New Feature Request: Mod Reviews

[Ovot]

 

 

If people are abusing things, they should be banned/warned about it, the whole community shouldn't have to suffer because of a few people.

 

 

The abuse was widespread and the staff have better things to do, the lesson that's been learned over the years is that if you give people a system that can abused then they'll abuse it, hence the system the site has today. As for a reviews I suggest you release a few mods onto the larger sites and see what modders already have to put up with, you'll soon change your mind.

 

If the staff can't handle it why can't they just hire volunteers to oversee the review section?

You don't get it, I don't use other websites, because I like this one better, otherwise I wouldn't even be posting here. I don't care what goes on, on other websites. I have the opportunity to try and make this one better, and that is what I'm trying to do right now even by posting this.

[TheVampireDante]

We won't be adding a review system.

 

We are far enough along with our proposed redesign now, that no additional features are being added so that work can progress on the actual creation of the new site.

[Ovot]

We won't be adding a review system.

 

We are far enough along with our proposed redesign now, that no additional features are being added so that work can progress on the actual creation of the new site design.

Edit: Nevermind, just didn't understand why new features can't be added after the redesign in the future.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Ovot

[bben46]

For people who think we should have ratings. We already tried that. It didn't work out well at all. What you are asking for is not a new feature, but for us to bring back an old feature that was removed because it failed to do what you believe it would do.

 

We used to have a rating system, rate the mod from 1 to 10 and later a comment was required along with the rating, 0ver 90% of the ratings were either 1 or 10 with very few in between, the comments were mostly "Great Mod" or "This sucks" Again with very few bothering to explain their rating. Then we got sock puppet accounts by a few mod authors to up rate their own mods to make them look better, and down rate similar mods by other authors to make them look worse in comparison. This led to several good mod authors getting banned for trying to game the ratings. Then we had mod authors who would PM the staff if they got any rating below a 10 complaining that it ruined their perfect rating. Seriously, they demanded that the staff fix their ratings to keep them perfect. For some authors the ratings were so important they would PM anyone who down rated them to beg them to change their rating.

 

The rating system was changed multiple times trying to get it to work. At first, no download was required. (This is where the Beth.net site is currently :rolleyes: ) We had people who didn't even play the game rating any mod 10 if the pics on the site had boobs. And 1 if they disproved of the content or even just for no pics. Then added a must comment. We got mostly "it sucks" or "Good mod" then a waiting period. That helped, but still didn't stop a lot of the abuse. Then a simple thumbs up or down after 3 hours. Leading to few ratings and fewer comments, Then just a thumbs up ( endorse) after a shorter wait.

 

What you want is a shortcut. Instead of actually reading the comments left on the mod (Many of these do review the mod, but you have to read) instead you want a simple rating from simple minded kiddies that will rate using some simple minded formula - "I don't like this mod because it doesn't show enough boobage." is what you actually get instead of thoughtful review. :pinch: (Yes, I have actually seen that exact comment used in rating a mod)

[JimboUK]

 

 

 

If people are abusing things, they should be banned/warned about it, the whole community shouldn't have to suffer because of a few people.

 

 

The abuse was widespread and the staff have better things to do, the lesson that's been learned over the years is that if you give people a system that can abused then they'll abuse it, hence the system the site has today. As for a reviews I suggest you release a few mods onto the larger sites and see what modders already have to put up with, you'll soon change your mind.

 

If the staff can't handle it why can't they just hire volunteers to oversee the review section?

You don't get it, I don't use other websites, because I like this one better, otherwise I wouldn't even be posting here. I don't care what goes on, on other websites. I have the opportunity to try and make this one better, and that is what I'm trying to do right now even by posting this.

 

 

I meant the larger sites here.

[Ovot]

For people who think we should have ratings. We already tried that. It didn't work out well at all. What you are asking for is not a new feature, but for us to bring back an old feature that was removed because it failed to do what you believe it would do.

 

We used to have a rating system, rate the mod from 1 to 10 and later a comment was required along with the rating, 0ver 90% of the ratings were either 1 or 10 with very few in between, the comments were mostly "Great Mod" or "This sucks" Again with very few bothering to explain their rating. Then we got sock puppet accounts by a few mod authors to up rate their own mods to make them look better, and down rate similar mods by other authors to make them look worse in comparison. This led to several good mod authors getting banned for trying to game the ratings. Then we had mod authors who would PM the staff if they got any rating below a 10 complaining that it ruined their perfect rating. Seriously, they demanded that the staff fix their ratings to keep them perfect. For some authors the ratings were so important they would PM anyone who down rated them to beg them to change their rating.

 

The rating system was changed multiple times trying to get it to work. At first, no download was required. (This is where the Beth.net site is currently :rolleyes: ) We had people who didn't even play the game rating any mod 10 if the pics on the site had boobs. And 1 if they disproved of the content or even just for no pics. Then added a must comment. We got mostly "it sucks" or "Good mod" then a waiting period. That helped, but still didn't stop a lot of the abuse. Then a simple thumbs up or down after 3 hours. Leading to few ratings and fewer comments, Then just a thumbs up ( endorse) after a shorter wait.

