New ratings, and how it works

Quin | 2009-12-12 18:46

[

points ]

(8 votes)

G'day Quadropolites, recently you may have noticed some changes to the way the rating system works, and now that I have it refined to Nieb's tastes I'm here to tell you what's up, and how it all is supposed to work; but before you comment, please understand that while the new system is open to refinement, it won't be removed or changed back.

Points instead of stars..

This is the biggest thing that you might notice. You can now vote any amount between 1 and 10. If you really like a node, rate it 10/10, and if you don't like it, simply don't rate it. This should hopefully fall in line with your own methods of giving feedback on content.

Something is better than nothing..

Using points means that no matter how you rate a node, its score will increase. High profile nodes are more likely to benefit from this than regular nodes. By switching to a points system, the only way to vote badly is to not vote at all, otherwise any amount of points you give will go toward the node's score.

Sticks and stones may break my bones..

It was felt that the old system was too biased toward people being able to "rate down" a node for various (what I would call pathetic) reasons, some of which included pure spite or hatred toward another community member. While we were able to moderate node comments, it was difficult for us to justify tampering with user votes, so this does the job for us.

Automatic conversions..

The points are just double what you already voted in stars (* = 2 pts, ** = 4 pts, .. ***** = 10 pts) and the new system converts these old values for you. Those of you who voted poorly on a node to bring down its rating may wish to consider canceling their vote.

So, while it may take a little adjustment, and there's far more gray area in what constitutes a "good rating"; we're hoping you'll like the new system better than the last and feel more inclined to give your two cents by rating a node. Don't be shy, you're just a click away..

Rating

points

(8 votes)

Comments

Kretren | 2009-12-12 21:49

Interesting system. It's pretty useful for getting rid of people intentionally voting down maps (some did that to mine lol).

The only thing is, one cannot easily see what a node's quality is at a quick glance of these numbers. 100 points may be high, especially if 10 people voted, but not much if 20 did. So it takes longer to glance at maps' votes that way. You could include a third number, that being the average vote, but then you may have thought of this and discounted it for the following reason:

The whole purpose of this point system is for people to leave comments on nodes. If they are able to easily see the user-generated vote for a particular node, they may not even put the effort forward to look at it, and this kills the possibility of a comment being left. If a user instead has to calculate it, they may just decide to look at the node rather than pulling out the calculator.

That said, the points system doesn't serve to indicate a node's quality as the calculation step is missing here. All it serves to do is bring high-profile maps, as you said, a high number, which makes them look a lot better than they probably are (and it makes newer or less popular maps look much worse).

Nieb | 2009-12-13 00:19

The logic is, if a node is not very interesting then not many will look at it and hence not vote. So if a node has a low score because of having very few votes it's very likely that it is so because it is not of good quality.

Sure there is a possibility a node may be over looked; however, the probability of that happening in this system is much lesser than the former. I'd like to think this new system will do a much better job of filtering the rubbish.

RaZgRiZ | 2009-12-13 06:37

well, most people don't really give a try on scripts, so these, if not superscalar scripts that change the game into something awesome, are almost getting ignored. but i guess there isn't much to be done in that aspect :(

RaZgRiZ ~ One Shot, One Fail

Erzeälh | 2009-12-13 16:09

With this new way of vote, there is now any interest to rate a map. The new classement mean nothing.
How can we compare a map/script/mode that have 100 point/30 vote and another with 100 point/10 vote. To be totaly absurde, with this type of voting, it's simple. I can do a map and ask to 200 person to vote 1/10 and my map. I will be sure to be top ranked...

So where is the problem? Some person vote bad rate on map and this is interpreted as intentionally and personnal attack... I have difficulty to believe that. Perhaps it could happen sometimes, but don't you think that often bad rate is just a honest vote form person who don't love the map? For my part, i see much often a lot of friendly vote (and also from person close to me). This is not correct and much problematic. How co-author of map, testor and friend can vote 100 on thier map?

Another point with this new system, it's simple now: you do a map (as bad as it could be) and if you are a bit famous you can be sure to be top ranked.

I also question myself : Where is the interest of rate if you find a map correct but not enough good to be in the next release (for exemple a vote between 5 and 7/10). Vote for this map mean given point and chance of been topranked to a map that you find not perfect.For my part, now i will only vote a 10/10 to good map and don't vote to the other now with this new system. When i found a map that can have a 7/10 i will only add a message of encouragment and don't vote for...

A better solution is a vote by admin and another by public. The starred content is a bit like that in a way. Public can't decide which map is starred. Or no vote at all.

MisanthropX | 2009-12-13 17:48

I dont like the idea of this.

Very old maps are now on top.
like erzeähl said, i only need many low votings and im on top :P
i like the idea that every vote is a good vote.. but i still would like to know the average of the votes.. i know easy to calculate points/voters but annoying to calculate everytime

its hard to find a fair voting system, but i think that its unfair to let only the oldest map to be on top. because they have the most votings.

