Changes to soliciting ratings/file of the month votes

[HadToRegister]

I like SATrilobite's suggestion of Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down

on different sections of the mod

 

it could be split up into several "yes/no" sections, like "Does this mod work properly (no crashes, etc.)?", "Does this mod do what its designer intended it to?", "Is this mod lore-friendly?", "Do you like this mod?"

 

I'd replace the "Lore-Freindly" with something else

because I don't give a crap about lore myself. :)

[Andragorn]

How about 3 positive ratings like:

golden star - a must have mod

silver star - a very good and useful mod

bronze star - a well made mod that is good to have

[JimboUK]

How about 3 positive ratings like:

golden star - a must have mod

silver star - a very good and useful mod

bronze star - a well made mod that is good to have

 

I dare say people will give out gold stars in the same way they give out 10's now. I like the thumbs up option, it's simple and takes away the trolls ability to make a difference.

[Ranokoa]

Hmm.. these last few comments are extremely good.

 

The whole "thumbs up / thumbs down" is terrible, but a "thumbs up" as said, with just the option to take away your rating is also ok. But it gives no middle management. I like to rate mods that deserve it because of the work put in by the author. If it is a nice mod, i give it a 7, if it is a good mod, i give it a 8, if its a wonderful mod, i give it a 9, and if it fullfills everything it intended to successfully with no crash, and or the benifits of the mod vastly outweigh the crash, a 10. I rarely go below this, and i rarely go below 8 to begin with, as i rarely rate mods that deserve lower, for the sole reason that i do not want to discourage people from looking at the mod with a bad rating. However, if the mod is total crud, doesnt do a dang thing it says, and or is illegal like a uploaded DLC, i love to give terrible ratings becuase they deserve them. But i back my choice up with reasons, a long list of them. I ask the author and offer them to tell me reasons why they think i should bump up my rating, and if they are correct and i feel that i may have been to harsh, i rectify it.

 

But i really do love the whole gold silver and bronze star thing. But it can be managed to prevent trolls.

 

Put it like this, if you rate, in order to prevent spam and or undeserved ratings, you have to..

 

Gold Star Rating:

Give main reason for rating.

Tell how successfully in detail it has accomplished its intent.

Tell how it improves the game.

 

Silver Star: Same thing

 

Bronze Star: Same thing.

 

And announce that if people do not fill these in correctly continuously they will be considered trash raters.

 

OR! We can keep the way things are, but slightly changed.

 

Instead of thumbs, instead of stars, when you rate, you are asked questions, and told how to rate.

 

How does this mod fullfill its intended use:

1-10 rating.

 

How needed is this to add to the game:

1-10 rating.

 

Does this mod cause crashes?

Yes, No, no comment. (yes gives +1, no gives -1, No comment gives nothing.)

 

How original do you believe to concept, if not original, how do you believe it has improved the existing idea:

1-10

 

Over all, how good is this mod:

1-10

 

Over all, how needed do you believe this mod is:

1-10

 

And then it takes everything and averages them out. The final result is told in stars.

 

Like if it averages 8-10, its a gold star. 5-7, a silver star. And 4 and below, its a bronze star. And then it just tells you how many gold stars, silver stars, and bronze stars this mod has been given, and an overall average of what those stars are, such as.

 

This mod has been given 5 Gold Stars, 1 Silver Star, and 1 Bronze Star. Average Star: Gold.

 

This prevents people from going overboard, and you do not really see if people are just giving out bad ratings, thus making people feel more incentive to rate.

 

I, myself, love the way the rating system already is. But what i would like better, is if people are abusing the rating system without thinking, then they are just not allowed to rate for 6 months. If they are abusing on multiple files just to hand out 10's or 1's, then they are banned. This would decrease ban's, but increase deserved bans.

 

 

You would also have to leave a comment on the star ratings, and if the comment is bull crud, and is obviously a trash rater, then the rating is removed, and so is rating ability. If the comments are less than 10 words, they are automatically sent to a moderator for inspection to see if it is a ligitimate rating or now.

 

As for File of the Month, we could either seperate into 2 different files of the month, like Rating of the Month, and File of the Month. One is nominated, and the other is just how many ratings someone has gotten that is good. Like, the person with the most gold stars given within 30 days of upload. You could also, when rating, be asked if you wish for this file to be nominated for File of the Month, but you would have to be redirected. This would allow more users to rate monthly files, as well, it would also make people who are too lazy to go to a different page to rate, that are trash raters. We could have a thing on the page that says how many nominations it has gotten, and if it has been previously selected as a file of the month. You would get like a platinum star next to the authors name if it was a file of the month.

 

These suggestions would prevent trash raters, improve trash rating filters, and be more fair. So the person has to think about different aspects, and they are not given the choice to know how well or what star you are rating someone till its already rated. Also, if the person has an overall rating of like 8.0, and then sees this, and changed it to a 10 all around, it is automatically sent to a moderator for inspection, and the person would be required in the rating system to explain their change, which would only be visible by moderators.

