I've been sitting on this idea for a few days while considering how best to articulate this, so I think that I'll try to explain it now. I'm sure that people here are aware of the division of ratings in sites such as Metacritic and gdgt, with separate categories for "official" ratings and user ratings. I believe that such a system could give a better indication of map quality, as *AT members have a very thorough understanding of what makes a map good.
Basically, the outcome of this would be that user input is retained, but then a separate rating would be given by those who are given extra recognition for being able to judge a map's quality. I know that this seems like I'm saying that the average player or mapper doesn't know enough about a map to rate it accurately, but think about it--it seems to be widely agreed that many user ratings aren't fair indications of the map itself, e.g. they're given based on the song alone, the fact that a certain mapper's popular or the fact that there's something complicated in the map that makes them sore enough to vote 1.
I decided to offer this suggestion after many discussions about the general quality of maps, the fact that low votes almost never seem to be qualified and the fact that it's quite an ask to give everybody a 1-10 scale to vote. Ragevotes and overzealously high ratings aside, different people have their own ideas of of which numbers mean "average/poor," "good/very good and "excellent/almost perfect." With a separate category that's based on the input of the mapping teams, it could become a part of their responsibility to weigh up their opinions on a map with a decent amount of thought, before casting a vote.
On top of that, I think that it could even be good to simplify user ratings to a +/- system, thus showing a more direct indication of who liked and disliked a map (5 stars seems to count as negative voting, even though it usually implies "average," while 6-7 is also some people's idea as "average" or "poor"). The staff votes could retain the ten-point system, with the staff being entrusted in being more picky with their ratings.
As this sort of system is implemented in a significant amount of journalism sites and aggregators, I see no downside to using it in this game. For want of a better word, a "professional" input could potentially give a better indication of a map's quality, or at least an indication of what staff members prefer in maps.
I apologise if this is too long-winded, but I wanted to cover enough ground to substantiate my point. If any of this is confusing, then please ask me to clarify specific points. I think that this could be a boon for helping people to choose maps to download.
Basically, the outcome of this would be that user input is retained, but then a separate rating would be given by those who are given extra recognition for being able to judge a map's quality. I know that this seems like I'm saying that the average player or mapper doesn't know enough about a map to rate it accurately, but think about it--it seems to be widely agreed that many user ratings aren't fair indications of the map itself, e.g. they're given based on the song alone, the fact that a certain mapper's popular or the fact that there's something complicated in the map that makes them sore enough to vote 1.
I decided to offer this suggestion after many discussions about the general quality of maps, the fact that low votes almost never seem to be qualified and the fact that it's quite an ask to give everybody a 1-10 scale to vote. Ragevotes and overzealously high ratings aside, different people have their own ideas of of which numbers mean "average/poor," "good/very good and "excellent/almost perfect." With a separate category that's based on the input of the mapping teams, it could become a part of their responsibility to weigh up their opinions on a map with a decent amount of thought, before casting a vote.
On top of that, I think that it could even be good to simplify user ratings to a +/- system, thus showing a more direct indication of who liked and disliked a map (5 stars seems to count as negative voting, even though it usually implies "average," while 6-7 is also some people's idea as "average" or "poor"). The staff votes could retain the ten-point system, with the staff being entrusted in being more picky with their ratings.
As this sort of system is implemented in a significant amount of journalism sites and aggregators, I see no downside to using it in this game. For want of a better word, a "professional" input could potentially give a better indication of a map's quality, or at least an indication of what staff members prefer in maps.
I apologise if this is too long-winded, but I wanted to cover enough ground to substantiate my point. If any of this is confusing, then please ask me to clarify specific points. I think that this could be a boon for helping people to choose maps to download.