RaZgRiZ | 2009-12-13 20:54

and here i come again proposing the idea of multiple rating aspects to mess with
aesthetics
geometry
texturing
bla bla bla

RaZgRiZ ~ One Shot, One Fail

ps. using this with the stars seems to me that is the most fair system compared to the previous and the current

Quin | 2009-12-13 22:50

Most people are too lazy to vote once, let alone a (half) dozen times.

Dr Eij | 2009-12-14 13:33

People who are too lazy to vote on multiple points are people who are too lazy to try really a map. So it's a great idea to eliminate stupid votes.

MisanthropX | 2009-12-13 21:19

giving votings on a few aspects is a GREAT! idea.. so ppl never can vote 1 1 1 1 1 ...
and the average of this is the point amount.. i love the idea :D

Kretren | 2009-12-14 02:17

People will sometimes explain their vote, saying +1 for layout or something. That can be left with the users. Majority of votes, however, are superficial and based on only one or two things, which the voter will not mention.

There could be an overall mark (out of 10) and a couple optional boxes for users to tick. These boxes are representative of certain qualities in a map (layout, lighting, textures, etc.) and a voter can either say good/bad for them.

That said, such a system is really cumbersome. But it begs the question: would you like to make the commenting system more complex because the only important voters are the ones who will contribute an in-depth opinion, or do you make it simple to attract many voters in the hope that they will someday contribute to a node by more than a simple vote? Do we want this site to be American Idol or a smaller pool of people voting in-depth?

MisanthropX | 2009-12-14 18:11

at the moment it seems like the one wins who is the "oldest" member or got the most friends on sauer/quadro.

so i still think that the chance to do votings on more aspects is a good idea.. or choose it as optional voting system. so you can either vote directly.
or extend the voting menu and vote on a few aspects to make out the overall vote.

would like to see what people think is good on my maps.. like.. lighting layout etc. so they dont only vote and say nothing to the map.

RaZgRiZ | 2009-12-14 21:27

the pic is a good example of what i was thinking. But the average of these should be averages of these. each aspect can have its own average on the ratings. and if you want you can have an average of the averages.
I still see this as a good idea, people complained about the first rating system due to abuse and requested a new one, now we have a new one and yet we don't like it.. but if (as it has already been said) a comment is bound with a rating, abusers/friends could be easily spotted out. or not.. everything requires testing :/

RaZgRiZ ~ One Shot, One Fail

Redon | 2009-12-14 18:22

Well I can understand it, I also had some downvoters on some of my maps, but I still don't think it's a good idea to change the rating system. The new scale from 1-10 is great, but I don't like how the total points instead of the average counts. This might remove the downrating aspect on one hand, but it makes it impossible to see which is considered a good map by the community. A new uploaded map would have as many points as a crappy map with dozens of low ratings.

Maybe you could still provide the average rating next to the points, because I don't wanna divide the points through the vote count each time I look at a map. Also, as a mapper you should take a look at the feedback in the comments to figure out how to improve your map, instead of beeing pissed off about a low rating.
Personally I think it could be an idea to bind the ratings to comments, so either you do both, or nothing at all - and If you don't write anything in the comment, it would just show your rating as a comment -> expose the downvoters! :P

MisanthropX | 2009-12-14 18:42

i think a player should be able to comment without rating or rate without comment..
But i also think that a player should "prove" why his rating is low or high with these additional aspects, as explained above

Redon | 2009-12-14 19:06

Well I didn't mean to bind them directly like that you HAVE to write something, but if you want to rate, you would have a rating option at the top of the box where you could write your comment, and post it without text.(Which would be actually showed as well in the comments box as a rating without text) You could also just write something and don't choose a rating. The point is that the people who vote really low will either explain why they did or they would be exposed as pathetic-reason-low-voters! :P

Erzeälh | 2009-12-14 19:22

Misanthropix say : "i think a player should be able to comment without rating or rate without comment..
But i also think that a player should "prove" why his rating is low or high with these additional aspects, as explained above"

A problem is that all person can't exprime herself correctly in english (personnaly, i don't speak well english and it's not simple to explain all i think sometimes). I don't think comment each time must be an obligation but try to do would be an objectif.

Quin | 2009-12-14 20:52

I'm still not being given a solution to the original problem, which is why averages were removed in the first place, and the decision, ultimately, is not mine. You'll need a very compelling argument to get averages back (if that is even possible, which I doubt), otherwise I suggest you come up with some other idea.

