Hmm, I kinda liked Codemonkeys remark about youtubes rating system, we could rate the ratings and then rate those ratings and then.... Actually never mind
If we get rid of the 0 stars, then the whole thing is going to happen again because people will start rating at 1 star.
But alas! There is a hugh difference between a 0-star rating and a 1-star rating!
A 1-star rating is a rating;
"I didn't like your game, it doesn't have the flair of awesome I so crave, so I give it 1 star."
*rater hands rate้ 1 abstract star symbol*
"Oh no, he doesn't like my game!"
*rate้ sits cross-legged in the dark, holding his shiny abstract star*
But, he got a rating, even if it was the lowest.
A 0-star rating however is NOTHING!
"I didn't like your game, it doesn't have the flair of awesome I so crave, so I give it nothing, it is not worth even a rating. I do not acknowledge that you have done ANYTHING AT ALL."
*rater doesn't even dignify rate้ with an acknowledgement of the creations existence*
"Oh no, he doesn't like my game! Actually, he doesn't even acknowledge it as a game at all! It is nothing in his eyes! But why? Why not even one little star...?"
*rate้ sits cross-legged in the dark, holding his shiny new knife*
Does someone get my point? There is a hugh difference between NOTHING and the lowest score possible!
Or we could just change the system into a true 6-star rating system instead of 5 visible and one invisible star rating.
Originally Posted by BrandonC What if we made a rating system that spanked someone if they didn't rate it exactly what everyone thinks it should be rated.
Completely missing the point, as ever. It's not a case of having to agree with the majority of ratings, just those that are obviously intended to anger the creator or done out of spite, like giving 0 stars without any substantial reasoning or just to get a point across like Kazuma in Codemonkey's download... how hard is that to understand? Perhaps if people actually gave a decent reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's far from the case, and you and the others know it is.
It won't work, it really won't, but what if ratings that were way off from the other ratings or 0 ratings as the first had to be approved first, or something.
Like if you decided to rate an unrated game zero, then the admins would have to approve that first, or if everyone rates it five and you give one or zero it has to be approved.
As I said, it's a horrible idea that would never work.
Originally Posted by cecil64 how about if its more than 1.5 stars off of its average so far it has to be approved. (first rating has to be approved as well)
that way if its already like a 2 star game and someone rates it a 1 or 0 its already a bad game so its just another bad rating.
but if its a 4.7 avg rating so far and it gets a 1 or 0 its like "hold on a second, that rating isnt accurate...whyyy?"
I think that's a pretty good idea actually, it's just getting admins to go through and approve it would be a hassle.
Alspal (jokingly) said we should get the mean average of the median and the mode ((median + mode) / 2). Just throwing that out there.
Unfortunately, no open rating system is ever perfect or totally accurate, this holds true for every system on the internet, someone, somewhere, is always going to missuse them, and thats just a fact of life. Youtube has the advantage of having alot more users, and those few nonintelligent ratings get lost amongst proper, true votes.
The only way to have completely accurate systems is to moderate ratings, and this is not something any of us have the time to do.
Best that can be done is to calculate and negate any outlandish votes that are a complete minority, that would give a better average, but would still be open to abuse either way, thats just how it is with freely open ratings.
Seriously though, folks, don't take ratings so seriously, reviews are there for proper, in-depth views and opinions of games, review more, read more reviews, if people actually reviewed more commonly we could use that score in the downloads list alongside or instead of star ratings.
yes i can. but unless im mistaken you have to give a rating for all of those categories. making it more work for a user to rate. the ones who rate 0s are the ones who dont take the time to even look at a game, or play it in the first place. it will take them the same time to rate it a 0, but it will make it 100x longer to go through and evaluate each aspect of a game for someone who actually honestly rates it. meaning less user ratings.
Originally Posted by BrandonC What if we made a rating system that spanked someone if they didn't rate it exactly what everyone thinks it should be rated.
Completely missing the point, as ever. It's not a case of having to agree with the majority of ratings, just those that are obviously intended to anger the creator or done out of spite, like giving 0 stars without any substantial reasoning or just to get a point across like Kazuma in Codemonkey's download... how hard is that to understand? Perhaps if people actually gave a decent reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's far from the case, and you and the others know it is.
I don't think I missed the point of your post, I think you did mine. Take a few moments to think about that, and come to me when you've got it figured out, kay buddy?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by an Administrator.
Apocalyptic Coders - 
