Custom Map Tag Request

[Winst]

Could we get a tag for Earth and Non-Earth Maps? I know that it is something a lot of people look for in their map selection. I for one am always looking for ways to improve our regional map, but have to look at a whole bunch of Earth Maps before finding the more creative and usually more complex custom maps. I'd be pretty simple with a [Custom Map] Tag and [Earth Map] Tag. Is it doable if not why?

[Winst]

bump

[Frisbeeteria]

bump

The lack of response to this thread is typically indicative of a lack of interest on the part of other players. A huge tag cloud of underutilized tags actually works against the purpose of tagging, so we usually won't add tags without significant signs of interest.

Note that this is not an invitation to load up support posts with puppets or everyone in your particular region. Let's try for some outside views.

[Bears Armed]

The possible addition of '[Custom Map]' and '[Earth Map]' tags?
Count me as an "outside view" in favour.
After all, if we can (and already do) have separate tags for 3 different flavours of ‘FT’ RP then having 2 tags for this aspect of RP seems reasonable… and the nature of regions’ maps is a detail that I’ve seen mentioned quite often in the Find-A-Region megathread.

(My own home region would probably use the '[Custom Map]' tag, at least once we get a new Cartographer recruited & working.)

[Kitzerland]

Ooh, me too. This would be nice for people who don't just want maps of earth where someone used "fill" on MS Paint.

[Mount Seymour]

Agreed, I'd be another outsider in favour. From following threads such as the "Find-A-Region" one in GP, it seems that many, if not most, of the people asking there include some kind of "I want a region with an Earth-based/non-Earth map". Personally, the way I found my region was partly through the map tag, but I know I wouldn't have stayed long if it was a real-world map.

(and yeah, as a non-RPer, I could never figure out what all those tags like "FT: FTLi" meant, if we're going by the idea that these map tags wouldn't get much use, then I don't know what to say about tags such as "F7er" (only 34 regions using) or "FT: STL" (only 35), many of which are only used by regions who tag themselves as everything.)

[Vancouvia]

Support

[Dytarma]

I support this.

[The Lechites]

Same here.

[WW3 Memorial]

This seems like a good idea.

[Sotasky]

I support

[Federated Kingdom]

I'd be interested in custom and Earth map tags. If we can have three different tags for future-tech based on far smaller differences, I see no reason why we can't have two tags for all tech-levels of roleplayers.

[Forenet Skandinavien]

I offer my support.

[Malve]

You have my support.

[Feudal Capitalist Gulch]

This seems like something that would be useful for sorting. The custom map to earth paint-fill are almost as distinct as map vs no map, in my opinion.

It has my support

[Enfaru]

Whose right is it to say an "Urth map" is not a custom map? It's certainly not mine and I don't think it is the Ops either.

There are perhaps 200 regions or so, with over 20 members that actually make use of the Map tag at all. Given that there are almost 20,000 regions, that's about what 1% of regions using the map tag at all. I cannot lend my support for an implementation of a new tag based on that especially if less than 200 regions are going to be making use of it.

From the top 50, I selected at random (generated a list of numbers) 20 nations out of those 4 had so called Urth maps, the rest of them had custom maps. Out of those that had Urth Maps 2 had a fairly legitimate reason behind them (they were based in Europe or some such) and the remaining 2 were anything but a copy and paste job that we see from some of the younger regions.

Based on the evidence at hand (someone please, feel free and go get another sample, maybe a larger one) I just do not see the point in adding an additional tag that will only serve to exclude out of some sense of elitism, as if Urth maps cannot be as good as maps made from scratch. Given some of the regions that I've visited in the course of my brief research, on average the custom maps have been of substantially poorer quality.

In conclusion, I see no need for the creation of a "Custom Map" tag. It won't make your region more visible. It'll add to a new nation's confusion when they are searching for regions "with a map" and at worst it could even create a two tier system and make your region much less visible to potential new recruits.

Edit:

As for the argument: Why can we have FT:STL and not Custom Map... I'd argue that if so few nations have consistently made use of the tag, then it should be removed. Though we might want to take a look at how many clicks said tags are getting before removing them.

[Winst]

Your first point is just semantics. If it actually bothers you there could be another name but it seems to be precise enough.

Your second argument is deceptive as yes there are 20,000 regions and map makes up a small amount of those regions. If 1% is too low of a number why would 3% be any better? Modern Tech has 2.8% and World Assembly has 3%.

I have a biased towards non-earth maps, but that doesn’t mean that they are not valid. “Urth” maps are desired by some. I know some that use it to have a more realistic region such as geopolity. I believe it would be beneficial for both types of regions.

I don't see where any confusion could be? If you are looking for a Map and you see an [Earth Map] Tag or a [Custom Map] Tag seems pretty clear to me.

