Hi!

Recently we've made the executive decision to raise the osu!standard threshold to 90%. I personally still stand by this decision as a correct one, though more people seem to feel as this is too high. Because Loved is primarily a community-run and community-focused Project, I want to bring this decision to a poll of whether it should stay at 90% or move back to 85% as a compromise.

My stance: As I've stated previously, I don't see why having maps be denied from Loved is seen as a bad thing. If anything, it should show that the voting is serving its purpose. There have been previous concerns that "voting no doesn't do anything" and setting a threshold at 90% gives more power to that selection. Consider before voting whether you feel like your position for an 85% threshold is more tuned to seeing one of your favorite maps being denied and not for the benefit of Project Loved as a whole.

Note: I will not consider moving it lower than 85% in the future.

Please share your opinions below!

I was exactly thinking about that

I don't think this is a good decision purely based on the fact that loved, as I remember it being set up, should be a method for standout maps to get a leaderboard.

Standout maps include, but are not limited to:

- maps that are amazingly mapped but don't fully conform to ranking criteria
- maps that promote new ideas and new mapping techniques but are unfit for ranking due to the way they're set-up (forbidden patterns à la burai slider or ninja spinners, or just flatout MinG Style Editorbreaking)
- maps that for one reason or another gained notoriety and community approval
- maps that should be ranked and could be ranked, but the creator has left the community or doesn't/can't push it to ranked due to circumstances

All raising the approval level does is potentially drown out maps of the second variety, due to them being more prone to controversy, nothing more. Maps of the first and third variety will get past the threshhold in most cases simply due to people actively wanting to see them loved and therefore interacting with the system where they otherwise won't, and the fourth variety will most likely strike people as "fine" and therefore not prone to discouraging the loved status.
The only time most people will make the conscious decision to vote against a map being loved is if the map strikes them as 'too odd', 'not comfortable', or 'trolling'. If I were to name an infamous extreme, it would be (still under the first loved system) IKENAI BORDERLINE.

However, since all loved does is give unranked maps a spotlight, I think if anything we need more of the second variety of maps, as those typically inspire and impact more people than any of the other three do. Previously, this could only be achieved by biting the bullet and actually ranking them (Miss You, Exit This Earth's Atomosphere, Kikoku Doukoku Jigokuraku and many more I'm probably forgetting). I don't think reversing the opportunity to have them be loved instead, even if it's only partially, is a good thing, especially considering none of those maps would probably have had a 90% approval rating at the time of their peak controversy. Neither would for example A-L-I-E-N.

there's probably reasons why you decided to put different tresholds for different gamemodes, but imo they should all be the same, kinda weird to see a map getting denied with higher % of people wanting it loved than an accepted map in another gamemode

I already posted this on reddit, but I thought it would be beneficial for those on the site to see my thoughts as well:

Having a high loved threshold is not beneficial to the section in my opinion. I have not seen anyone develop the reasoning behind why no votes should matter more than yes votes. It would just make a majority of people angry because of a relative few, and that is already becoming the case with maps such as Steamed Hams not going to get loved.

The purpose of loved is to give spotlight to unrankable maps. It is not meant as a tool to measure objective map quality, nor is it meant to have a complex and difficult process in place for maps who want to get in. It is supposed to be a simple alternative to ranking. It is supposed to highlight controversial maps that may not be adored by a full 90% of the community. It is supposed to hold refuge for maps whose ideologies can be deemed "ridiculous" or "unplayable." If it can't do that for maps which the majority (50+%) of the playerbase supports, it is not doing it's job, and it should undergo reform.

Remyria wrote:

there's probably reasons why you decided to put different tresholds for different gamemodes, but imo they should all be the same, kinda weird to see a map getting denied with higher % of people wanting it loved than an accepted map in another gamemode

Non-standard gamemodes see a lot less vote engagement than standard does, and in turn makes the "no" votes hold a lot harsher weight than it would otherwise.

I understand the perspective of wanting to give "no" votes more power, however - despite that I still think 90% was too high. I will agree that 75% was too low - it was far too easy to meet that threshold and basically anything put up for Loved voting could get through, say for a few exceptions like that Undertale meme map. When it was raised to 85 80%, I genuinely believed that was the sweetspot that it was a step in the right direction - it did tried doing its job of giving No votes a lot more power and maps that actually deserved the status got in while the ones that didn't deserve it didn't get in.

With 90% though, it always felt like there is a clear bias. With it, it's too easy to get people to vote No on a bunch of maps (bandwagoning if you will) and only get the "good maps" get in, which is why I felt Captain's Pick was starting to lose its charm and I began to lose interest in the project. There have been plenty of cool maps over the past few Loved votes that should've gotten in but were shot down due to their approval rating being 80-88%, while (in my opinion) really low quality 7 star shitjump spam maps get above 90% and get in easily. It changes the perspective of the system in a negative light in my opinion.

85% is the sweetspot because it gives maps the status if they truly deserve it and it prevents bandwagoning. The less people abusing the system the better.

Note on edits:
I mixed up my info with something entirely unrelated. My bad. I crossed out parts of the original post that I made with false information and corrected things where I saw fit.

huu wrote:

When it was raised to 85%,

Just a note, it was raised to 80%, never 85%.

Toy wrote:

huu wrote:

When it was raised to 85%,

Just a note, it was raised to 80%, never 85%.

My bad, probably mixed up with something else unrelated.

Toy wrote:

Remyria wrote:

there's probably reasons why you decided to put different tresholds for different gamemodes, but imo they should all be the same, kinda weird to see a map getting denied with higher % of people wanting it loved than an accepted map in another gamemode

Non-standard gamemodes see a lot less vote engagement than standard does, and in turn makes the "no" votes hold a lot harsher weight than it would otherwise.

that makes sense, thanks

As I've said in posts before, I agree about it being 85% instead of 90%, it is a less extreme and a bit more fair. There is no need to raising or lowering it anymore.

And thanks for clarifing why the other modes has a lower percentage, now I understand it.