On the internet, trolls, and finally creating an effective rating syst
Posted 18 November 2010 - 04:27 PM
Posted 18 November 2010 - 04:30 PM
@Wasteland Assassin: the first - and every subsequent person who's review is nothing but 'bla bla' 33 times - or something similar - will find themselves on the outside looking in as soon as I see it.
yes, that was obvious to me (i know you are all doing a fine job with the Ban Hammer )
still, it's always good to know that we are in such good hands
Posted 18 November 2010 - 04:46 PM
Wouldn't requiring more detail for a rating lower the number of total ratings? Many people aren't willing to put in much time to do things like that.
I have to agree on this point. Even with the simpler "thumbs" system only five to ten per cent of a mod's downloaders will return once the "trial period" has elapsed to take the time to comment on it. (I base these statistics on what I've seen with my own uploads.) While in the grand scheme of things in the end it is up to each individual modder whether or not they will base their future works on comments received, and in turn it's not the fault of any site staff that we as downloaders are either lazy or just indifferent, still I can't help but think that returning to the numerical ratings system will further reduce downloader participation in the uploaded files comments section.
Posted 18 November 2010 - 05:00 PM
Posted 18 November 2010 - 05:31 PM
Edit: Another thought, is a set activity level for everyone to post a review really o.k? Someone could easily get to a set activity level then only ever post reviews after that. Wouldn't a set amount of activity say per week or per month be better, as although people could just spam posts to get that amount of activity each week/month, it should be easier for you to spot and make it harder on the trolls.
Edited by Stewb, 18 November 2010 - 05:35 PM.
Posted 18 November 2010 - 05:47 PM
Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:38 PM
Love the idea of a "filtered" Review system.
Support keeping it simple, I'd suggest no more than five grades:
Above Average (works well)
Below Average (problems, esp. compatibility or installation)
I don't believe there should be a minimum number of words in the reviews. But for Average-or-below ones, there should be a requirement to include some easily understood terms to identify the shortcomings, much like the current remarks for Strikes and Bans; "Flaming", "Spam", "Piracy". So; "Unclear install instructions", "Requires multiple additional mods", "Poor quality art/sound/editing", etc. I'd bet the most common reasons will become rapidly apparent.
[Edited to add another thought.]
It's not clear to me whether this would REPLACE the "Thumbs Up/Down" option. I thought there would still be the rapid, and dead-simple, feedback provided that way, PLUS more in-depth Reviews by a (somewhat more mature than average) group.
Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:38 PM
There are great mods that I won't use due to my personal preferences, but that doesn't mean I can't see that they are great. The amount of endorsements vs. time that they have been released works very well for me.
Adding too many features to the site ratings system and all the great stuff might end up like the old saying goes...
"A diamond alone is unique and beautiful, a diamond in a stack of diamonds is just another diamond'
Edited by XTR3M368, 18 November 2010 - 06:41 PM.
Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:43 PM
Thanks for your hard work
Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:07 PM
Good luck culling the horde... er, moderating the community. Judging from the Rules and Strikes board, new games (like F:NV) bring in the riff-raff in droves, as if those nine lonely mods didn't already have their troll-thumping, pirate-punting work cut out for 'em. I've done some admin work in the past, but there are individual file threads here with more posts than my old JA clan's entire forum. You guys wield those full-auto ban-cannons well, and you have my respect.