Forums  /  The Site  /  Is "verfication" necessary for every run? (Locked)

I feel that requiring approval for every single run seems like way too much work for mods. Why not just deal with dubious runs as they occur, since those are much much less common than legit runs?

Also, I don't really understand the meaning of "verification". What does "verification" mean when a run has no video? It's not verifiable at all in that case. I suppose it either means the runner is "trusted" or the time isn't "good enough" to need more inspection, both of which are very subjective reasons and are pretty far from the concept of "verified".

In my mind, there really shouldn't be this concept of a "verified" run. A run can be "verifiABLE", meaning anyone can see for themselves that the time is legit, i.e. it has a video. So I don't really see the point of this extra vetting process for runs.

It's also annoying that if I make a small edit to a run that's already verified, like just adding splits, the run needs verification again and disappears from the boards or my profile page. I suppose a page that I can access of "runs waiting for verification" would help, but it still seems like the new process of vetting every run is just a bit too much. What does everyone else think?


There's a per-game option to enable or disable requiring verification. It's enabled by default but if you un-tick it, then each run will be "verified" by the run submitter.

If you want it to be unticked for the games you run or something, then you can start a forum thread in that game's forum.

Also, I feel like if the verification system is not to check if the time was correct or for cheating, then it is acting like a filter kind of thing. I feel like if someone is a mod of a game, then they know enough about the game and the runners that, if there isn't any video required, the run is still legit.

MLSTRMMLSTRM and TheGlitched64TheGlitched64 like this. 

I'm wondering why the default behavior has to be this aggressive. If certain games have such an influx of spam and phony submissions, I can understand why they might want to opt in to this. But for most games I feel this option is unnecessary.

So what is the meaning of verification? You say it's "not to check if the time was correct or for cheating", but then you seem to suggest it's so people know "the run is still legit". I still don't understand how a run being verified is different than the run having a video. Just because someone at one point declared a run to be legit means absolutely nothing. That mod may be long gone in a couple years, they may be forgotten and their word may mean nothing. A run is not truly verifiable without a video. Obviously I think most communities would be fine having runs without videos on their leaderboards, as long as they are not suspicious. But "verified" does not mean the same as "not suspicious". I'm just confused about the concept itself. I know the idea of "all our runs are verified to be legit by trusted members of the community" sounds good on paper, but in practice a run is really only known to be legit if it has a video, so I don't see the point of adding this extra vetting process under the guise of "verification".


Well, there are other reasons for this apart from verification. For example, I am the mod of Pokemon Rumble World, and someone mistakenly put their time on a level as 3 seconds, rather than 30 seconds. Screenshot proof was there for 30 seconds, but it would have gone up on the boards as 3 seconds. It acts... I guess... also in the same way an editor checks a book for mistakes.


Maybe it's the wording that is throwing me off then, if it means more "double-checked by a moderator to be reasonable". That's not quite the definition of "verified" so I guess that's what is tripping me up.

But it's not like edits can't be made once a run is on the board. I could be wrong, but wouldn't you rather get 1 notification that a run needs to be corrected rather than a notification for every run submitted (and minor edit such as adding splits) when 99% of the time it's fine?


Actually, a mod can edit a run after it goes up on the board, so a problem can always be fixed without hassle to the runner, and, I might just be weird, but I enjoy seeing the notifications for new runs. I agree the wording is a bit weird, but "Verify" is a smaller word than "Double-Checked by series/game mod."


Obviously it's for checking if the time is correct / possible cheating checks in WR runs too, but it all boils down to what the runners/mods think makes sense. Anyway, yeah, "double-check" seems to be more accurate but "verify" serves nearly the same purpose

TheGlitched64TheGlitched64 likes this. 

"checked by a moderator to be reasonable" is probably accurate enough, runs can be taken down after the fact.

I don't like the word "verified" either. "Accepted" is probably more accurate.

Ideally we'll have a feature to auto-accept times under a certain threshold eventually. There's plenty of complication to overcome in the code with categories/consoles/etc though. If you want to just accept non-notable times without reviewing them, I doubt anyone cares. (We want to make this a feature anyway)

ZZKerZZKer likes this.