Rating Mods

[Vagrant0]

There's a thread over at the bethsoft forums which I think brings up some valid arguments.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.ph...1058600&hl=

 

Most of the complaints don't seem so much about the system itself, but rather the wording an reasoning used the negative votes.

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.ph...;#entry15366789

Speaks to that rather cleanly.

 

In one of my mods someone voted with "I couldn't get the file to work" and never left a comment, or messaged me explaining what was specifically wrong or why it wouldn't work... Essentially a notification that there may or may not be a problem with the mod, somewhere. Not very useful. Although we all know the alternative from the old system, I still think that things might be improved.

 

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.ph...;#entry15366956

 

TESA's rating system does indeed function, ... but it's limited to VIP members, and staff only. The reason being that VIP members have a vested interest in maintaining their membership so are not likely to troll ratings for sport and staff, again, is accountable for their actions. We made this limitation to protect our hosted modders from the random thoughts of flyby users.

 

Brings up, what I think is, a reasonable solution. If people are restricted from voting based on their post count and general activity on the site, but can still comment, the endorsement system can actually become meaningful. One of the things that has irked me about the endorsement system was that most of the people endorsing files are not known in the community. Although you can see a big list of who endorses what file, it doesn't say much as to how good the file is, or what qualifications those people have for voting the way they do.

 

By restricting endorsements to those people who have atleast 100 posts or 5 (non-image) file uploads, you give meaning behind each of those endorsements. Furthermore, because you're tracking far fewer members, you could add the ability to user profiles to see which files a particular user has endorsed and why. You know... that whole "accountability" thing.

 

Although this might encourage a few more hostile comments in files, as these comments wouldn't directly impact the standing or initial impression of any mod (and would likely be reported/removed) there wouldn't be much point in that behavior. Despite the fact that non-endorsements don't impact the listings, it's still something which might make a mod look worse and discourage users from trying it. Limiting non-endorsements to more seasoned users further diminishes the chance that someone will purposely vote just to show dislike for the modder.

 

As I see it, the endorsement system just doesn't have much weight behind it since the people who are voting are entirely unknown. Restricting voting to members who participate in the community adds that much needed bit of credibility. At the very least, such a system would allow the top 100s list to be in more consistent change since the number of possible people who can vote for a mod is not nearly as endless.

[myrmaad]

Example:

 

Based on the mod page, did you find what you expected when you played the mod? ___ Yes, ___ No

Did you find the mod entertaining and worth the download? ___ Yes, ___ No

Is this a mod you intend to keep installed? ___ Yes, ___ No

Is this a mod you would recommend to a friend? ___ Yes, ___ No

Were the enchantments appropriate for a level 20 character? ___ Yes, ___ No

Did you find this too easy to complete? ___ Yes, ___ No

 

The above could be placed in the description for players to copy/paste into their comments to let the author know their experience and specifically answer questions that the author is interested in. Obviously, questions would be very specific and unique to each author and mod...depending on what the author is interested in hearing about. I thought about adding something like this to my Readme Generator but it is far too personal and specific. I could have a thousand questions listed but it would take ya'll longer to go through what I have typed rather than coming up with questions on your own.

 

LHammonds

 

Wow I'd love this to be standard. I will keep a copy of it for the purpose of helping me generate meaningful feedback.

 

 

Vagrant, I'm not so sure about the requirement to have 5 non-image uploads. There are some very savvy end users who do not build mods or Publicly release their mods.

Edited November 29, 2009 by myrmaad

[Alexspeed]

Vagrant, I'm not so sure about the requirement to have 5 non-image uploads. There are some very savvy end users who do not build mods or Publicly release their mods.

 

I second this, i consider myself mentally fit to rate a mod fairly, and i have not much knowledge about how to mod.

 

I dont think its about if you know how to mod, its more about manners and if you are able to give fair feedback.

 

There are alot of good points tough in your posting Vagrant =)

[Vagrant0]

Vagrant, I'm not so sure about the requirement to have 5 non-image uploads. There are some very savvy end users who do not build mods or Publicly release their mods.

 

That was intended to be an OR condition and not an AND condition. Meaning that those people who rarely post (due to not knowing much english usually) wouldn't be kept from endorsing mods as long as they can contribute in other ways (uploading their own mods). It seemed like the most viable solution to the criticism of basing it solely on post count.

[Netwit2008]

I second this, i consider myself mentally fit to rate a mod fairly, and i have not much knowledge about how to mod.

 

I dont think its about if you know how to mod, its more about manners and if you are able to give fair feedback.

 

There are alot of good points though in your posting Vagrant =)

 

As always Vagrant does bring up good points. However, I do think part of the issue is about courtesy and manners. In a way it's like being able to go into a candy store, eat all you want, enjoy it, then leave without paying; and sometimes saying the candy sucks because you got a bellyache from eating something you didn't have enough familiarity or experience with.

 

BUT, when I first started adding mods, I was so happy if anything worked right off the bat, that I'd rate it well. Sometimes there were glitches or deal breakers later on that made me regret my endorsement. Thankfully, those times are far and few now. When using a new mod, I wait until I've had sufficient time to play/test before giving a rating. If I never get any results (e.g. something being added to the game, but is not where the person said it would be), I play until I do find it or whatever before I give a rating. In the accountability game, I realize many folks won't have that kind of patience.

 

When I started the topic, I had no idea it had been discussed before, but I can now see why it's no easy issue to address. Part of me likes the rules suggested by Vagrant's post, part of me objects, simply for the reason Alex noted above. I do like that it opens up dialogue though. You never know what can come of a topic unless it is discussed and bantered (in a respectful, civil manner) back and forth. That's where new ideas are born in my opinion.

 

For ex. Llhammonds questionairre, that is definitely a good idea that would make rating more meaningful. So I agree with Myrmaad that it would be nice to see even a basic form of it being standard rating fare.