THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!Ephemeral wrote:
Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.
None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!Ephemeral wrote:
Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.
None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.
There's nothing wrong with giving low ratings, hm. The star system just has too many inconsistencies; what I consider a 10 is not what you would consider a 10 and vice versa. I can see why YouTube switched it with the thumbs system.qlum wrote:
Why not record everything users vote and give them a warning if there average rating is above 7 or below 5. If a player keeps having an average that is ether to high or to low ban him from voting again.
Does it matter?0_o wrote:
I don't like the idea of having to vote the same way for a decent map as I would an awesome map. A thumbs up from someone could mean they didn't think the map sucked, or it could mean they thought it was amazing. I think a 4 or 5 star system would be small enough that the ratings aren't ambiguous, yet large enough for users to accurately portray their opinion of the map.
Sure, a single vote doesn't matter much. I wasn't referring to myself specifically, you can interpret what I said as "I don't like the idea of everyone having to vote the same way for a decent map as they would an awesome map". There are some maps that really are good, but just not great, and with the thumbs up/thumbs down system, they probably wouldn't be distinguished.strager wrote:
Does it matter?0_o wrote:
I don't like the idea of having to vote the same way for a decent map as I would an awesome map. A thumbs up from someone could mean they didn't think the map sucked, or it could mean they thought it was amazing. I think a 4 or 5 star system would be small enough that the ratings aren't ambiguous, yet large enough for users to accurately portray their opinion of the map.
Is a person's vote significant enough to matter, really?
I dunno if it's because I just woke up or not, but I'm not sure what you mean? =strager wrote:
I can understand if you want, say, all the maps you voted as "awesome" (5/5), but that probably won't happen (think of the server load ...).
Then upvote awesome maps, don't vote good maps, downvote0_o wrote:
Sure, a single vote doesn't matter much. I wasn't referring to myself specifically, you can interpret what I said as "I don't like the idea of everyone having to vote the same way for a decent map as they would an awesome map". There are some maps that really are good, but just not great, and with the thumbs up/thumbs down system, they probably wouldn't be distinguished.
Auto-favourites?0_o wrote:
I dunno if it's because I just woke up or not, but I'm not sure what you mean? =strager wrote:
I can understand if you want, say, all the maps you voted as "awesome" (5/5), but that probably won't happen (think of the server load ...).
That's not the only way. A rating weight was suggested earlier, I think.qlum wrote:
The real problem with the voting system is that people vote to high, give anything they like a 10 or only vote on maps they like. this problem will remain whatever scoring you use. if its thumbs up 5 stars or the current system the problem remains. the only way to solve all these problems is to remove the 10 spammers this can be done in several ways. you can use a warning system that results in voting bans, automatic score penalties to create a good average if someone votes to high or to low above 7.5 or below 6.5 lower or higher all his scores to generate an average within the boundaries. or you can just make voting a privilege to people with at least a ranked score of 500.000.000 this currently means being in the top #3282
Nobody cares about map rating because it's inaccurate and ambiguous, which is the exact problem we're trying to fix.strager wrote:
Who cares about map rating anyway. =]
still this won't change the fact that people like to vote max without really thinking about it, just taking out halve the score won't change a thing.0_o wrote:
Nobody cares about map rating because it's inaccurate and ambiguous, which is the exact problem we're trying to fix.strager wrote:
Who cares about map rating anyway. =]
People vote differently on a 5-star scale than a 10-star scale. If the 5 (or 4 if you want to take out the neutral option) had specific labels (5=Fantastic, 4=Good, 3=OK/Average, 2=Mediocre 1=Bad), it would eliminate that ambiguity and would hopefully result in a more even ratings spread.
Also, I propose changing the poll to what we think the rating system should be changed to, seeing as it's clear that a majority agrees it should be changed.
Yay Gens!!! >ω<Gens wrote:
:O
Some fairly thorough discussion in #modhelp has encouraged me to request this in a much more concise and clear manner as a standalone point. It is clear that many mappers desire a much more simple rating system, which would surely prove to be more useful for on-the-spot responses. With nothing more than "I like it," "I don't care" and "I dislike it," the rating button would be much more approachable and thus possibly encourage more people to vote.": ) : | : (" is what he's asking for BTW.
If displayed as three large, shiny buttons upon the completion of a beatmap, it would be much easier for users to give an on-the-spot reaction, in a way which wouldn't result in a horribly inconsistent manner of voting. Moreover, it would reduce the effects of ragevotes and squeeing fangirl votes, which could in turn give a fairer representation of the community's general opinion. Of course, the votes could still be averaged to a ten-point system if that is to stay, only we'd have values which would account for the accuracy of on-the-spot voting. Failing that, the beatmap listings don't even show a decimal average, instead showing a vague chart of arbitrary figures and a like:dislike meter. We might as well have this as the scope of map ratings. Please also bear in mind that a lot of people will use 6-8 to represent "average," 1-2 as "bad" and 9-10 as "good/excellent." This sort of thing varies wildly from person to person.
As there are a lot of people who care about ratings to some extent, but detest the unreliability of individual votes, a more generalised approach would be far, far more useful for what is effectively a thought process of, "Do I like it? How much do I like it? Do I like it more than this map, could it really be much better in the context?" That would be from somebody who actually wants to give a well-considered input. The rest of the users would simply think, "I like it," I don't care" or "I hate it."
Basically a "Thumbs up - Thumbs down" systemEkaru wrote:
Courtesy of D33d:Some fairly thorough discussion in #modhelp has encouraged me to request this in a much more concise and clear manner as a standalone point. It is clear that many mappers desire a much more simple rating system, which would surely prove to be more useful for on-the-spot responses. With nothing more than "I like it," "I don't care" and "I dislike it," the rating button would be much more approachable and thus possibly encourage more people to vote.": ) : | : (" is what he's asking for BTW.
If displayed as three large, shiny buttons upon the completion of a beatmap, it would be much easier for users to give an on-the-spot reaction, in a way which wouldn't result in a horribly inconsistent manner of voting. Moreover, it would reduce the effects of ragevotes and squeeing fangirl votes, which could in turn give a fairer representation of the community's general opinion. Of course, the votes could still be averaged to a ten-point system if that is to stay, only we'd have values which would account for the accuracy of on-the-spot voting. Failing that, the beatmap listings don't even show a decimal average, instead showing a vague chart of arbitrary figures and a like:dislike meter. We might as well have this as the scope of map ratings. Please also bear in mind that a lot of people will use 6-8 to represent "average," 1-2 as "bad" and 9-10 as "good/excellent." This sort of thing varies wildly from person to person.
As there are a lot of people who care about ratings to some extent, but detest the unreliability of individual votes, a more generalised approach would be far, far more useful for what is effectively a thought process of, "Do I like it? How much do I like it? Do I like it more than this map, could it really be much better in the context?" That would be from somebody who actually wants to give a well-considered input. The rest of the users would simply think, "I like it," I don't care" or "I hate it."
Map thread and comments box on the listing itself. A comment box in the ranking screen could work as well.Ekaru wrote:
People have generally agreed on either Like/Dislike or Like/Neutral/Dislike. I think that's the only thing left to discuss, really. I'm leaning more towards three options myself.
If people really want to go into detail on how much they like/dislike a map, well... that's why maps' threads are usually left open (unless the map's thread went to hell, of course).