Is 0 stars really "fair" ? I mean, if someone has made even the tiniest effort, surely it's worth more than 0 stars? Also, there's hardly any reasoning as to why they gave it such a crap rating. It can't exactly be anything personally, really. Ricky Garces and Codemonkey are both perfectly friendly people in the community, so are these people rating 0 fake fake accounts or does the rating system need tweaking? I know this has been discussed recently, but Kazuma's rating and reasoning in Sewah Runs by Codemonkey is most unagreeable, and I'm disgusted if people are allowed to get away with that.
I've often disagreed with Adams views, but he has read my mind here and every word he has written is pure gold - Admins, please do something about these idiots ruining the scores of some damn fine games on this site! Me and -CodeMonkey- were just discussing the zero scores for Sewah Runs and i suggested a system where 1 or 2 low/zero scores that are miles away from (for example) 8 people's high scores, they should be displayed but not used to calculate the average score. This way the person will be named and shamed but their score will not ruin someones efforts.
People put alot of time, effort, talent and dedication into their games, put their necks on the line in terms of pride and reputation and i think the site owes them some protection from these morons. These great games make this site the hotbed of activity that it is, so please Admins, help us out and do us a favour; please resolve this issue!
The only reason there would be to rate 0 stars (if there ever was a reason) would be that they stole the game from someone else, or there was no game in the first place.
That stupid Smash Bros Brawl game from a while back got 0 stars from me, so i agree there are some out there. However, if everyone voted 4/5 stars for that game then fair enough, i'm in the minority and to be honest i wouldn't mind having my score discounted.
No I still believe the 0 rating is obsolete, what reason is there to rate a game 0? A 0 is not constructive in any way, the only reason to rate a game 0 is if you want the person to not make games at all. Cause if you just think it's a horrible, horrible game, then you still acknowledge it as a game, and every game wheter good or bad is something the author spent his/her time creating. And by exposing yourself to the creative process you will advance. So instead of just discouraging developers of bad games, encourage them to make good games by at least dignifying their game with a 1, or just don't rate at all.
And a more concrete reason for getting rid of the 0 rating is that the majority of game review magazines don't use them, why should we?
By not rating at all, scold with words instead. It's very easy to make someone understand that you didn't like the game with words, it's used very effective very often on this site. And you can't abuse words! Cause if you do, we have admins! But you can abuse the 0 rating, cause the admins understandably won't moderate ratings. And seriously, if a person makes a bad game on purpose, do you think he/she will be bothered by a 0 rating? There really isn't a single reason why you should vote 0, but please try and come up with one, it only makes it more evident.
I said it before in the other thread about the ratings. The zero star should not exist. There is no problem with the system using the mean, but the zero holds the same equivalent as a 2.5 stars. Meaning one zero could break a 5 star rating in half. No game deserved a 0. To me a zero star is the same as not rating the game or playing it.
I gotta say i do still feel that zero stars have their place. Look at it this way, if someone sat an exam and instead of trying to pass it by revising hard and answering the questions, they you just wrote "f**k all exams!", are you saying then that you would award them 20% (the equivelant of 1 star) because you felt they needed encouraging?
It is for people who have that kind of attitude that 0 stars is designed for, just as it is for people who put offensive/pornographic/non-games on TDC.
Seriously, play Smash Bros. Awesome if you think it deserves 20% - i felt that as a game it deserved a big fat zero! (though in hindsight i do think the whole affair was kinda comical, what with the 10/10 reviews it got!)
I believe the zero star rating should remain, just make a criteria before someone can rate a game, or post an article for that matter. Like they have to submit a game first, just an idea
downvoters will always exist. you can't tell people what to think, or all our games would have nothing but 5 votes. And since you can't separate the ass turds from the normal people, all you can do is live with it and appreciate that if your game gets a lot of downloads, it will get a lot of votes, and that small impact of downvoters becomes minimized.
If you get rid of the 0 stars, people will just vote 1 stars. Now if you wanted to get rid of the thumbs-down vote, thats actually viable, given that thumbs up / total downloads would be a useful statistic.
Xhunterko: Oh I didn't mean for you to take it so seriously, it was just a joke! Sorry!
Mark Radon: Firstly, I said don't rate stupid games at all! Scold the person with words, tell an admin that the game is offensive/pornographic/non-game and they'd probably remove it, making an even better point than a 0-rating.
Urban Monk: The criteria idea would weed out down-voters indeed, but also like 90% of the rest of the community since many people hasn't submitted a game even after many years in the community. I think it's just hard to find a criteria that would work and be fair.
AndyUK: Isn't a 0 rating equivalent 0%-16.6%? If the system was 1-5 stars each star would be worth 20%, so it's not a hugh difference.
And lastly, why rate the offensive/pornographic/non-games at all? Think about people new to the site checking out the download section, if a game has a rating at all it will automatically draw attention to it over games that just hasn't got a rating yet. So if every offensive/pornographic/non-game has a crap rating, good games may go unnoticed because of it. Do you know what I mean? So I still say we don't need the 0 rating.
Exactly! If we would start to decide who are worthy of voting you can only imagine the flame wars that'd follow!
Instead I think we should just remove the tool that is very rarely used by serious clickers but often abused by a**es. As a vulcan ( seriously, Star Trek?) would say it, it is the logical thing to do.
Phred might have just thought it was really bad.
Like I said earlier, unless you can read people's minds you shouldn't shout 'ANOTHER DOWNVOTER' just because someone gave a game 0/5
Nothing to do with someone not liking my game. It's to do with your pathetic little vendetta against me, and it's just an obvious attack. So sad. So weak.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- lol, so it's just to lower it.
I meant bump up my rating of it I don't give a ___ what his game is rated, just that I played the game and disliked the gameplay. Had it been released as a tech demo I would have been more generous, but I rated it based on its gameplay value and not it's technical achievements.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
People already report low ratings. But to be fair, everyone should report 5 ratings too. It's quite anyone's right to vote 0 stars, at least the new system exposes who does it. It used to be much, much worse. (just see the article ratings)
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz People already report low ratings. But to be fair, everyone should report 5 ratings too. It's quite anyone's right to vote 0 stars, at least the new system exposes who does it. It used to be much, much worse. (just see the article ratings)
I don't think people should report ratings at all. If a game really sucks, should people be afraid of giving it a low rating just because the creator might report it?
And who decides what's a fair rating? Should the admins have to play through every game that has a low rating reported to decide if it deserves it? That's pretty unreasonable in my eyes.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
It can be difficult to think of it that way, but I do agree with you there Muz. If you've a lot of friends, you'll get a lot of high ratings, a lot of enemys will rack up lower ratings. I guess it comes down to that really, tough luck if your game gets a low rating, congrats if it ranks high. Leave it to ourselves really. If someone rates stupidly low then we need do nothing official, it'll just make that person look childish. That's how I see it anyway.
