Originally Posted by Hayo The main problem is that we will always have idiots who rate too high or too low just for the heck of it. What we really need here is a "is not an idiot" status that allows you to vote and stuff.
Lol, that I fully agree with. The only problem with that is that some people won't like letting only certain people giving them right to vote. It's actually a good idea, just hard to implement.
Worth1000 automatically allocates idiot and non-idiot status to members (using different terms) and it works great for them. Of course, Worth1000 is almost entirely dependent on ratings, so they worry less about a non-complicated system. I think we did consider something like that before the star rating system was applied to the downloads,
Adam Phant:
Yeah, I'll rewrite the examples. Variance is well.. not really the main point. Ratings especially for a simple site like TDC, are supposed to show how good the game are, not how good the rating system is
Boothman:
Mean is good for most cases, but it's horrible when you have highly biased votes. Which seems to be the big problem with TDC's votes. The main purpose for medians is for highly variant or unreliable data. There's also another one that's somewhere in between, but I forgot the name.
Yami:
It's been said for a long time that the 0 stars shouldn't be there, but many admins don't seem to agree, so that's not really a solution.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
What about taking the mean of the mean and median? The good game would get 3.5 stars, the bad game 1.8 stars, the great game with idiot voting 4.15 stars. Sounds simpler than variance!
As weird as the idea sounds, it seems to work! Anyone opposed to it?
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
There's nothing wrong with mean. In fact there's nothing wrong with the rating system at all. If people are voting down as you say then that's their prerogative - maybe like Andy said people shouldn't take notice of ratings and instead take notice of the comments people put.
Yeah, I say that because most people play a game for a few minutes then delete it and make a small one line comment about it. You probably shouldn't take too much notice of it.
I think the ratings aren't working properly anyhow. For 'FIG' it says on the game's profile that it is "4th Place" but when you sort the downloads by rating it is coming "2nd".
Originally Posted by -Liam/Slink- To be honest, I forgot we could review...
It's because it doesn't list the reviews you've made in your profile.
I think a good idea except just showing the average, is also to show how many have voted different numbers. Like the general poll.
Because, there can only be one. That's silly.
Originally Posted by Don Luciano I think a good idea except just showing the average, is also to show how many have voted different numbers. Like the general poll.
Because, there can only be one. That's silly.
That's not really a bad idea, except that it's confusing to place 5-6 different ratings on the downloads page. But I think on the game page itself, it's not a bad idea.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
How about adding a button that says "This game has an unfair rating". Clicking it won't do anything, it's just a way for people to vent their frustration
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke How about adding a button that says "This game has an unfair rating". Clicking it won't do anything, it's just a way for people to vent their frustration
Nah, there are too many buttons that do that already.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I see this is a huge problem. I hate it when people see a game getting 10/10 reviews and they think 'HMMM it's a good game but not worth 10. I think it deserves an 8 but I'm going to vote 0 to make my vote count more than everybody elses!!!!1' I think a median system would be good, though there would still be problems. How about a super simple game where some people think 'eww it's really basic 1 star' then others go 'No it's SOOO fun!!!' and give it 5? I can imagine the rating going between 1 and 5 randomly.
If you use the median, surely it would simplify the games ratings completely, eliminating any shades in between?
I know this is a big problem with games. I'm inclined to make the rating system more complex, possibly voting for individual aspects such as audio, technical merit and stuff. At the moment an epic 2 year project can score the same as a 5 minute platformer simply because people can't really be bothered to get into the former. I don't know... just my suggestion, as some of the games on this site are so extreme in quality (both ways) I find it unfair that the same rating system is used.
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline
'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'
I think the real problem is actually that the quicker and easier you make it to rate a game the less thought will go behind the vote.
Reviews are 1500 words, so you'll most likely play a bit of the game to be able to actually talk about it. But with ratings you can die after 1 second and in a rage vote 0 stars or thumbs down or 0/10 because 'the game is too hard'.
So yeah, It's not the system thats the problem its the people.
Advertisement
Post Reply
)