As for the two-tiered, my bias towards such is not held by all. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=365030 in the mega thread it is common enough to see Earth Map requests.

[Enfaru]

It isn't just semantics at all. That's just trying to dismiss the point. I'm not sure you get the right to decide whether someone else's map is an Urth map or not.

Further, because someone customizes a map, they think that it is no longer an Urth map and so tap up the Custom map tag as well. Then we're back to square one with two utterly useless tags instead of one tag that actually does something useful.

My second argument is about the decision to split a tag into two, 2% is an extremely poor threshold for that, at least 2% of 20,000. If we were talking 2% of 200,000 you might have a point but for around 200 regions? Might as well start handing out custom tags (thereby making them pointless) to everyone that wants one. If it were 5% or greater, then I could then begin to see the argument for splitting the tag into something more manageable but it isn't, so I see it as pointless. Why the arbitrary number? 5% is traditionally seen as the threshold of statistical significance when measuring results i.e the beginning of the moment when things start to matter. Like, most people wouldn't complain if there was a 2% increase to their taxes (some would I grant) but a lot more people would complain if there was a 5% increase to their taxes.

It is not hard to click through the nations that show up under the map tag and check the maps for the map you want. In fact, I'd go as far to say as this is what nations already do, before joining a region they actually check the map first (assuming it was the map that drew them there in the first place). In other words, you wish to create a system that will just add additional clicks to a users journey and the only reason appears to be to ostracise a minority of regions that do use "Urth" maps.

As for that thread, there are 72 matches for the word "Earth" out of a total post count of 716. Out of that only 10-20 (depending on definition) posts were about directly looking for an Earth based map, with most either quoting the request, stating that they wanted non-earth or something similar. 10 out of 716. 1.4% of posts. I dispute "it is common enough". That's a damned rarity.

[Winst]

I believe an Earth map is pretty clearly defined... as a map of Earth. I don't see the issue.

If you look at Earth Map RP regions and Custom map regions they usually have two very different outputs and formats. Distinguishing between them seems like a fair thing to do.

Again they get their own tag as well why would it ostracize them? People can search for them exclusively.

[Enfaru]

I see you're still missing the point. I'm not asking for the definition of an Earth map, I'm asking why you think you get to decide which is which.

I've demonstrated repeatedly why splitting the tags will defeat the aim that you're trying to achieve. All for the sake of looking slightly superior, because that's all it comes down to really. There aren't actually enough "earth maps" in significant regions (i.e. regions with more than 20 members) to warrant any additional tags, nor has there been significant demand in searching for earth specific maps. So on both accounts, it's a pretty pointless proposal that we have here.

[Todd McCloud]

I see you're still missing the point. I'm not asking for the definition of an Earth map, I'm asking why you think you get to decide which is which.

I've demonstrated repeatedly why splitting the tags will defeat the aim that you're trying to achieve. All for the sake of looking slightly superior, because that's all it comes down to really. There aren't actually enough "earth maps" in significant regions (i.e. regions with more than 20 members) to warrant any additional tags, nor has there been significant demand in searching for earth specific maps. So on both accounts, it's a pretty pointless proposal that we have here.

Aren't non-Earth maps more creative than Earth maps, as the nations they select from these maps don't have real-life connotations to geography or environment? (i.e., Italy and Mediterranean nations tend to have good growing connotations, whereas if someone picks, say, Egypt, they may be more inclined to play a desert nation?) In that sense, in my opinion, non-Earth maps are superior. But that's not a debate for this thread. The debate is to keep them separate, which I support.

I also support the notion of tags for regions with maps.

[Enfaru]

You would think so and in some cases I would agree, but I have seen quite a number of brilliantly executed earth based maps that have been far superior to those "custom maps" that are really no better than an MS-Paint hatchet job.

As I've stated, due to the low prevalence of Earth based maps and the sheer lack of demand for finding them. I see no good reason to divide up an already barely used tag.

[Mount Seymour]

As I've stated, due to the low prevalence of Earth based maps and the sheer lack of demand for finding them. I see no good reason to divide up an already barely used tag.

Out of the last 36 requests on the Find-A-Region megathread, approximately 40% ask about maps. I wouldn't call that "lack of demand".

If the "map" tag is already barely used, then I've taken away anything that's as "barely used" or even more "barely used" than it according to you in the tag cloud. If you think the map tag is barely used, then here's how your new and improved tag cloud will look:



So much more informative.

[Maljaratas]

I support this. Can't really see any reason not to, really.

[Khevo]

I support this. My region has an Earth Map, but when I used to look for regions, one of the first things I looked at was what type of map they had. Maps are often an important part of the game to players, especially those who like to roleplay, but even to others who simply like the concept of a region map. Adding these tags will help nations with their search, and would improve the effectiveness of trying to find the type of map that suits their desire, instead of them just endlessly going through maps that they would not even take a second glance at.