Personally i don't think his game deserves 5 stars or 0 stars but i don't really give a shit about all that. Not everyone shares the same view. Phred obviously rates game play very high.
I'm gonna crawl really far out on a limb now and ask you Phredreeke, you thought the graphics effect was neat, am I correct? Could you appreciate the artistic skill needed to create the game? Did you think the choice of colors were appropriate between sprites?
What I am getting at here is really, could you Phredreeke have done it better? You thought it was neat, doesn't that mean that you think it bears some quality? Or do you see this as used toilet paper?
Do you see this as an experience sprung out of creative lust?
If you decide to rate it as low as possible contradictory to everyone else who have raised their opinion about it, it's not more than fair that you should at least tell us why it is equal to a offensive/pornographic/non-game. I can't understand why you would deem it horrible. So I (and probably many more) can only interpret your rating as a down-vote just for the hell of it. If I'm wrong, I do apologise, but if that is the case, please feel free to share your thoughts about it with the rest of the community here.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you decide to rate it as low as possible contradictory to everyone else who have raised their opinion about it, it's not more than fair that you should at least tell us why it is equal to a offensive/pornographic/non-game.
Because the gameplay was utter crap.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Coming from the majority of people I'd take that as an insult, but considering it took you three years amongst hundreds of hours of forum trolling to accomplish... this...thing..
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you decide to rate it as low as possible contradictory to everyone else who have raised their opinion about it, it's not more than fair that you should at least tell us why it is equal to a offensive/pornographic/non-game.
Because the gameplay was utter crap.
Ok. Your opinion.
Not everyone likes those kinds of games, that's very true. I myself found it very cute and appealing, but drop-dead frustrating after the 42 try. Though I would never rate it 0 because of my own inability to master the gameplay. Maybe 2~4 in my opinion. And why I wouldn't down-vote it is because;
1.) The gfx are on par with ANY snes game
2.) The presentation was magnificent
3.) The gameplay was hard but fair. If I don't touch the space bar, no harm will become me.
4.) The consistency of it. It's a completed project. It goes from A to Z and does not differ on the way.
5.) The overall feeling of professionality throughout the game.
Those things make me not want to down-rate it, because there are quite too many games here at TDC who are the complete opposite to the above stated criterias, at least in my sense.
haha Well what does everyone think about using the same rating system as the review one?
Presentation:
Gameplay:
Graphics:
Sound and Music:
Lastability:
There would be 10 stars instead of 5, and the overall rating would be the average of those 5 ratings. Everyone's score would be more specific. While at the same time having an accurate representation of one's opinion in a way that is not questionable, but justified by those five ratings.
Why is it perfectly fine to give a game 5 stars without giving a reason but you're expected to give a reason for voting 0 stars? Also why attack phred's opinion on the game even if it is a bit over the top? Everyone got one chance to vote and they did, end of story.
Oh yeah btw Phred did give a reason.
I could start complaining every time is see someone voting 5 stars saying it's obviously just their friends voting to raise the overall rating. If you want everyone to give you better scores make a better game.
You can not possible rate everything zero without it also being widely accepted by everyone else that the game is in fact crap. See people like you can easily say well the gameplay is crap, but that does not mean anything. Why? Because you just made an opinionated statement as if it were a fact without any information to back up your claim. Meaning nothing else you say holds any relevance, because you can not even defend that of which you believe in.
Make the rating system based off the review one. Even you Predreeke said that you liked the graphics on Adam's game. So by that standard even you're rating would have not been a zero.
AndyUK: Because it's a perfect example of what this thread is all about.. strange that it should happen so soon after this thread was made, yet a whole 3 or so months after I released my game. And being a regular visitor to the site (like every hour of the day), it does surprise me that it took Phredreeke so long to play and rate my game.
And if a game is worth 5 stars, isn't it self explanatory as to why it has such a high rating? It's a matter of great contrast, without sounding big headed, the game got pretty good ratings. For someone like Phredreeke (who often tries his best to get a pissed off reaction from me within the forums) to come along and rate 0 stars at this time.. it's pretty obvious it's an attack, and he doesn't actually give a flying crap about the game.
You need to understand that you said you liked the graphics. Now in my mind, graphics are worth at least 1-2 maybe even 3 stars of the rating, yet you still gave it 0 stars. You're making no sense, and now you're panicking.
I'd say it's because he thinks that it's worth less than it is. If it already had an average rating of 3, he'd probably give it a rating of 2-4 for graphics. Downvoting is his right, just as long as people could give 5 star votes without reason.
Thus, my idea of using median instead of mean, it nullifies votes on both extremes.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
AndyUK: Of course it's wrong to give a comrade a 5-star rating just because he/she is a friend of yours. But not that many people have ever complained about games getting too high ratings (except when a offensive/pornographic/non-game-game gets 5 stars from a**es trying to be funny), we have only started threads about this higly debated 0-star rating. And the 5-star rating isn't the subject here at all, keep focus on the relevant matter, the 0-star rating.
Of course people don't complain about high scores. Where would that get you? Nowhere.
There are plenty of games that i think have a far too high score. I think it happens because people have a fairly short memory and label anything half decent 'THE BEST GAME IVE EVER PLAYED ON TDC' If i disagree with them i simply make my own vote. I don't ask people to change their opinion and i don't assume they're just doing it because they like that person.
Which is why Adam, you should'nt assume people only vote 0 to piss off the creator. Phred's case might be a little different but the only person that really knows is Phred.
Originally Posted by Muz I'd say it's because he thinks that it's worth less than it is. If it already had an average rating of 3, he'd probably give it a rating of 2-4 for graphics. Downvoting is his right, just as long as people could give 5 star votes without reason.
Thus, my idea of using median instead of mean, it nullifies votes on both extremes.
Is abusing the rating system a right?
People voting 5-stars tend to give their reason, they often "love it", "loving it" can easily be interpreted as "being in awe to the degree that I cannot express myself clearly", and those 5-star ratings (except when an offensive/pornographic/non-game-game gets 5 stars from a**es trying to be funny) are usually there hand in hand with more 5-star ratings. 0-star ratings however are almost always a contradiction to every other rating (except for the ZD/Kazuma issue, they're both a**es), so I cannot see the blame in asking a person to stand up for their opinion, regardless if it's a down voting or a up-voting.
Funny how it's agitated several other people apart from myself.. I'm sick of the lengths people are going to, to make excuses for Phredreeke (naturally AndyUK will defend him) when it was a pretty obvious attack, as were the down-votes on Codemonkey's game by ZD and Kazuma. Something needs to be done about it.
I actually can't do anything else than agree with Adam. We have a very obvious problem with the 0-star rating, it should be taken care of. Hopefully Mr. New Admin will make a poll on the issue so we can settle it once and for all.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Is abusing the rating system a right?