Meister | 2009-12-15 12:07

I am glad to see that someone else noticed the sad matter of "downvoters", as you call them. Those guys really driven me on a bad mood lately, I admit that. The bad thing is that you can't say them anything because they also feel "offended", well ok doesn't matter anymore.
Btw redon there's no need to expose them, I have a complete list of those guys, if you wish ;)
If I can tell my opinion, I still think that the better solution is to have 2 rating system from 0 to 10, users and admins ratings. But there are alternatives also.
A solution could be the one that is applied on some olympic sports like diving, where the lower and the higher votes are discarded, the rest are summed to get a more "balanced" average.
Another solution (a bit drastic maybe) could be inhibit the exposed downvoters to vote again, for a limited period of time at least.
Seriously, apart from voting systems, all we really need is a bit of common sense, honesty and "fairplay", and a pinch of humility would helps also. To get upset because a map is not taken for release makes no much sense, since only eirhul and few others have the last word about that.
It's normal that we think our maps are good ("god" in misanthropx case ;) ), and it's normal that our friends thinks the same and make everything to give us help with rating. The more the friends the better the score, this makes things unfair as I already said elsewhere.
Someone talk about votes for aesthetics, geometry, texturing and so on, but there's a very important parameter that has to be considered in order to give a fair vote: the effort. If we begin to consider "efforts" that people produce when making maps as a valuable parameter, we can rate work of others in a more fair way. This not means that efforts always produce masterpieces of course, but that could avoid a lots of downvoting in my opinion.
We have just to keep in mind that, whatever the vote, only admins take the final decision. Of course admins, for the high position they have in this matter, have to judge/evaluate maps/contents responsibly, with rigid objectivity criteria.
Wishes.

MisanthropX | 2009-12-15 13:07

its not that there are only downvoters, there are people voting fair, maybe a bit dure, but fair. and why making average? then there are no good or bad maps anymore.. no quality.. making the votes not a bad name and only good ones is already not downvoting anymore.
I can just repeat myself but i dont like the solution what it is at the moment..
now it only counts how much fans you have.. when i or nieb posts a new map, everyone votes o.O but at when someone we dont know creates a new map they dont get many votes or comments! not because they are bad, no: because theres a "famous" name in the mapmsg ~.~
think about that..

i actually always vote and comment maps. no matter what quality. at rather "bad" maps i can even tell more and give hints on what couldve be done better etc and i always increase my voting when i see that the one puts effort into the map and reads my comment and fix several things.

Quin | 2009-12-15 20:16

Think about it this way, you guys got fans in the first place because of the quality of your work, not the ratings on your nodes. In a sense, I think this creates a community spirit, because if you do good work you will get rewarded.

Dr Eij | 2009-12-15 21:10

And if you do bad work you also will be rewarded, finally that is what I can note with the case of "Temple of Osiris" and others.

But actually the biggest problem is that a lot of people don't try the maps before voting or simply don't know what is a good map.
Why try to change the system rather than people? Is it the solution to create a better community to make people away?

BionicCryonic | 2009-12-16 21:00

Bueaty is in the eye of the beholder. You say they don't know a good map, they just like different things then you. I generally hate all the shit we get nowadays, I like the experimental ones, like wake6, snowhight (sorta), and onebyte. Why? Because it's an escape from the reality I've been dragged through with these recent maps. Sure, gameplay is good, but it's all so generic. =/

Dr Eij | 2009-12-17 14:31

I didn't say "If you don't think like me you don't know what is a map". I sayed "If the rating is not consistent with reality it's because you don't want to give your real rating or because you don't know how to evaluate a map".
Of course the beauty is just a personal opinion so you can rate as you want. But other points are not so subjective. For example I rate the gameplay and computer's configs you need to play on.

Suicizer | 2009-12-17 17:47

dr eij, i was guessing u were a pretty good person. ur not that long in this community after all.
be smart plz, and dont be the # all the time (and especially dont try 2 go in a fight with a moderator :P).

further, can u make on a day, a content to?

would like 2 c ur skills in mapping/modding actually...

Suicizer | 2009-12-15 18:00

agreeing misan...

johnkills | 2009-12-16 18:31

I dont think "ratings" should apply to the forum, specially General Discussion since it says:
"Talk about anything in particular; share ideas or discuss new ones."

"Quality Assurance Issue" should be for other areas too.

Talk about.. anything. Hey, it was not me who said "anything". :p

RaZgRiZ | 2009-12-16 20:14

actually, why would someone need to rate a forum topic? rather useless actually, when we could have other buttons in its place, such as "notify of spam" "track topic for replies" etc

Suicizer | 2009-12-16 20:26

come on give the admins of this website a bit time 2 get everything done.

after all, they got some kinda life to u know (at least i hope 4 them :P).

RaZgRiZ | 2009-12-16 20:38

i do give them time. all the time in the world. i'm just pointing out what can be done better.
I'd help for something i could, but since i have no knowledge on that "something", then i can do nothing more that advice.

oh and suid, i hope you're not offended, but you are starting to annoy me with all these comments that are more or less nonsense and have, more or less again, no reason to be posted (classed as personal thoughts that are not to actually share cause of the "more or less nonsense"?). and what's with the :P at the end of every post? you seem like you're high *chuckles*

Suicizer | 2009-12-16 21:56

in some way, i agree (dmt did it again :P)...

MisanthropX | 2010-01-14 00:03

Please make it possible that you can still sort by different voting systems
like points total, average, and sorting by clicks and downloads > popularity level