Oh, the irony.
Your poll, make it three options.
Your poll, make it three options.
forum
A new rating system
posted
Total Posts
107
Topic Starter
Done. Happy? ;_;
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
i vote no because it's just going to be
dislike 1-4, undecided 5, like 6-10.
it gives us less options to choose from how we feel about a map. also if your map is getting an excessive (SP?) amount of 1's, maybe its time to change mapping style or song style. i doubt that theres that many trolls that votes 1 on maps.
dislike 1-4, undecided 5, like 6-10.
it gives us less options to choose from how we feel about a map. also if your map is getting an excessive (SP?) amount of 1's, maybe its time to change mapping style or song style. i doubt that theres that many trolls that votes 1 on maps.
I don't really feel any iffiness towards the rating system at the moment. I'm supposedly indifferent I guess.
But looking at the Like/Dislike/Undecided thing I'm pretty much against. This can easily make a map that might even seem great or fun go into the dump instantly because of Dislike. There's less choices, and each one makes already a grave impact...I guess...:/
But looking at the Like/Dislike/Undecided thing I'm pretty much against. This can easily make a map that might even seem great or fun go into the dump instantly because of Dislike. There's less choices, and each one makes already a grave impact...I guess...:/
What would happen to Mapper Rankings then? Will all the votes be deleted? D:
I think it should be Neutral instead of undecided.
And YES I support this.
And YES I support this.
Mapper's Ranking is bullshit anyways. A person with 1 ranked map rated 8.5+ would be up top, where as a much more experienced mapper with 20 maps is likely to fall much much lower.Gens wrote:
What would happen to Mapper Rankings then? Will all the votes be deleted? D:
you dont understand the reason of rating. you dont rate a map on how you like it or how you dislike it
ratings 1-4 are generally not needed because a ranked map should be good
i pick "maybe" here because i think a new system is not very needed
ratings 1-4 are generally not needed because a ranked map should be good
i pick "maybe" here because i think a new system is not very needed
Topic Starter
I got a poor map ranked before (Heatman).Hanyuu wrote:
you dont understand the reason of rating. you dont rate a map on how you like it or how you dislike it
ratings 1-4 are generally not needed because a ranked map should be good
i pick "maybe" here because i think a new system is not very needed
People generally rate based on how much they like it. If they loved it, 10. They despise it to death, 1-4. A map can be technically correct but still boring as hell. We don't exactly rate objectively.
If I liked it, I rate it high. If I dislike it, I rate it low. If I consider it about average, I give it about a 7. That's how people rate, believe it or not. NOTHING will change that!Except a new rating system.Ekaru wrote:
People generally rate based on how much they like it. If they loved it, 10. They despise it to death, 1-4. A map can be technically correct but still boring as hell. We don't exactly rate objectively.
I like to be able to make a distinction between a 10 and an 8, both of which would fall under (my) "like" category. Likewise with a 1 and a 4.
I only give ratings to ranked maps that are outstandingly good or bad in the first place, so I would prefer a system like what you described.
I would like a "like"/"dislike"/"neutral" rating system.
Yes, this would mean that we'd have to wipe the ratings for all songs, but in the long run I see this as a beneficial thing. And even though all old maps would lose their ratings, on the positive side this would give users the chance to go back and change their votes on those maps which they might have voted badly on before. And since the database can now store who voted what people could then change their votes on all maps if they change their mind later on.
Edit: Also at the same time ratings should be made map specific, not song specific. I remember songs where I absolutely hated one map while I loved another, and I just can't make a vote that makes any justice to both.
Yes, this would mean that we'd have to wipe the ratings for all songs, but in the long run I see this as a beneficial thing. And even though all old maps would lose their ratings, on the positive side this would give users the chance to go back and change their votes on those maps which they might have voted badly on before. And since the database can now store who voted what people could then change their votes on all maps if they change their mind later on.
Edit: Also at the same time ratings should be made map specific, not song specific. I remember songs where I absolutely hated one map while I loved another, and I just can't make a vote that makes any justice to both.
I really dont feel the need for a rating system like you describe. If you're so upset over a few ones, then you're just setting yourself up for more "Dislikes," seeing as that pretty much covers 1-4. Also, a ranked map can still receive a 1 if the map just isnt fun, but follows all of the rankability guidelines. (At least, thats what i would have given it.) But, if a map really stands out to me, I would rather give it a 10 instead of a 9.
Now, if I were to suggest a change, a per difficutly rating system would be nice.
Now, if I were to suggest a change, a per difficutly rating system would be nice.
Topic Starter
That still doesn't address the reasons about how people have different perceptions of the 1-10 scale, and how it's currently unclear how many people liked or disliked a map, which is why I want a new system. I don't care about 1s. ;PRemmyX25 wrote:
I really dont feel the need for a rating system like you describe. If you're so upset over a few ones, then you're just setting yourself up for more "Dislikes," seeing as that pretty much covers 1-4. Also, a ranked map can still receive a 1 if the map just isnt fun, but follows all of the rankability guidelines. (At least, thats what i would have given it.) But, if a map really stands out to me, I would rather give it a 10 instead of a 9.