Unfortunately, that's exactly what I meant. But the thing about games is that, unlike movies, anything below say, 70% is considered poor and the best ones will hover around 90%+. I think it is a bit unfair that some games who receive only about 5 votes or so are rated higher than other great, epic games that 40 or so people vote on. That justifies downvoting. I don't like how games like Somiumstrike 2 (as good as it is) outdoes Knytt Stories.
Under a "fair" system Knytt Stories should easily outrate most other games, what with it being the only game there that's appeared well outside the community as an indie game legend. But that's the flaw of our highly democratic system.. in a democracy, everyone has equal right to being an idiot.
In conclusion, you have to choose between a detailed voting system or a more democratic one. And a fully democratic system will have little difference to a completely despotic one. It's impossible to get the right mixture.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Funny how it's agitated several other people apart from myself.. I'm sick of the lengths people are going to, to make excuses for Phredreeke (naturally AndyUK will defend him) when it was a pretty obvious attack, as were the down-votes on Codemonkey's game by ZD and Kazuma. Something needs to be done about it.
You're making assumptions again.
Phred told me privately in messenger that he genuinely thought his score was fair, But i said it was a bit harsh of him and that the graphics and general presentation were worth a few stars alone.
But, whatever. I'll leave it now so as to not make the situation any worse
Oh please, just because someone had the opportunity to post a hassle of mathematics does not mean we should end the discussion, that would just be stupidious and plain out lame. No offence to you Justin C, seriously.
I read the article, and of course, Muz, it proves your point.
But it only works if you're talking about an election or the likes. Because in these cases we have more stand points than in regular hands-up voting systems, we have more places to voice or opinion than simply by a vote. We have comments, we have download numbers, we have reviews, we have gotw etc. It would be narrow minded of us to allow misbehaviour just because we found an easy formula that justifies it for us. Bring the question out to the public instead of presenting hard-as-nails arguments/formulas for how it theoretically should work.
Regards //EE
Lol, my point is that the voting is either democratic or dictatorial. There is no perfect voting system, just a "more suitable" one. And finding a more suitable one means that you'll have to be ignoring the opinions of some to empower some other people. And as another article shows, which I'm too lazy to find, if you let most people's opinion count, there's pretty much no opinion.
I did my research
You can't really call it misbehavior, though. IMHO, Streetwise is rated higher than it does deserve to be (sorry, Adam) and that one downvote still doesn't change the fact. It that case, it actually seems fair. Maybe the way Phred did it was a bit rude, but one could say he took the bullet and did the right thing. Seriously, do you want the game you worked on for 6 months to be rated lower than Streetwise, which was made in less than 20 events? I don't think even Adam would like Lilykin to suffer that fate.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
26th September, 2008 at 06:21:44 -
All this arguing! I have an idea...
Why don't we get rid of the stars, and go with these thumb icons , spreading the range from 0-50%, 51-100%. OOH, and give anonymity to the voters, so no one can start fights off of ratings.
Maybe that'll fix the problem this time?
Edited by the Author.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Originally Posted by -Adam- Funny how it's agitated several other people apart from myself.. I'm sick of the lengths people are going to, to make excuses for Phredreeke (naturally AndyUK will defend him) when it was a pretty obvious attack, as were the down-votes on Codemonkey's game by ZD and Kazuma. Something needs to be done about it.
And "our group" are equally sick of "your group" and your constant complaining. So I guess it makes it about even.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The longer and more you contribute to the site (moderated by admins if they find this abused) will give you more voting power.
The large problem with the site here and it's voting system is simply the fact that we don't have enough people here to create a good average. So by giving more credible people more votes, it might assist in that, because they're less likely to fuck themselves over by being stupid.
Phredeeke has more points than Adam and was around longer. Heck, he has more points and experience than everyone who voted 5 stars on Adam's game. If his vote counted for more weight, then his single 0 star vote would bump it to 3.6 or something.
Or how about Hamish? Anyone remember him? Texmo, Hiredgun, Brad, Podunkian. They've been in the community before TDC existed, have strong opinions, and don't give a damn what people think about their opinions
Also, there's other veterans with many contributions who have also downvoted like Phizzy and umm.. that other guy who's nick I can't remember. Do you really want Phizzy to have more power than you?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Again, it goes back to this crap about "veterans" of the site. What the hell does being here the longest have to do with anything? Does it make the member more talented? Not at all, apparently. Does it make them more superior? No.
AndyUK: After being banned from Clickteam chat then reacting by mailing me on here and calling me a profound name,and for having such a close and beautiful relationship with Phredreeke, I can't really blame you for being completely biased in this situation.
"Phredeeke has more points than Adam and was around longer."
Originally Posted by -Adam- AndyUK: After being banned from Clickteam chat then reacting by mailing me on here and calling me a profound name,and for having such a close and beautiful relationship with Phredreeke, I can't really blame you for being completely biased in this situation.
Jeff jumped to conlusions just like you're doing. I also saw what you wrote about me after I was 'banned'.
Remember when everyone kept shouting at you for generally being a pain in the arse? I forgave you, yet at the first oppurtunity you start calling ME names when you think I can't see it.
First of all, Muz that was a horrible comparison. Not trying to be mean. I'm just saying it holds no relevance in being a legitimate reason for anyone to agree with you.
How do you think having more points affects whether or not he rated something right or wrong is beyond me. Like I said, he agreed that the graphics were good. So by him admitting that, he's saying gameplay is worth all 5 stars and graphics are not even worth 1. The fact that people want to justify that by saying well it's his right is hilarious. I may have a different opinion if he didn't like the graphics, but he said HE DID. That would be like me saying well the gameplay is perfect, but the graphics suck 0 out 5. THEN to have people back up my decision? That in itself is ridiculous!
Just admit it, the game obviously does not deserve a zero whether or not you like it. Hell, I did not like the game that much myself, but you do not see me giving it a big fat zero. That's just insulting and down right disrespectful towards the other person's work. EVERYONE, even the people defending him admitted that it was harsh. So I do not see why anyone is still arguing. If he does not want to change his rating. Then fine do not change it and try to make a statement. Just know that I'm not going to take anything else you say serious and chances are no one else will either.
IF YOU DO NOT LIKE A GAME. OKAY, AT LEAST HAVE THE BALLS TO GIVE A GOOD ENOUGH EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SOME HALF ASS EXCUSE THAT'S HYPOCRITICAL TO EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAID.
"+ Neat graphics effect
- Everything else " - Quoted for Truth
If anyone rates something low. At least have the respect to be specific in saying what and why so that the creator can learn from it. Saying everything except one thing sucks is not a good description either. I would hope that everyone who reads this takes something away from it and tries to be a more positive person.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
26th September, 2008 at 19:22:44 -
And history repeats itself yet again...