 

What you want is a shortcut. Instead of actually reading the comments left on the mod (Many of these do review the mod, but you have to read) instead you want a simple rating from simple minded kiddies that will rate using some simple minded formula - "I don't like this mod because it doesn't show enough boobage." is what you actually get instead of thoughtful review. :pinch: (Yes, I have actually seen that exact comment used in rating a mod)

Out of all of the replies of opposition in this thread I like yours the most, because you have given a very well detailed response with a willingness to discuss the topic & with a good explanation. I did not know about the past history of the rating/review system here, however, I do think a more intricate system could be created than what you detailed. I'm not surprised at the behavior of people doing such things you mentioned, but I think there are still ways to handle it. My first rough draft idea: You can only post a review if you have downloaded the mod, and an entire week has to pass first. I think a week would help prevent spam, as most ignorant people likely wouldn't stay focused that long. But that wouldn't be all, you will need to have a minimum character limit typed out, I'd say maybe 2,000 characters or so. And you would need to select options from drop down boxes for different questions & categories. For instance one of the drop down menu questions is, did you experience any bugs while using this mod yes or no, if yes please try to explain in detail. The more effort required, the more it will deter abusers. And you can deter mod author abuse as well simply by not letting people search for mods based on reviews. They have to visit a particular mods page to see what people think about it. Also because some mod authors are opposed to bad reviews, allow mod authors to reply to reviews that people leave, individually, but they won't have the ability to remove or edit people's reviews.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Ovot

[Arthmoor]

So you'd end up with "This sucks <2000 x's>" instead.

[DrakeTheDragon]

Out of all of the replies of opposition in this thread I like yours the most, because you have given a very well detailed response with a willingness to discuss the topic & with a good explanation. I did not know about the past history of the rating/review system here, however, I do think a more intricate system could be created than what you detailed. I'm not surprised at the behavior of people doing such things you mentioned, but I think there are still ways to handle it. My first rough draft idea: You can only post a review if you have downloaded the mod, and an entire week has to pass first. I think a week would help prevent spam, as most ignorant people likely wouldn't stay focused that long. But that wouldn't be all, you will need to have a minimum character limit typed out, I'd say maybe 2,000 characters or so. And you would need to select options from drop down boxes for different questions & categories. For instance one of the drop down menu questions is, did you experience any bugs while using this mod yes or no, if yes please try to explain in detail. The more effort required, the more it will deter abusers. And you can deter mod author abuse as well simply by not letting people search for mods based on reviews. They have to visit a particular mods page to see what people think about it. Also because some mod authors are opposed to bad reviews, allow mod authors to reply to reviews that people leave, individually, but they won't have the ability to remove or edit people's reviews.

 

 

This might all sound fine and dandy in theory, but it will horribly fail as soon as it meets reality. Reviews and ratings were proven time and again in the past to not work in this community, no matter how many hurdles you attempt to put up.

 

You majorly underestimate the dedication people abusing the systems will put in to abuse them, if they're given a venture to, and also quite massively the number of how many they are. All those means to monitor and/or limit abuse you're proposing are already being applied by an off-site review and rating system proposed to the authors here recently, and it will also inevitably fail just the same (in my personal expectation anyways, going by past experience).

 

The thing most supporters of the review idea all too easily seem to miss is the reviews they'll be ending up with will be of no use even to them. The system will be beyond sustainable, and no measures you might come up with will be able to sanitize and save it. It was already proven it will not work time and again in the past. There's no need to speculate on this, as we got facts. We lost quite some very talented authors and their past and future works already due to reviews. (It's become sort of a trigger word to me due to that I admit.)

 

 

I can't speak for other authors, or anyone else than me really, but still you're basically up against the authors in this, not just some small clique of Premium members as you put it. The question raised towards you will be "reviews or mods?", if the only avenue of defense you're going to leave these people is to go away any take their mods with them. I don't know about You, but I know what My choice will be at any time. These people have reasons to be against this, and while none of our business to even ask for, they're damn well good enough for them.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of people coming up with new ideas or improvements, after all, if we don't improve, we stagnate, and stagnation never is good, but forgive me when my past 15 years of experience in the scene made it so I just don't see anything brought up in terms of reviews or ratings to ever result in anything worthwhile, useful or good at all. All I've seen is damages always surpassing goods, and as I've never so far witnessed the opposite, I've grown skeptical to believe it can be. And a repeat of said past events, do trust me, not only I don't want to see. :ermm:

[Thandal]

At the present time the best general indicator of a mod's quality is the ratio of downloads to endorsements ("#DLs/#End:1", smaller is better, with 1:1 being perfect.)

 

Across the "Most Endorsed - All Time" mods for one game, the average ratio of the top ten was about 16:1. And, (IMHO, and acknowledging that tastes vary) for the overwhelming majority of players those are, in fact, the best mods for that particular game.

 

I have one upload that approaches 10:1, but that's a special case of a tutorial/guide.

(And I wasn't even the author, but that person wished to remain semi-anonymous.)

[ZZZ02]

All you need to do is read the formal warnings/bans to see why this would be a very bad idea... plus imagine what would happen if someone who reveiwed say for example Vilja and marked it down just because they hate her accent (I can't imagine why but I see a few comments on it) and it was the only review a great mod would loose a LOT of potential DLs. Anyone watch Bobs Burgers? there was an episode about the damaging effects of critic reviews.