Originally Posted by Yami What I was talking about in that post was Muz's logic made no sense. He admits that there is something wrong with the rating system, but fails to see that those who rate unfair is one of the problems.
The problem, IMHO, is not the unfair 0 star ratings. It's the unfair 5 star ratings, which led to the creation of 0 star ratings. People who vote 5 stars should be banned.
(Also, see signature )
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.
Point is, there's no point to getting rid of 0 stars, because then people would vote only 1 star. And if we get rid of the 1 star, we'll have people voting 2 stars and others wondering why there isn't a 1 star rating. And then some others are going to say that the "no game is worth 0/1 stars" excuse is a dumb one.
I'd rather not have this thread locked because a good solution may come out of it, but "going back to the review", "going back the thumbs system" and "remove 0 star votes" are worse solution because we've used them before and they didn't work at all.
Let's put it this way then. You could either try to have it similar to a "grade" system where good games get a "A" or "B" (4 or 5 stars) and bad games get a "C" or "D"(2-3 stars). Anything worse is a fail. In schools, this works because you have competent teachers that get fired if they give a kid a "F" just because he has too many "A"s. On the Internet, though, this doesn't work because there are always idiots and too many of them to 'fire'. As a wise man once said, "If idiots could fly, this place would be an airport." Trying to ban everyone who voted unfairly would mean that interesting members like Phredeeke, as well as half the admins would be banned.
This "grading system" would work better with a median system rather than mean (as I've posted in the other thread). With a mean rating calculation, 0 stars have a significant impact on the rating. A median system counts a 0 star as the same value as a 1 or 2 star if only a few idiots are use it. It also discourages people from voting 0 stars because there's no point to doing so.
For those who were too lazy to read, using a median calculation effectively gets rid of the 0 stars.
Alternatively, you could have it so that the ratings compare games instead. 5 stars would be very rare, and a 2 star wouldn't mean your game is bad, it's just that it's not as good as the 3-5 star games. This is incredibly difficult to work, but Worth1000 does it perfectly.
Unfortunately, TDC has never been about high-quality games. It was about creating games. We recognize which game is the best of the week. We recognize a bunch of good games, front-page, and spotlight them. Sometimes, when we're in the mood, we even remember the old ones and put them on the front page, where the new guys play them for a while.
We could move for a comparison system, but the first step is in getting rid of the star system. Stars suggest it in the same way as hotels do - anything with 3 or less is bad. Instead, we would have to revert to the review system, but that didn't work so well because people just couldn't be bothered to write reviews. Alternatively, we could have a complicated system that rates the qualifications of every user, but people will complain about that when they seem to get low ratings.
So, there you go. Easy solution or accurate (and controversial) 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.
Originally Posted by Muz Point is, there's no point to getting rid of 0 stars, because then people would vote only 1 star.
But a good question is, has the 0-star rating EVER been used in the constructive way the ratings are supposed to be used and not only as a down-vote? I myself can't find one single time except in the sense of scolding offensive/pornographic/non-game-games, and those are a completely different problem.
However, it is a FACT that the 5-star rating is being used in the constructive way it was intended to and not ONLY as an up-vote.
I'd say some games are worth one star. Personally I'd not like to vote that low but the option should be there, minimum of 2 star voting is silly. Anyway I still don't like the idea of 0 star ratings, I cannot get them to make sense to me, other than just being used to kick people in the teeth for at least trying their best.
No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- No! Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
This isn't just another random fake account. It's Phizzy. He has a 50 50 ratio on this site of people who love or hate him, and he dances the fine line. He generally has constructive thoughts, but not a single clue of common sense when it comes to expressing them. That's why it's such a gray area as to whether or not he should have been banned, and was unbanned on so many occasions prior.
Advertisement
Post Reply
)
Edited by the Author.
Why do some people continue to encourage this idiot to keep making fake accounts and spamming the forums with little sissy insults? It's not funny, and its not cool.