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Originally Posted by Yami IF YOU DO NOT LIKE A GAME. OKAY, AT LEAST HAVE THE BALLS TO GIVE A GOOD ENOUGH EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SOME HALF ASS EXCUSE THAT'S HYPOCRITICAL TO EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAID.
Oh, I didn't mean to make you upset Here, have a napkin.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
There are games that suck, and there are games that are good! There is nothing more to it!(?) (or it should be nothing more to it!) But there are no reasons at all, NO reasons at all, to get all up personal about a "stupid" rating! My God people, what are you trying to achieve by accusing each other with every said and not said ugly word?(!)
It is a honest case, not to like a game, but that people get all upset about it, gives no meaning for whatever reason. It does NOT serve any goal.
It is like a kindergarden, where the children accuse each other for not drawing good... my drawing is much more beutyfull than yours - you can't even draw a stick man. NO *crying* you are not good at drawing!!!! No you are!!! No you are!!! ... get the point
Chill down people, and lets click our beutyfull, our ugly, our good, and our bad games in "sweet harmony", and try to give constructive feedback, not destructive feedback!
Originally Posted by Cyber Smurf There are games that suck, and there are games that are good! There is nothing more to it!(?) (or it should be nothing more to it!) But there are no reasons at all, NO reasons at all, to get all up personal about a "stupid" rating! My God people, what are you trying to achieve by accusing each other with every said and not said ugly word?(!)
It is a honest case, not to like a game, but that people get all upset about it, gives no meaning for whatever reason. It does NOT serve any goal.
It is like a kindergarden, where the children accuse each other for not drawing good... my drawing is much more beutyfull than yours - you can't even draw a stick man. NO *crying* you are not good at drawing!!!! No you are!!! No you are!!! ... get the point
Chill down people, and lets click our beutyfull, our ugly, our good, and our bad games in "sweet harmony", and try to give constructive feedback, not destructive feedback!
That post pretty much sums it up yeah
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Ive already said before that people make their ratings after playing a game for a few minutes without putting too much thought behind it.
So it's not worth the effort trying to find the best system, just take it like a man if you get a bad rating. It means nothing.
To be honest, I don't really care about he stars, the just a row of silly pictures. It's peoples comments and the number of downloads that I'm interested in.
Idiots will always be idiots and there is little we can do about it aside from ignoring them.
Originally Posted by -Adam- You've still managed to worm your way around giving a decent reasoning for your rating. If you're going to rate a game so low, I want to know why.
Originally Posted by -Adam- You've still managed to worm your way around giving a decent reasoning for your rating. If you're going to rate a game so low, I want to know why.
You won't get a reason
Why should I give a reason? Because he wants one? Well I want a million bucks, will you give me that?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I said I was willing to be peaceful, but then I figured what's the point when others aren't willing to put in the work for a peaceful community too? "lolz"
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
27th September, 2008 at 03:06:02 -
There are some that are still trying. Relentlessly.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
He doesn't have to give a reason for a bad rating any more than someone would have to give a reason for a good rating. There's no point for us to have a rating system at all if he has to write a long list of things he didn't like it. He thinks it's worth 0 stars, there, that's it. That opinion is worth no more than the person who thinks it's the greatest game in the world and deserves full marks.
If you really want to remove the 0 star rating, I'd suggest removing the 5 star one as well and tag all those people who seem to be rating everything 5 stars. Its unfairly "upvoting" a lot of bad games, which in effect lowers the rating of a truly good game.
When a game with 2 hours of gameplay gets voted higher than a game with 30 hours of gameplay, a spot on TIGSource, and a newspaper game review on it.. there's something wrong with the review system.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
No, you should do it because it's the right thing to do. How can you expect your ratings to be credible if you do not give viable reasons for one.
"That opinion is worth no more than the person who thinks it's the greatest game in the world and deserves full marks."
So the opinion is now not worth anything Muz? Really? Because if that's the case then why the hell would anyone give ratings? For that matter, why are you still posting. You admit that there is something wrong with the rating system when a better game gets a lower rating, but you also want to justify the same type of thinking that creates those very same problems. I see what you mean by it's his right to vote however he wants. At the same time that still does not change the fact that he voted unfair. I can say this, because he has yet to give me a reason to believe otherwise.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said I was willing to be peaceful, but then I figured what's the point when others aren't willing to put in the work for a peaceful community too? "lolz"
Peaceful = everyone agrees with you?
Originally Posted by Yami You admit that there is something wrong with the rating system when a better game gets a lower rating, but you also want to justify the same type of thinking that creates those very same problems.
Because having the admins police the ratings would be a silly thing to do.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Hmmm.. would it be better if game ratings were set up more like reviews here?
So say there are 5 categories where each could be given 0-2 stars, and then you submit your vote on the game's download page and everything's divided by 2 and tabulated into a star score rounded up?
And when they'd submit it you'd get a score of 3 stars? (rounded up from 2.5)
Now although this wouldn't solve malicious ratings from those who'd vote 0 for all 5 categories anyhow, it would help in those instances where people only liked one aspect of a game they otherwise hated.
Of course if this was the case they could always just vote 1 star on the current rating system.
Edited by the Author.
--
"Del Duio has received 0 trophies. Click here to see them all."
"To be a true ninja you must first pick the most stealthy of our assorted combat suits. Might I suggest the bright neon orange?"
DXF Games, coming next: Hasslevania 2- This Space for Rent!
I've also had quite enough with this thread, I'm very willing to let the poll decide the fate of the rating system, and I won't bitch about if it turns out the majority wants the 0-rating to stay, cause then atleast I'll be assured of the fact that that is what the majority of the community wants, and that really is the most important point of this discussion.
There. This is my rating of this thread. Its little topics like this that are killing this community. The topic itself is valid, but then it all degrades into whining and attacking.
I think everyone has their own ideas on what is important in a game, and their scoring reflects that.
Think about Knytt stories, how many people ignored the fact that is was a very simple exploration game with some not so special graphics and some nice mood setting music then voted it the best game of the year because they were blown away by the FANTASTIC ATMOSPHERE!
Aren't people making the same errors with your game Adam? one dimensional gameplay, very short and quite frustrating too if you die. But forgot all that, FANTASTIC PRESENTATION!
In my opinion (for what it's worth) a game needs a good balance of gameplay, graphics, music, challenge and length.
Aren't people making the same errors with your game Adam? one dimensional gameplay, very short and quite frustrating too if you die. But forgot all that, FANTASTIC PRESENTATION!
Yeah, still managed to get onto PCWorld online, Indie games blog and several other places. OH! And not to forget it won the 20 event competition, lol.
"Because having the admins police the ratings would be a silly thing to do."
