Why was Negative Endorsement removed?

[Sagebeat]

Was this removed because mod authors didn't like to be criticized? Or was there a more acceptable excuse? Negative endorsements are just as important as positive ones, with the old site you would see a mod with 12 positive endorsements and 100 negative and know to stay away, be it a game ruining issue or performance / boring mod. With this new system that same mod will seem only good by comparison, we no longer have a warning. Even if just going by the comments on a particular mod, certain attract so much attention real warning signs and problems with a mod can be swamped by too much random or positive feedback to shine through.

 

Where is our new warning system for game ruining mods?

[Dark0ne]

Can you give me an example of a mod that had 12 positive ratings and 100 negative ratings? I can't seem to find any in my logs...or any that fit a description like that...

[Sagebeat]

To imply that they didn't exist at all is exaggeration, and you know it.

 

An example offhand would be a particular combat overhaul mod that introduced many new options, including dual wielding, and equipping weapons in different ways to change attributes, it had roughly 200 endorsements, and almost 200 negative as well.

 

Lo and behold, hours later after dealing with the mod, it not only not work, but also corrupted each save I had it installed and saved onto.

 

The new system no longer protects me from issues such as this, and to ignore that fact because catastrophically bad mods are rare is missing the point entirely.

 

You don't call 911 every day, but you sure as hell would miss it when its not there when you need it.

 

Why was it removed?

Edited August 26, 2011 by Sagebeat

[CBLong]

I'm inclined to agree. Given that you had to download and, presumably, test out the mod first before giving it any rating, there would be remarkably few frivolous negative votes. Each one would be a sign that a mod was tested and found wanting in some capacity. If there are a bunch of negatives, it gives the casual viewer a clear sign that something is amiss with the mod, and encourages him to look at the comments to find out exactly what the trouble is when he might have otherwise not. The positive and negative system is a big help to those who wish to mod carefully, because it gives the viewer an immediate sense of how many people were so satisfied that they came back to give the mod a positive rating, as well as those who were so dissatisfied that they felt the need to warn others off.

[AMonkey]

It seems pretty ridiculous to remove negative votes. Criticism should be valid and if I'm trying to download mods I should be able to get some idea of the quality of them before downloading.

[Sagebeat]

He put it into words much better then I did. A system where you could review the mod with, lets say a 1-10 rating, a star system, etc would work, and we could see the ratio of good to bad reviews. With the removal of the negative endorsement button you've basically created a site that has input from the community that's either this mod is good, or nothing at all. What if movie review sites only allowed you to score a movie from 8 to 10?

 

How respectable would that site seem to you?

[Eolath]

I have to agree aswell, I didn't mind the rating system being revamped. But having a negative voting system to filter out those mods that are absolutely useless or completely ruin your game (Breaking quests, deleting dialogue etc, unintended as a side effect) is a big plus. Also, what is the disadvantage of such a voting system? Sure the previous vote system was open for abuse (If you didn't give a 10, you'd be reported etc.) but the thumb up/thumb down voting didn't have such problems - if you had a good motive for a negative vote it wouldn't be deleted, now people will visit mods without any rating at all and they'd have to look through several comments (Which are not all trustworthy) to see if the mod is playable.

 

And even then it is just a guess, mabye it breaks a major quest later in the game - you wouldn't notice it immediately, and when you do it's too late.

 

Just my 2c.

[thecopy]

This is so f***ing stupid! What is the reason for this s***? Seems like something a 12 year old admin would do to be more like apple or youtube.

[Sagebeat]

This is so f***ing stupid! What is the reason for this s***? Seems like something a 12 year old admin would do to be more like apple or youtube.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree on this front, it's understandable for him to want to increase the visual appeal of the website, with Skyrim coming out, a flashier look to the website could bring in more young people to the community, which in turn nets him quite a nice profit.

Of course like with most visual re-designs, the new website is a bit clunkier, and definitively lacking in features from the old one, but that's something he's obviously working on to correct, and his re design is in its infancy.

 

The ability to criticize a mod though and make it as valid as any positive endorsement is very important for the modding process and the trust and quality of the website in general.

[graymaybe]

In some ways, I'm inclined to agree that they shouldn't have been removed. More and more I've seen sites remove options to downvote or something similar because it might hurt someone's feelings, and I'm tired of that, though I'm pretty sure that's not why it was done here.

 

I think what needed to happen with the negative votes was they needed to require a comment describing why they're being given, not just giving the vote and choosing from a drop-down. This way they'd have been more helpful. Ultimately though, I've never found them that helpful; anything horrible about the mod could generally be gleaned from the first three pages or so of the comments.