Now, if I were to suggest a change, a per difficutly rating system would be nice.
Now address those points please.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
The more I think about it, the more I completely disagree with this. Making it so "black and white" just decreases the amount of precision people have with regard to rating maps.
And there's nothing particularly unclear about the current system.
And there's nothing particularly unclear about the current system.
Topic Starter
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
Not as unclear as much as unuseful. (That sentence was unclear.)LuigiHann wrote:
And there's nothing particularly unclear about the current system.
As Ekaru said, people have different perceptions of rating. Some may vote 5 for okay maps and others may vote 8 or 7. With a three-choice system, the options are more distinguishable (more clear, really), more standardized, and give a clearer picture of how many people like or dislike a map.
I do the same thing. I only vote for really good and really bad maps.JarJarJacob wrote:
I only give ratings to ranked maps that are outstandingly good or bad in the first place, so I would prefer a system like what you described.
Thus, the "undecided" choice would be the default. That is, you must vote after you play and complete a map.
Why not favourite a map you really enjoy?Echo wrote:
I like to be able to make a distinction between a 10 and an 8, both of which would fall under (my) "like" category. Likewise with a 1 and a 4.
And of course, I would prefer a per-difficulty setting. This will mean you can see, as a mapper, your strengths and weaknesses in mapping different difficulties and different styles, and those of other mappers. Rating is both an ego boost and a way to learn, IMO, and although 1's get me raged, I can see the public doesn't like that style of map in general and I'll either change the song or change the style (or both).
I agree with a 3 or 5 choice system and also having different ratings per difficulty. =)
and also the ability to rate when you are back in song select it happens very often that I realise I forgot to vote when I'm back thereDerekku Chan wrote:
I agree with a 5 choice system and also having different ratings per difficulty. =)
Hopefully this will be enabled only after you've played the song through (ranked) at least once.qlum wrote:
and also the ability to rate when you are back in song select it happens very often that I realise I forgot to vote when I'm back thereDerekku Chan wrote:
I agree with a 5 choice system and also having different ratings per difficulty. =)
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
so what would change anything by implementing less options? you are just taking away peoples freedom to vote how they feel like.Gemi wrote:
Oh yes there is. Even from the comments in this topic alone you can see how differently different people use the voting system.
The amount of mature people outnumber "trolls" and if you are getting bad votes on your map then guess what, maybe someone is actually telling you your maps aren't that good and you should change style or songs choices.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
here ill give you a meaning
strongly dislike | 1-2
dislike | 3-4
neutral | 5
like | 6-8
strongly like 9-10
yes i know, not many people knows this but it's THAT simple.
ill say it again in bold. if mappers are upset about getting 1's on their maps, it's time to change style.
strongly dislike | 1-2
dislike | 3-4
neutral | 5
like | 6-8
strongly like 9-10
yes i know, not many people knows this but it's THAT simple.
ill say it again in bold. if mappers are upset about getting 1's on their maps, it's time to change style.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
You need to think when you're rating a map. That's the whole point of a rating?strager wrote:
Rule number one (or maybe not one) of UI design: Don't make the user think.
I want at least 5 options like Gabi suggested.
I was pointing out the flaw in a numbered system. "If I like it, what should I rate? But what if I REALLY like it? But what if I like it more than this one but less than this one? ARG!"Echo wrote:
You need to think when you're rating a map. That's the whole point of a rating?strager wrote:
Rule number one (or maybe not one) of UI design: Don't make the user think.
I want at least 5 options like Gabi suggested.
That's how I feel when voting sometimes, and I just don't vote in that case.
How about a nice graphic overlay?
Man, it probably would have been easier to photoshop that than to type it
(thumbs down) (thumbs up)
BAD | MEH | OKAY | GOOD
* * | * * * | * * * | * *
Man, it probably would have been easier to photoshop that than to type it
This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.
But what if someone wants to rate a map "really bad"?CheeseWarlock wrote:
I think LH is onto something. Though I think of "okay" and "meh" to be pretty much the same thing. Bad-okay-good-great?
jk
There shouldn't be many OH GOD HORRIBLE maps, so your four choices sound fine.
Topic Starter
I do say this would be the best, most agreeable option, by reading this thread:
Strongly Like | Like | Neutral | Dislike | Strongly Dislike
Well, I'm not sure which side should be "Agree". *shrugs* Then, you have it per a difficulty.
Sorry, but Luigi's idea of a graphical overlay to the 10 star system (clarification? That's what it appears to be, judging by the stars he has underneath the words) wouldn't do much. It might even make it worse. :P Right now, around 8 is average. If the average was lower, then maybe his idea would work. But currently? It wouldn't change any of the problems. Looking at the "bad", it might even *encourage* 1s and 2s. Right now, "bads" are often 4s, 5s, and 6s. 7 is 'eh...'. It's just how the scale has mutated on osu!. Which is part of the problem.