I suggested other ways than just that. When people said they did not like it I tried thinking of another solution. What I was talking about in that post was Muz's logic made no sense. He admits that there is something wrong with the rating system, but fails to see that those who rate unfair is one of the problems.
This is my last post in this thread. I voted to go back to the review system in the poll because in my opinion only 5 stars is not enough. Since what happens is that you get most of the top games having tied with the same rating. The review set up would separate those games from one another, because the system is more specific and allows the person whose giving the review to have the rating system explain how they came up with their score.
Originally Posted by Yami This is my last post in this thread. I voted to go back to the review system in the poll because in my opinion only 5 stars is not enough. Since what happens is that you get most of the top games having tied with the same rating. The review set up would separate those games from one another, because the system is more specific and allows the person whose giving the review to have the rating system explain how they came up with their score.
Except no one writes reviews anymore.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by -Adam- Aren't people making the same errors with your game Adam? one dimensional gameplay, very short and quite frustrating too if you die. But forgot all that, FANTASTIC PRESENTATION!
Yeah, still managed to get onto PCWorld online, Indie games blog and several other places. OH! And not to forget it won the 20 event competition, lol.
Originally Posted by Yami What I was talking about in that post was Muz's logic made no sense. He admits that there is something wrong with the rating system, but fails to see that those who rate unfair is one of the problems.
The problem, IMHO, is not the unfair 0 star ratings. It's the unfair 5 star ratings, which led to the creation of 0 star ratings. People who vote 5 stars should be banned.
(Also, see signature )
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Point is, there's no point to getting rid of 0 stars, because then people would vote only 1 star. And if we get rid of the 1 star, we'll have people voting 2 stars and others wondering why there isn't a 1 star rating. And then some others are going to say that the "no game is worth 0/1 stars" excuse is a dumb one.
I'd rather not have this thread locked because a good solution may come out of it, but "going back to the review", "going back the thumbs system" and "remove 0 star votes" are worse solution because we've used them before and they didn't work at all.
Let's put it this way then. You could either try to have it similar to a "grade" system where good games get a "A" or "B" (4 or 5 stars) and bad games get a "C" or "D"(2-3 stars). Anything worse is a fail. In schools, this works because you have competent teachers that get fired if they give a kid a "F" just because he has too many "A"s. On the Internet, though, this doesn't work because there are always idiots and too many of them to 'fire'. As a wise man once said, "If idiots could fly, this place would be an airport." Trying to ban everyone who voted unfairly would mean that interesting members like Phredeeke, as well as half the admins would be banned.
This "grading system" would work better with a median system rather than mean (as I've posted in the other thread). With a mean rating calculation, 0 stars have a significant impact on the rating. A median system counts a 0 star as the same value as a 1 or 2 star if only a few idiots are use it. It also discourages people from voting 0 stars because there's no point to doing so.
For those who were too lazy to read, using a median calculation effectively gets rid of the 0 stars.
Alternatively, you could have it so that the ratings compare games instead. 5 stars would be very rare, and a 2 star wouldn't mean your game is bad, it's just that it's not as good as the 3-5 star games. This is incredibly difficult to work, but Worth1000 does it perfectly.
Unfortunately, TDC has never been about high-quality games. It was about creating games. We recognize which game is the best of the week. We recognize a bunch of good games, front-page, and spotlight them. Sometimes, when we're in the mood, we even remember the old ones and put them on the front page, where the new guys play them for a while.
We could move for a comparison system, but the first step is in getting rid of the star system. Stars suggest it in the same way as hotels do - anything with 3 or less is bad. Instead, we would have to revert to the review system, but that didn't work so well because people just couldn't be bothered to write reviews. Alternatively, we could have a complicated system that rates the qualifications of every user, but people will complain about that when they seem to get low ratings.
So, there you go. Easy solution or accurate (and controversial) solution?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz Point is, there's no point to getting rid of 0 stars, because then people would vote only 1 star.
But a good question is, has the 0-star rating EVER been used in the constructive way the ratings are supposed to be used and not only as a down-vote? I myself can't find one single time except in the sense of scolding offensive/pornographic/non-game-games, and those are a completely different problem.
However, it is a FACT that the 5-star rating is being used in the constructive way it was intended to and not ONLY as an up-vote.
I'd say some games are worth one star. Personally I'd not like to vote that low but the option should be there, minimum of 2 star voting is silly. Anyway I still don't like the idea of 0 star ratings, I cannot get them to make sense to me, other than just being used to kick people in the teeth for at least trying their best.
No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
This isn't just another random fake account. It's Phizzy. He has a 50 50 ratio on this site of people who love or hate him, and he dances the fine line. He generally has constructive thoughts, but not a single clue of common sense when it comes to expressing them. That's why it's such a gray area as to whether or not he should have been banned, and was unbanned on so many occasions prior.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
This isn't just another random fake account. It's Phizzy. He has a 50 50 ratio on this site of people who love or hate him, and he dances the fine line. He generally has constructive thoughts, but not a single clue of common sense when it comes to expressing them. That's why it's such a gray area as to whether or not he should have been banned, and was unbanned on so many occasions prior.
lol! There's no "gray area" about phizzy being banned, just the fact that he made another account today proves that. And I'm sure that less then 50% of the active members want phizzy back, much less then 50%.
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
This isn't just another random fake account. It's Phizzy. He has a 50 50 ratio on this site of people who love or hate him, and he dances the fine line. He generally has constructive thoughts, but not a single clue of common sense when it comes to expressing them. That's why it's such a gray area as to whether or not he should have been banned, and was unbanned on so many occasions prior.
lol! There's no "gray area" about phizzy being banned, just the fact that he made another account today proves that. And I'm sure that less then 50% of the active members want phizzy back, much less then 50%.
TBH, I think the majority of TDC doesn't care either way.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
"Instead, we would have to revert to the review system, but that didn't work so well because people just couldn't be bothered to write reviews."
Okay, when I talk about using the review system I am not saying to go write a big long review. One of the flaws with the five star rating is that there is no standard of which the person is basing their score off of. If you go to the reviews on the site you will see that the star rating system has sections for you to rate that will help explain how you came up your score. The review uses 10 stars and I think that will also help the problem with several games having the same exact score.
So using that same star rating system means having 10 stars instead of 5, 5 sections of which your rating is based off of, and overall a more detailed explanation about one's rating without them having to explain what they thought was low because the rating actually says it.
You know, lets just get rid of ratings all together. Everyone seems to love arguing about them, and much nastiness is spread because people don't agree with what others have rated their games. It's to the point where this arguing is hurting the community and I'm quite tired of seeing these stupid little spats because "XXXX rated my game at 0 star!"
If we get rid of the 0 stars, then the whole thing is going to happen again because people will start rating at 1 star.
Obviously the only solution is to not allow ratings at all.