 

These are my suggestions on improving the other suggestions.

 

Be well, sleep well, fight well, live long.

~Ranokoa

[HadToRegister]

We can barely get anybody to rate with just ONE set of 1 - 10

they sure as hell aren't going to stick around to do a 1 - 10 on SEVERAL items

 

Plus there's Ten Choices for each rating with it being 1 - 10

 

Thumbs Up/Down gives 2 choices, keeps it simple and fast.

 

With a half a screen of 1 through 10's I'd never rate again

 

Maybe at the most 4 or 5 ratings set up like some polls do.

 

Did this mod perfom as it was described?

 

Not At All, Somewhat, Very Much, Extremely etc etc

[GodOfAtheism]

Spore Community woes

I would imagine that if 80 people all get together at the same time to downrate a mod, it's going to be noticed and investigated. Active moderation (which FO3Nexus has in spades) is all that's needed for gangs of trash raters.

 

Also, what do you actually say when you give a thumbs down? Not only do I think this mod doesn't deserve a good rating, I'm actually going to subtract a vote, so that other guy who liked your mod gets his vote nullified (in a overall rate = thumbs up - thumbs down system)? Is that option really necessary?

That depends on how the system works. Sure if it's a simple +1/-1 system, you can end with people who have -80 or whatever. However, Amazon.com uses a review scale that simply says x out of y people liked this, which tells you that a mod might not be liked by EVERYONE, but it's liked by at least x people.

 

Having said all that, I strongly advise against a thumbs down button, but see no problem with a thumbs up button. Also, I challenge anyone who still thinks an up/down system is a good idea to give a single reason why a thumbs down button should be included. Is there anything a thumbs down button lets you do that you can't do by simply not rating the mod at all? Except expressing negativity.

When you disallow people from saying "No, I don't like this mod." All you end out with is a whole bunch of "Great mod buddy!" which only tells people that said mod is great. If the mod IS great, then hey, no harm no foul. If not, then we run into problems. Adding that thumbs down button changes things from "100 people liked this!" to "100 people out of 150 liked this!", which is a significant difference in what you know about the mod.

Edited May 29, 2009 by GodOfAtheism

[JGvardija]

When you disallow people from saying "No, I don't like this mod." All you end out with is a whole bunch of "Great mod buddy!" which only tells people that said mod is great. If the mod IS great, then hey, no harm no foul. If not, then we run into problems. Adding that thumbs down button changes things from "100 people liked this!" to "100 people out of 150 liked this!", which is a significant difference in what you know about the mod.

 

I see your point. However, I rarely use ratings as a clue to whether I should download a mod or not, as far as I see the ratings serve only as a means to get into the top 100 list, which many people check for mods, thus increasing your mod's popularity. However, if ratings are to be used to show others how good a mod is (I don't really think that is possible, seeing how it is very subjective), a "negative" button would do its job. But is the gain worth the drawbacks?

 

In my opinion, ratings:

 

- Let the modder know how well his mod is recieved by the public. (thumbs down not needed)

- Let the mod "compete" with other mods for a spot in a top list. (thumbs down not needed)

- ?Let others know how good the mod is? (thumbs down needed?)

 

Edit: It may be unclear from my post, but I do not think this is a good enough reason to put in a thumbs down. Not with the drawbacks, that I wrote about in my previous post.

Edited May 29, 2009 by JGvardija

[pintocat]

A thumbs down isn't even needed except to remove your thumbs up.

 

Say you have 10 people who like Mod A. And 5 people who dislike it. With thumbs down, mod would have +5. Without, +10.

 

Now, say Mod B is very popular and has 400 people like it and 100 not like it. It can have 400, or 300.

 

Either way, mod b's popularity is obvious, because of all those people who took the time to vote. No need to look at download counts, no need to decipher what the hell people meant with their 7 or 8. If a mod was... ehh, ok... then you're not likely to vote it. Simple as that.

 

You can comment without voting, too, you know. If you think it needs work, comment without voting if you want.

 

 

BUT

 

You are all missing the point of this thread. There is another thread about voting... this one is about soliciting feedback, and I am glad for the change. Soliciting feedback seems shady to me... like has been said, those mods get the votes... so it's not necessarily that a mod soliciting feedback was better than a mod that wasn't... it's just that the one that solicits will get the votes. Perhaps most importantly, the soliciting basically makes only new/recent mods possible to get any recognition, because the old mods won't be soliciting.

 

If your mod is worth it, it'll rise to the top. Begging to be put on the top list is like cutting in line at lunch. Everyone else there has been waiting, too. Your time is not worth any more than theirs.

[HadToRegister]

A thumbs down isn't even needed except to remove your thumbs up.

 

Pretty good idea, as it would take the wind out of the sails

of any potential "down-rater"

[VerbalEarthworm]

"Pretty good idea"

 

yes, and it was when i said it twice over already.