Mod Ratings Diatribe

[Skree000]

a compromise would be to change the 'top 50' to be called 'top user rated'

 

one judged by user rating

 

the other would be a 'top picks'

 

judged by pre-determined community members of good standing and involvement.

[LinkesAuge]

a compromise would be to change the 'top 50' to be called 'top user rated'

 

one judged by user rating

 

the other would be a 'top picks'

 

judged by pre-determined community members of good standing and involvement.

 

and who judges the judges? ;)

 

It would also mean that these ppl would have to be rly active to properly comment on the mods.

 

Also renaming the ranks doesn't change anything, the casual user just wants to find the "popular" mods in a fast way and he could care less if its called "top user rated" or "top50", thats just semantics.

 

I'm still convinced that for something like rating in the internet a "thumbs up" system is the best. The problem with negative ratings is that the reviewer in the internet has no responsibility for his rating leading to abuse of the whole system.

[Andersh]

How about a option for mod uploaders, that only people with a certain kudos can rate their Mods.

[Skree000]

a compromise would be to change the 'top 50' to be called 'top user rated'

 

one judged by user rating

 

the other would be a 'top picks'

 

judged by pre-determined community members of good standing and involvement.

 

and who judges the judges? ;)

 

It would also mean that these ppl would have to be rly active to properly comment on the mods.

 

Also renaming the ranks doesn't change anything, the casual user just wants to find the "popular" mods in a fast way and he could care less if its called "top user rated" or "top50", thats just semantics.

 

I'm still convinced that for something like rating in the internet a "thumbs up" system is the best. The problem with negative ratings is that the reviewer in the internet has no responsibility for his rating leading to abuse of the whole system.

 

every system can be abused, as shown.

Like i said, judges would have to be carefully selected, which is why i dont think that method is anymore than a pipe dream.

 

imho, it does indeed matter what the lists are called. People reading 'top50' instantly think of the 50 'best' mods.

 

However, If it was called 'top user rated' they would know that, since ratings are abused, this list would likely only contain a list primarily composed of 'trendy' or 'niche' mods that acquire high rankings mainly from hyped groups of fanboys.

 

If it was something like, top picks, it would give the suggestion that these mods were hand picked for utility, scope and quality, not just 'I r8'd this mod 10 cos its laik tolly uberr'

 

 

In the end, ratings and reviews are all relative and for the most part, everyone is biased whether they like it or not. So to get the best quality reviews, seek out those that have in-depth detail on what aspects of the mod they liked.

 

The rating system should simply be expanded into categories.

ie.

Visuals (graphical presentation) -

Usefulness (how badly you think everyone needs this mod) -

Functions as described (flawless? bugs?) -

Awesomesness (general coolness-rating) -

 

That breaks it down into rating categories that will help people judge mods with a more critical eye.

 

As is, the ratings system represents all of those categories, and usually the one that overpowers the rest is Hyped 'awesomesness'. Which is why you see buggy mods that have conflicts, and still get 9.5.

[LinkesAuge]

sure can every system be abused but its in human nature that the "negative" abuse (ie down voting something) is far more comman than the "positive" abuse (ie giving top votes without thinking about it).

Ppl are lazy so for one thing at least 90% don't vote at all and many of the rest just for very few mods. Of those that do vote its a lot more likely that it will be done by ppl which don't like something or a part of your mod.

There are even studies about this phenomenon, ppl are simply a lot more likely to voice their opinion if they dont like something or see flaws with it.

Most of the time it doesn't matter cause all mods "suffer" this problem. There are however exceptions and that are more controversional mods, such which have a huge group of fanboys but also lots of "haters".

These mods can suffer a lot in the current system cause the "haters" have the possibility to rate it down. In a "thumbs up" system the "haters" have only the option not to vote.

So a "thumbs up" system can show you how many ppl enjoyed it, thats harder with a system that gives you an average rating.

Lets say 10 ppl vote for a 9 and 10 for a 5. You end up with an average of 7. So what does this now mean? In the end it means nothing cause it gives you no clear information if the mod can be enjoyed or not despite 10 ppl who did actualy rly like it.

The "thumbs up" system is also less affected by extreme ratings and depends more on the actual number of ppl who tried it than some sort of rating average.

That mods like FWE, MMM, XFO, WMK etc. arent at the top of the ranking is based on the very fact that "niche" mods can get their good ratings easier. Mods that cater to a bigger audience will always get harsher critics.

I think that at the moment the average rating is too important on nexus when it comes to the ranking.

[Interfer0]

If you made the process of becoming a critic somewhat lengthy, but still be automated. You had to fill out a survey, then you have to wait 4 or 5 days, then fill out another, then you would be more likely to get people who genuinely want to rate mods. People who rate mods 10 no matter what are less likely to go through the process of creating an account.

 

If peoples votes were open, then you would be able to report a user, enough people report a vote, and the critics account is disabled until the can convince an admin that they are voting legitimately.

 

If you find a critic that has similar interests to your own, you can see what other mods he likes, and check those ones out.

 

I'm not even sure if this would be possible though, I don't know the nexus site admins programming skills.

 

While I think breaking the voting up into categories is somewhat of a fix, more then likely it will end up just like it is now.

 

I think long term the problem will fix itself anyways. as time goes on, more people will vote on mods, averages will come down once a few more major mods come out.

[Skree000]

I like the thumbs-up-or-nothing-at-all system come to think of it...

 

if they dont switch to that, and instead retain the current setup... how about just expose a list of who voted, and what number they voted. This would cause people to vote responsibly since they could be contacted and asked why they voted as such, etc.

 

Would also see if vote manipulation was happening, ie. people creating tons of new accounts to sway the vote (not that i think people do that, but such phenomena has happened in the past on may websites of this sort.) (personally if people go to that much trouble to manipulate a vote.... thats really really sad... but... yeah *shrugs* people will do anything to get attention.

[LinkesAuge]

you can already see who and how someone voted. :)

[Skree000]

you can already see who and how someone voted. :)

orlly? *goes to look*

[dthumb]

Votes are used for File of the Month. One member can only vote once a month for one file only, yeah I think it's anonymous.

File ratings are not anonymous, that's how moderators catch ratings abuse.

I personally give 8 or 9 ratings for mods that need a bit more tweaking, if unfinished or in beta, or I just wait for updates before rating and just leave constuctive criticism or ideas. Maybe a three point rating is better than athumbs up system. Just to let the modder know if you think the file needs a bit of improvement. Don't like it, don't rate or comment.