There is nothing wrong with having a debate. I do not see how talking about wanting to make the rating system, which in fact is an action of trying to make the community better, would actually hurt it. If anything most of us can agree to disagree on the situation. I myself think that the ratings are to simple and vague. There needs to be a standard system to go by so everyone's votes are NOT AS BIASED as before. Of course there is no way that is perfect, but then again neither are people.
I think the ratings should stay, because it gives others motivation to make a better product; however, when the system can be improved why would you see those who want it to be as a bad thing?
Originally Posted by Yami There is nothing wrong with having a debate. I do not see how talking about wanting to make the rating system, which in fact is an action of trying to make the community better, would actually hurt it. If anything most of us can agree to disagree on the situation. I myself think that the ratings are to simple and vague. There needs to be a standard system to go by so everyone's votes are NOT AS BIASED as before. Of course there is no way that is perfect, but then again neither are people.
I think the ratings should stay, because it gives others motivation to make a better product; however, when the system can be improved why would you see those who want it to be as a bad thing?
I have no problem with debate. Some people in this thread have been indeed been debating. The others are just bashing and throwing fits. You mention biased ratings. Um, ratings aren't biased. People who make the ratings are. You can't get rid of the bias without getting rid of the people.
Originally Posted by Yami Yeah, people who give the ratings are biased so that is why there should be a standard for them to go by to help that problem.
Standards isn't going to help that problem at all. Those biased individuals will just give the same biased ratings ignoring "standards". O for GFX, 0 for Gameplay, 0 for Story, etc. etc.
Youtube has a very nice system very much like ours (except without 0 stars, heh heh) it lets people / ratings, which wouldnt effect them, but would show how many people thought it was a unfair rating ( like giving streetwise 0 stars ).
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Hmm, I kinda liked Codemonkeys remark about youtubes rating system, we could rate the ratings and then rate those ratings and then.... Actually never mind
If we get rid of the 0 stars, then the whole thing is going to happen again because people will start rating at 1 star.
But alas! There is a hugh difference between a 0-star rating and a 1-star rating!
A 1-star rating is a rating;
"I didn't like your game, it doesn't have the flair of awesome I so crave, so I give it 1 star."
*rater hands rateé 1 abstract star symbol*
"Oh no, he doesn't like my game!"
*rateé sits cross-legged in the dark, holding his shiny abstract star*
But, he got a rating, even if it was the lowest.
A 0-star rating however is NOTHING!
"I didn't like your game, it doesn't have the flair of awesome I so crave, so I give it nothing, it is not worth even a rating. I do not acknowledge that you have done ANYTHING AT ALL."
*rater doesn't even dignify rateé with an acknowledgement of the creations existence*
"Oh no, he doesn't like my game! Actually, he doesn't even acknowledge it as a game at all! It is nothing in his eyes! But why? Why not even one little star...?"
*rateé sits cross-legged in the dark, holding his shiny new knife*
Does someone get my point? There is a hugh difference between NOTHING and the lowest score possible!
Or we could just change the system into a true 6-star rating system instead of 5 visible and one invisible star rating.
Originally Posted by BrandonC What if we made a rating system that spanked someone if they didn't rate it exactly what everyone thinks it should be rated.
Completely missing the point, as ever. It's not a case of having to agree with the majority of ratings, just those that are obviously intended to anger the creator or done out of spite, like giving 0 stars without any substantial reasoning or just to get a point across like Kazuma in Codemonkey's download... how hard is that to understand? Perhaps if people actually gave a decent reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's far from the case, and you and the others know it is.
It won't work, it really won't, but what if ratings that were way off from the other ratings or 0 ratings as the first had to be approved first, or something.
Like if you decided to rate an unrated game zero, then the admins would have to approve that first, or if everyone rates it five and you give one or zero it has to be approved.
As I said, it's a horrible idea that would never work.
Originally Posted by cecil64 how about if its more than 1.5 stars off of its average so far it has to be approved. (first rating has to be approved as well)
that way if its already like a 2 star game and someone rates it a 1 or 0 its already a bad game so its just another bad rating.
but if its a 4.7 avg rating so far and it gets a 1 or 0 its like "hold on a second, that rating isnt accurate...whyyy?"
I think that's a pretty good idea actually, it's just getting admins to go through and approve it would be a hassle.
Alspal (jokingly) said we should get the mean average of the median and the mode ((median + mode) / 2). Just throwing that out there.
Unfortunately, no open rating system is ever perfect or totally accurate, this holds true for every system on the internet, someone, somewhere, is always going to missuse them, and thats just a fact of life. Youtube has the advantage of having alot more users, and those few nonintelligent ratings get lost amongst proper, true votes.
The only way to have completely accurate systems is to moderate ratings, and this is not something any of us have the time to do.
Best that can be done is to calculate and negate any outlandish votes that are a complete minority, that would give a better average, but would still be open to abuse either way, thats just how it is with freely open ratings.
Seriously though, folks, don't take ratings so seriously, reviews are there for proper, in-depth views and opinions of games, review more, read more reviews, if people actually reviewed more commonly we could use that score in the downloads list alongside or instead of star ratings.
yes i can. but unless im mistaken you have to give a rating for all of those categories. making it more work for a user to rate. the ones who rate 0s are the ones who dont take the time to even look at a game, or play it in the first place. it will take them the same time to rate it a 0, but it will make it 100x longer to go through and evaluate each aspect of a game for someone who actually honestly rates it. meaning less user ratings.
Originally Posted by BrandonC What if we made a rating system that spanked someone if they didn't rate it exactly what everyone thinks it should be rated.
Completely missing the point, as ever. It's not a case of having to agree with the majority of ratings, just those that are obviously intended to anger the creator or done out of spite, like giving 0 stars without any substantial reasoning or just to get a point across like Kazuma in Codemonkey's download... how hard is that to understand? Perhaps if people actually gave a decent reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's far from the case, and you and the others know it is.
I don't think I missed the point of your post, I think you did mine. Take a few moments to think about that, and come to me when you've got it figured out, kay buddy?
Oh please, Brandon, you're about as intellectually challenging as Basil Brush without a hand up his rear. Take a few moments to find out who he is, and come to me when you've got an answer, kay "buddy"?
I think you are completely exaggerating Cecil and need to stop bitching. It does not take that long at all and if you actually played the game it should be even easier to decide.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Oh please, Brandon, you're about as intellectually challenging as Basil Brush without a hand up his rear. Take a few moments to find out who he is, and come to me when you've got an answer, kay "buddy"?
You're like some over dramatic high school prep...
Get over yourself.
"I think you are completely exaggerating Cecil and need to stop bitching. It does not take that long at all and if you actually played the game it should be even easier to decide."
its my opinion im not "bitching".
youre method is pretty much what we call a "review". how many people on tdc regularly do a review aside from shroomlock? not many. cause it takes too much time. you get a few here and there but no one really regularly reviews games. its effect would properly rate the games yes, but in my OPINION fewer people would actually fill them out.
