Forum:Customs' Quality

Alright, so, there seems to be some quality-related issues with the custom namespace. Too often will a user, when joining, post a custom minifigure or two, with the pages consisting of a mediocre description, a mediocre design, and a crummy image. While it seems worst with the minifigures, sets seem to follow this pattern as well. How many sets have you seen that feature a random mess of bricks piled onto one another enough to vaguely look like a spaceship or fortress. Oh, yeah, and then the image quality. I can't stress this part enough. I know not all people can afford a good camera or are professional photographers, but a blurry image just ruins a custom. All-in-all, I've become embarrassed by our custom namespace. I know that all LEGO fans should be free to share their customs, and I know that it is unfair to prevent some fans from sharing their creations because they aren't as talented as other customizers, but there are some customs that really don't seem like they need to be shared with the world. All they do is clutter up the namespace, and barely anyone even looks at them anyway. It's just pointlessness. So, here are a few questions that I am asking.

• Do you believe that there is an issue with customs' quality on Brickipedia's custom namespace?
• How would you like to see the issue being resolved?
• How can we resolve the issue while still being "fair" to those without the capacity to make ground-breaking customs?
• How do other sites, like MOCpages, handle the monitoring of MOC quality?

Also, this is a little off-topic, though it is related to the deletion of customs: what has been the policy in the past about users requesting that their own customs be deleted? If there isn't one, we may as well decide on what to do about that matter as well.

Discussion

• I don't know how we'd go about this. The custom minifigures, while there are many really crappy ones, there are some really good ones. I guess if they're part of a custom theme/series/set then that would be okay, but I can imagine there being some good custom minifigures where the creator doesn't have the time or pieces to make a set or theme that meets up to the same quality as their custom minifigure. I'll wait and see other suggestions before I go suggesting my ideas. :/ --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:03, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
• I've been trying to sort something out for a while, but per Meiko. I'll continue to give it thought, but I'm not sure of what I can come up with. Berrybrick 21:07, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
• What do you mean by question 4? I've seen a fair share of MOCtrash on MOCpages, as well. --User:ErkelonJay/sig1 22:08, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, that is part of the answer to my original question. :P I only follow links to MOCpages, never really browse their myself, so I wasn't sure how much trash they had. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:12, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
    • They are devoted to mocs, so there is less of an issue with them having trash. ~ CJC 22:13, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
      • Still, it sometimes happens. --User:ErkelonJay/sig1 22:18, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
        • I mean that the added images and pages are relatively unnoticed, not that no bad Moccers go to MoCPages. ~ CJC 22:31, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
• I was thinking, and I know it's a bit of a different case, but how do good fanon sites moderate trash from good content? There's a huge difference between written works and MOCs, but the way to determine good from bad work may be similar and able to be adapted by us. Maybe we make an notice box for pages like We have {{Brickify}} and others, but for low quality customs? The only problem with that I see is that things like Brickify work for collaborative things to get other people working on something, while customs are generally independent, and marking someone's custom as "low quality" may be offensive... --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:17, August 23, 2013 (UTC)