Thank you everyone for participating. Not all questions required an answer so not all of them had the same amount of answers. In addition, this survey wasn’t expected to change anything too much unless there was absolutely overwhelming demand.
1. For VideoMaps, since I made the word, I figured I should define what the word means. For a basic definition, I used: “A VideoMapper is a YouTuber who makes animated maps about real-life historical events or plausible alternate history scenarios based off of past events.” Do you think this is a fair BASIC definition?
Yes: 325 (89.0%)
No: 40 (11.0%)
This question was important. I made the word so I can make the definition and I thought it was fair. But there was a complaint so I wanted to make sure.
2. I also added some specifications to determine what counts as a videomap and what does not. Here are some special types of videos that aren’t just history videos like mine. Please state if you think it should count as a videomap or not.
Ok so there were three options people could pick. The most common answer will be shown for each type of video.
Alternate History: Totally a type of videomap. (282, 78.3%)
I already considered this a type of videomap. Glad people agree.
Future maps: Totally a type of videomap. (231, 64.9%)
I disagree with this still because the future isn’t history. At least alternate history is set in the past and based off of past historical events. Future events don’t require much consideration past 10 years or so and don’t have much legitimacy in my eyes. Maybe the idea is that VideoMaps implies any map that is a video, which is a misconception admittedly. But for now, I can’t say that I will count future videos. I know this issue is divisive in the community and it will probably stay like that.
Talking maps (Old MrOwner&Pwner Style): Totally a type of videomap (154, 43.9%)
No. Sorry, but, countries lighting up and “talking” dialogue doesn’t count as a videomap. Future I can sort of see an argument but this is a completely different style of mapping. Now that I think about it, several future videos use this type of style too. In addition, these mappers (and futurers) already have their own group and this group is too different.
3. I had a forum for videomaps and I’m making a new one. But do you guys want one? Would you use it?
Yes: 160 (44.8%)
No: 25 (7%)
I don’t care: (48.2%)
The first forums weren’t super active and they do take time to make even with easy service websites so if most people don’t care I might not make one but it’s pretty divided so I’ll still consider it.
4. I currently have it set up to where maps are organized in folders based off of the location of the map. You can see who uploaded the map on the actual page of the map. I do not give artists their own exclusive folders because then similar maps aren’t as easy to find. Do you think this is fair to keep it sorted by LOCATION and not ARTIST?
Yes: 229 (72.5%)
No: 21 (6.6%)
Indifferent 66 (20.9%)
People search for the map, not the artist who made the map. Artists can give themselves credit by adding their name in the description when they upload the map. Unfortunately the website builder I use doesn’t support tags so it’s either display the maps by location or artist and I chose location. Glad the majority agree.
5. There are some rules on what maps you can and cannot upload. I want you to rate on how much you agree with these rules.
I gave choices ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The top 2 answers will be shown for the rule.
Alternate History maps are allowed but separated to be in their own folder.
Strongly Agree: 159 (51.0%)
Agree: 124 (39.74%)
Glad you agree with the separation.
No future maps.
Neutral: 89 (28.7%)
Strongly Disagree: 60 (19.35%)
This one was surprisingly divided. The third highest was actually strongly agree with 18.1%. I think that people are going to want accurate maps and even alternate history maps are a stretch for me if they’re not from popular culture. People are going to be searching for accurate historical or modern maps and future maps would just clutter the limited space I have on the website.
No flag maps, as they are not blank maps.
Neutral: 104 (34.0%)
Agree: 61 (19.9%)
A bit divided as well but not as much as the future maps. The site is called the BLANK atlas. Blank maps are what it has. Flag maps aren’t blank in my eyes. The maps are meant to be easily color-edited on programs like paint and flags don’t make the maps like that.
Maps with color are allowed if the colors are solid and uniform.
Strongly agree: 140 (45.2%)
Agree: 89 (28.71%)
A common sense rule. Glad we agree.
6. For specifically flag maps, I don’t allow them because I. It’s not blank II. It’s not easy to edit them with a single click like maps with color and III. A website about blank maps doesn’t need maps that aren’t blank. Do you think it’s unfair I don’t include flag maps?
Totally fair: 90 (29.4%)
Unfair: 35 (11.4%)
Maybe give them their own folder like with alternate history maps?: 181 (59.2%)
Maybe I’d give flag maps their own folder…I don’t want to because it’s the BLANK atlas, but I’ll consider it.
Thanks again for taking the survey. Overall the people are satisfied with both websites and more people are using them, which is wonderful. Thanks for helping their growth.