Like I said you do not have to write a big long explanation. You just put the stars where you think they should go. The rating system SHOULD be like a "review" anyways.
I know what you mean, but what you are saying is that you would rather have a vague rating where most people end up rating the game one sided anyways just because more people would do it.
I love it how people feel the need to reply after I rated Adams game just to let me know I'M REALLY WRONG.
Also Nick, if your comment was aimed at me I'm rather disappointed. Really I try to be really diplomatic when rating games.
Originally Posted by AndyUK I love it how people feel the need to reply after I rated Adams game just to let me know I'M REALLY WRONG.
Also Nick, if your comment was aimed at me I'm rather disappointed. Really I try to be really diplomatic when rating games.
Originally Posted by cecil64 yes i can. but unless im mistaken you have to give a rating for all of those categories. making it more work for a user to rate. the ones who rate 0s are the ones who dont take the time to even look at a game, or play it in the first place. it will take them the same time to rate it a 0, but it will make it 100x longer to go through and evaluate each aspect of a game for someone who actually honestly rates it. meaning less user ratings.
I agree with Cecil's statements. Yami, your system looks nice (surprisingly familiar...) but it'll only take the 0 raters about 4 more seconds to make another 0 rating. Just rate every category at 0 and the overall still becomes 0. Basically, you're making it take more time for the people who want to give an honest rating, and making barely longer for those who just want to troll.
I think the simple thumbs system (Only up, no down) might be the best way to do. But then again, the only ones who have any control over this is Clubby and maybe Flava.
What if you have 4 stars.
4 = Great
3 = Good
2 = Could be better
1 = Bad
And in order to give a 1, you're required to submit a reason why, and you can only do 1 bad rating a day.
1 can have thumbs up or thumbs down. If the ratio of thumbs down beats the ratio of thumbs up after 3 ratings, then that rating is automatically revoked, because obviously a majority found it inappropriate.
2 can have a similar thumbs up or thumbs down, and if the ratio of thumbs down beats the ratio of thumbs up after 5 or 8 ratings, then the person who posted it can choose to either revoke or change it. If the person doesn't respond in a week, the rating is automatically rounded up to a 3.
Sounds like it may take a tad extra work to implement, but it seems solid for a small community like this. It's just a matter of putting it into action and seeing how it fairs.
Hmm, only using would really be the best way to eliminate phizzing () of the rating, that system together with dedicated reviewers would really work great!
I still think some are missing the big picture. People are already rating games at zero. That is not the issue with my proposal. The system is more specific than the current one and that is why it should be used. Not because anyone can still rate low, but so that there is a standard upon which everyone can go by. Right now everyone is rating how they see fit. The problem with that is some people may rate too high or low. There needs to be a balance and that is why we need the review system, because it sets guidelines for EVERYONE to go by.
Yami, you're supposed to let them rate as they see fit Nobody is going to read a fat page on how you're supposed to rate and then pass a test. That means that those people won't vote, and it makes the system useless if nobody uses it.
The review system happened a long time ago, but we changed it because nobody wrote reviews. The thumbs up/down (2 vote) system was done before recently, but the problem with that was that it was too easy to vote and people only voted based on screenshots and comments. I've seen games that had like 6 downloads and 13 thumbs down.
And in order to give a 1, you're required to submit a reason why, and you can only do 1 bad rating a day.
I once gave an official warning to a guy for giving every game a 0 or 1 rating. Then he got banned for further idiocy. So, yeah, that does happen. Some guys have also been given DC-mail warnings for giving 5 stars for a lot game with almost no comment to why they rated it so high.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
well i noticed that every time anyone downloads a game, the count increases. even if that person has already downloaded it. so one person could download it 20 times and the count would be 20.
i think that should be fixed so that a download only counts once per ip address.
and then voting is only available to ips that have already downloaded the game. that would certainly cut back on people just voting based on screenshots and description, and anyone whos just trolling and being a general a-hole, or out of spite "rrrr im mad at you im gunna rate youre stuff 0" (no offense fish20 i think youre ok guy now. )
then we can deal with how the voting system should be.
n/a
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
30th September, 2008 at 07:40:43 -
I just tried it, DL count stayed the same.
???
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
cause i just tried it on 3 games. ones that ive already downlaoded today. and the count went up
ok now it wont do it lol.
well now that i think about it, i downloaded those a few hours ago. and the servers time is different than california time by a few hours. so maybe it counts downloads once a day.
but still. the only being able to vote once youve downloaded a game will help.
Once again you are completely exaggerating Muz.
This is not rocket science.
People can still vote as they see fit, but there needs to be a standard. Without something to go by, none of the ratings really hold any value. Why do you think teachers have a grading system? A teacher does not just randomly give A's and B's to someone who turned in half of the work. Yeah, they are grading how they want, but does that change the fact that the way they grade is flawed? The point is, I am not asking to take away peoples choice, but rather make everyone's decision worth the same.
WHO ARE THESE LAZY PEOPLE that everyone keeps talking about that CAN NOT FILL IN 5 QUESTIONS about the game they just played? This is not asking much at all. Truth of the matter if some people stopped voting it would not change anything, because half of the people on here either vote too high or low. Either way the ratings would be more accurate than the ones now.
Originally Posted by alspal When you do a review you get to choose a rating for each of those areas! And just comment on why you gave it that rating so that they know why.
oh god... here's the rating review bulls*** again...
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Not even that alspal, just give the stars and leave a comment if you want. The whole point of the system is you do not have to say why. The ratings says it all.
Either remove the 0 Stars or have message when hovering over each star(If we don't have that already) and have the lowest possible rating say something fair such as "Needs a just a little more work"
Maybe copy Deviantart and the Projects section?
No numerical ratings but a +fave rating. Which can then be seen from a persons profile and tallies up the number of faves as a kind of rating.
Maybe (but a big maybe, since people download and don't comment often) work out a percentage of how good a game is by the downloads against the +faves? No that's a bad idea.
Because we're a creative forum and not a big mofo games site we do need a different way of rating a game.
Obviously keep reviews since so few games actually have them, and they don't alter the games position on the download page.
I don't know what I'm saying now. But if you don't do this I'll get really really mad
How about this, leave the rating system how it is. Allow people to give a thumbs up or down to a rating. If the thumbs are in the negative then the creator has the option of removing the rating.
For example let's say the negative limit is 10. Once that rating gets to -10 then the creator can remove it.
Or, keep the reviews as they are, and change the rating function to the thumbs-up system, like in the project faves, and no thumbs-down at all! Actually, exactly what Shab said!
I can't remember there ever being a thumbs-up only system, but I've been here on and off since the start, so it could've been during an off-period of mine.