Mappers expect super high ratings on their maps. If they get below an 8, they think people hate their maps. Or many mappers do, at least. I don't think that myself. :P
Judging by the votes, I say this should be brought up at the next community meeting. Then we could have a "for real" vote, since this was just on whether we (AKA peppy) should consider it, and we have a lot of "yes"s compared to "no"s and "maybe"s. So we could discuss it more (AKA peppy could think about it more) at the next community meeting, assuming we have one. This would probably be the biggest topic there... That, and peppy's vacation. TELL US MORE DANG IT ><;
Strongly Like | Like | Neutral | Dislike | Strongly Dislike
Well, I'm not sure which side should be "Agree". *shrugs* Then, you have it per a difficulty.
Sorry, but Luigi's idea of a graphical overlay to the 10 star system (clarification? That's what it appears to be, judging by the stars he has underneath the words) wouldn't do much. It might even make it worse. :P Right now, around 8 is average. If the average was lower, then maybe his idea would work. But currently? It wouldn't change any of the problems. Looking at the "bad", it might even *encourage* 1s and 2s. Right now, "bads" are often 4s, 5s, and 6s. 7 is 'eh...'. It's just how the scale has mutated on osu!. Which is part of the problem.
Mappers expect super high ratings on their maps. If they get below an 8, they think people hate their maps. Or many mappers do, at least. I don't think that myself. :P
Judging by the votes, I say this should be brought up at the next community meeting. Then we could have a "for real" vote, since this was just on whether we (AKA peppy) should consider it, and we have a lot of "yes"s compared to "no"s and "maybe"s. So we could discuss it more (AKA peppy could think about it more) at the next community meeting, assuming we have one. This would probably be the biggest topic there... That, and peppy's vacation. TELL US MORE DANG IT ><;
instead of like not like etc etc why not a rating going from bad to good - i think this rating is more neutral and more orientated on the beatmap and not personal preference
also maybe a notification to rate the map on the map itself. and not how a player like it. of course if there is a hard map a not so good player will have problems with a hard beatmap and will maybe not like it (rate it bad - but the map maybe is not bad)
But i dont think this system can be used in practical! people will still rate a beatmap on their on feeling.... if the player has a problem play this beatmap, maybe get angry and sad trying to play it he maybe rate it bad.
also maybe a notification to rate the map on the map itself. and not how a player like it. of course if there is a hard map a not so good player will have problems with a hard beatmap and will maybe not like it (rate it bad - but the map maybe is not bad)
But i dont think this system can be used in practical! people will still rate a beatmap on their on feeling.... if the player has a problem play this beatmap, maybe get angry and sad trying to play it he maybe rate it bad.
It is supposed to be personal preference, though.Hanyuu wrote:
instead of like not like etc etc why not a rating going from bad to good - i think this rating is more neutral and more orientated on the beatmap and not personal preference
But this is the problem players complain (sorry example Mogsworth recent beatmap). This map start this discussion because it is a hard map to play and Mogsworth complain about people rate it 1 but it is a good map but very hard to do.
Topic Starter
Easy is easy, they can just play that. Not being able to do Crazy means you aren't that skilled yet and should play an easier difficulty.
Anyways, ratings are how much you *like* it. That's the only way we can judge it. Seriously. osu! isn't full of professional critics, it's full of people who vote by their feelings. If they think it's a good map, they give it a high rating. If they think it's a bad map, they give it a low rating. Also, the song is part of the map. Just to clarify that. So if you pick songs like I do, don't expect high ratings. ;) I don't expect high ratings, and I've been just fine, just fine.
About the only way for us to determine how good it is is how much fun we had, so yeah. We just play and rate, we don't look through the map and determine what rating it should get.
Anyways, ratings are how much you *like* it. That's the only way we can judge it. Seriously. osu! isn't full of professional critics, it's full of people who vote by their feelings. If they think it's a good map, they give it a high rating. If they think it's a bad map, they give it a low rating. Also, the song is part of the map. Just to clarify that. So if you pick songs like I do, don't expect high ratings. ;) I don't expect high ratings, and I've been just fine, just fine.
About the only way for us to determine how good it is is how much fun we had, so yeah. We just play and rate, we don't look through the map and determine what rating it should get.
yes you correct me and you have my thought but i think this is the reason a better or new rating is not possible in practiceEkaru wrote:
Easy is easy, they can just play that. Not being able to do Crazy means you aren't that skilled yet and should play an easier difficulty.
Anyways, ratings are how much you *like* it. That's the only way we can judge it. Seriously. osu! isn't full of professional critics, it's full of people who vote by their feelings. If they think it's a good map, they give it a high rating. If they think it's a bad map, they give it a low rating. Also, the song is part of the map. Just to clarify that. So if you pick songs like I do, don't expect high ratings.
About the only way for us to determine how good it is is how much fun we had, so yeah. We just play and rate, we don't look through the map and determine what rating it should get.