HEMA Alliance Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Craig Shackleton » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:35 am

I'd rather not have negative choices on the rating scale. At most I'd like to see fair-good-excellent rating. I think that negative ratings open up more room for abuse by biased detractors, and are better dealt with by either giving specific feedback that can be addressed or by making an alternative interpretive video showing a "better" version. The only anonymous negative feedback format I would like to see is a "report" button or similar function for offensive material.

To go further, I really actually prefer for the most part a "hot or not" rating or a "like" rating. Studies have shown that this type of rating is generally the most democratic system, and the more complicated we make it the more room for abuse we open up. If anything more is needed, I would prefer that each user have one floating "favourite" vote for the video that they think best represents the technique.

My extra little argument here is this. If someone goes to the effort of making and posting a video, regardless of how inaccurate or problematic it is, I'd rather give them constructive feedback than demoralize them with a bunch of negative ratings. This is, in fact, one of the things I'm trying to prevent with my initial proposal.

User avatar
Ben Floyd
Site Admin
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Ben Floyd » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:31 am

Craig Shackleton wrote:I'd rather not have negative choices on the rating scale. At most I'd like to see fair-good-excellent rating. I think that negative ratings open up more room for abuse by biased detractors, and are better dealt with by either giving specific feedback that can be addressed or by making an alternative interpretive video showing a "better" version. The only anonymous negative feedback format I would like to see is a "report" button or similar function for offensive material.

To go further, I really actually prefer for the most part a "hot or not" rating or a "like" rating. Studies have shown that this type of rating is generally the most democratic system, and the more complicated we make it the more room for abuse we open up. If anything more is needed, I would prefer that each user have one floating "favourite" vote for the video that they think best represents the technique.

My extra little argument here is this. If someone goes to the effort of making and posting a video, regardless of how inaccurate or problematic it is, I'd rather give them constructive feedback than demoralize them with a bunch of negative ratings. This is, in fact, one of the things I'm trying to prevent with my initial proposal.


That's why I suggested a simplified rating system. The more options there are, the more disparate and polarized the ratings will become. I would support a neutral-fair-good-excellent rating. There needs to be an option for people who want to rate but do not agree (total votes are important too). Neutral is more akin to saying, 'I don't agree, but it's still an opinion.' I also agree that 'dislike' could discourage people from posting video. If the votes were counted behind the scenes from 0-3, the total could be used for rankings.
Ben Floyd
HEMAA Lifetime Member
Krieg School of Historical Fencing, a HEMAA group

"A poor Stück will be executed by an ingenious mindful person much more usefully in the work, than the best one will be executed by a fool."

User avatar
Ben Floyd
Site Admin
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Ben Floyd » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:38 am

KeithFarrell wrote:
Ben Floyd wrote:You could simplify the voting to: 'like', 'neutral', and 'dislike', and then track them with a user logged poll or something.


That would simplify matters, but would probably oversimplify things. If you are looking to be able to rank videos then you need some kind of quantitative measure, whereas "liking" things is very qualitative. You can "like" every video while still believing that some are better than others! Perhaps an easier system would be "not good", "mediocre", "good", "excellent" and encourage people only to use "excellent" when they feel a video is truly outstanding. At the moment on YouTube I have collected playlists for different weapon systems of over 100 clips, most of which fall into the "mediocre" category. Quite a few of them are pretty good, and a handful are exceptional. That is perhaps the best way to rank things I believe.


From a single-user perspective, you would benefit from 1-10 rating system. In a multiple user system even a simple 'like/dislike' will give ok results based on total votes recieved. If 100 people vote with 50 like and 50 dislike, it would be a neutral rating of 5. If 100 voted again with 70 like and 30 dislike, it would be a 7. This is quantitative.
Ben Floyd
HEMAA Lifetime Member
Krieg School of Historical Fencing, a HEMAA group

"A poor Stück will be executed by an ingenious mindful person much more usefully in the work, than the best one will be executed by a fool."

Craig Shackleton
HEMA Alliance Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Technique interpretation website idea.

Postby Craig Shackleton » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:04 am

Ben Floyd wrote:That's why I suggested a simplified rating system. The more options there are, the more disparate and polarized the ratings will become. I would support a neutral-fair-good-excellent rating. There needs to be an option for people who want to rate but do not agree (total votes are important too). Neutral is more akin to saying, 'I don't agree, but it's still an opinion.' I also agree that 'dislike' could discourage people from posting video. If the votes were counted behind the scenes from 0-3, the total could be used for rankings.

This system would be acceptable to me. when I posted a fair-good-excellent rating, I was thinking of a 1-3 point rating. Adding a neutral 0 point rating gives another option but doesn't modify the net outcome, other than registering a neutral vote.

I know I'm not the only one, but in my other life I'm a sometimes freelance game designer. One common game design thing is that the greater the range of variable in a system, the more the system is "swingy." What this means is that you have greater chance of getting outlier results that don't actually match what the probability predicts. The smaller the sample size, the greater the effects of swingy outliers. What this translates to for our purposes is that the more choices we give for ratings, the less consistency and accuracy we will get in our results due to variations in the users. Some of it will be from intentional abuse, but some of it will be just from the fact that some people mark high in general and some people mark low in general, and even things like the mood of the reviewer at the moment of making the rating, and let's not forget user error. And unfortunately, the impact of outlier results will be big, because we aren't going to get a huge sample size of ratings to even things out.

That's why I want to limit the range of the score in addition to keeping scores positive.


Return to “HEMA Alliance Projects”