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man
E_E = All Indie
...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
1st October, 2008 at 03:13:51 -
The more complex the system, the more people can abuse it.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
I'd think that a favorited system would be pointless. Good for projects maybe, because there's nothing that says that a project is bad. The downloads' star rating system works well enough as it is; there's barely anyone abusing it. In fact, abuses are so rare that when one person does it, everyone notices. The article rating system gets abused a lot more, but from the polls, it seems that nobody noticed.
Good games get 4.x stars, ok games get 3-4 stars. That's fine for me. You guys are spoiled, especially those who complain when someone doesn't vote 5 stars
Now one thing that worries me is the way we judge top downloads. That should maybe be deleted altogether.. and replaced with a page that lists "highly recommended" downloads and such
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by cecil64 its not really a rating system though. its just a tally of how many people think the download isnt crap. if its worth a dl.
Yes.. but isn't that the whole point? So people know which games are good?...
The favourites system would work fine, it'd be just the same as the old thumbs system but instead of getting a rating based on the two numbers you just have a score based on how many people liked it. If the game is bad no-one will "like" it and it will be ranked low - so really it functions as a rating system that people can't abuse without multiple accounts etc.
If you have a favorite system then there is no point in having a thumbs down. Just let the top games be noted by how many added it as a favorite and also have a section on people's profiles to look at their favs.
The one major flaw with a favorites system is that it'll collect more favorited votes after a long time, compared to better games which are newer. So if you have a fairly decent game submitted 3 years ago, nothing new can beat it. And of course, guys with their own cliques will get a lot more votes than they deserve.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Knudde (Shab) Hence the thumbs up system I suggested a few pages back. No downs, only ups. Then you could sort by how many thumbs a download has.
Technically this will be implimented with favourites when I get a spare moment (as with the projects)
That doesn't sound fun. I like the current rating system. It works :/
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
If you remove the zero stars then you support idiots making crap and possibly insulting games. TBH I think you should just ignore the overall rating and see what people you usually agree with have voted. SMART
Originally Posted by ~Zigzag~ If you remove the zero stars then you support idiots making crap and possibly insulting games. TBH I think you should just ignore the overall rating and see what people you usually agree with have voted. SMART
It seems very peculiar to use a 6 grade rating system, if you decide to keep the 0 rating atleast up the number so we have 0-10 so the ratings can be more precise.
The favorite system sounds like the simplest way to go. I mean look at the top favored projects and they seem about right. This just means the top downloads would be the most popular games. Plus holding a popular rating means it's less likely to have someone disagreeing with whether or not it belongs where it is on the list.
Originally Posted by Muz The one major flaw with a favorites system is that it'll collect more favorited votes after a long time, compared to better games which are newer. So if you have a fairly decent game submitted 3 years ago, nothing new can beat it. And of course, guys with their own cliques will get a lot more votes than they deserve.
I don't really see this as a genuine problem. You could just compare favourites to downloads ratio. Or even favourites over time if you want that sort of system, which would get a little complicated- it would obviously not be linear, since favourites per day will be much higher for newer games than for older games. Favourites to downloads is the simpler option, favourites over time would be harder to implement and potentially overcomplicated. But both of these approaches help to alleviate the problem you identified.
Also in response to the "cliques" problem, that is impossible to fix with a voting system, since friends will always look favourably upon each other's efforts no matter which system you use. You could always have an "Admins choice" award or something if you want some sort of so-called objectivity in the favourites system, where if more than 80% or so of the admins favourite a particular game, it gets a green star next to its name or something. This would be a little bit like the users' and critics' views on movies etc.
Indeed, if you wanted to complicate it a bit further, you could have admins (or even other users!) vote on and promote users to positions of "Top Reviewers" or something, based on rarely if ever giving unfounded or unfair votes. Not that I want to get into a debate on what types of votes are unfair, that would be left up to whoever is in charge of assessing whether a user is "fair" and "valued" based on the ratings, comments and reviews they leave. I'd imagine with the approval of both a certain number of users, admins and potentially existing "Top reviewers", new "Top reviewers" could be delegated.
Did I mention this is overcomplicated? Of course they're just ideas Feel free to critique / disagree
Ok, how about having two lists. One "all time most favourites" and one "this months favourites" or "this weeks favourites" (just like we have a top 10 weekly downloads list)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I agree with Shab, going back to favorite an old game that you like would be easy. I know a website that has favorites within their system. www.pixeljoint.com Similar to what Phredreeke suggested, they sort the pictures by most favorites, weekly showcase, and newest pixel art. So we could have the default as the newest games. Then have the options to few the other assortments. Instead of weekly showcase we could have a monthly one and then of course the most favorites as well.
speaking of bring em back. wasnt one of the conditions of the front page news admin that you had to at least update the front page once every two days? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I guess it would be everyone's 'favourite' system. Or at least just the people who have read this forum thread. Maybe a poll is in order? Though I somehow question the polls.. it would be cool if the options appeared in a random order for each user, to avoid "donkey votes" where the first option is selected from laziness.
Wow i've been away for just over a week and look what i've missed! Apart from the squabbling, this was one hell of a debate! I was all in favour for changing the rating system but to be honest, i've changed my mind and i wanna leave it as it is.
The only option i would like is the option to change my score maybe just once. Sometimes i play a game for a while and decide that i like it more/less than when i actually rated it. That's not to say that i rate games after just 5 minutes play, it's just that some games grow on me over time and i think they deserve higher scores, while other games really become ugly after prolonged play exposes all of the nasty bugs and poor gameplay traits that i'd missed originally.
I don't like the favorites idea. It works perfectly for projects, because you have no idea of telling whether a project is bad. You could only tell if it is good.
But you really can't tell how good a game is and that's the whole point of having a rating system. The current rating system is balanced overall. There's no point to having a 0 star rating, but there's no point of removing it either. It only makes things unfair for the people who have already had to live with the 0 stars.
So, there. No need to fix something that works decently, just because one in a dozen people are abusing it. If it changes to a favoriting system, then I'm going to be abusing that system too
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
5th October, 2008 at 09:49:40 -
Use both systems. ?
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
That's not a bad idea. The only problem I could see from it is that some kid will complain about why there are two rating systems
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Muz That's not a bad idea. The only problem I could see from it is that some kid will complain about why there are two rating systems
Some people will ALWAYS complain.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
seriously, Star Trek?) would say it, it is the logical thing to do.
I don't give a ___ what his game is rated, just that I played the game and disliked the gameplay. Had it been released as a tech demo I would have been more generous, but I rated it based on its gameplay value and not it's technical achievements.
ratings too. It's quite anyone's right to vote 0 stars, at least the new system exposes who does it. It used to be much, much worse. (just see the article ratings)
Apocalyptic Coders - 
