Sir Minelli wrote:

0_o wrote:

The main thing is that the current rating system in ambiguous; people have different perceptions of the rating scale (one person would give a map they found "average" a 6, while others would give it an 8)

I highly doubt that they think an 8 is an average score.

Sir Minelli wrote:

Those are ranked beatmaps which are supposed to be good.

Sir Minelli wrote:

That is the score that the ranked beatmaps should be getting more or less. I don't see that as wrong, at all.

strager wrote:

Sir Minelli wrote:

0_o wrote:

The main thing is that the current rating system in ambiguous; people have different perceptions of the rating scale (one person would give a map they found "average" a 6, while others would give it an 8)

I highly doubt that they think an 8 is an average score.

I am one of "them" who considers an eight to be average. That's kinda because it is average.

Sir Minelli wrote:

Those are ranked beatmaps which are supposed to be good.

Since when is "good" in the ranking criteria?

Sir Minelli wrote:

That is the score that the ranked beatmaps should be getting more or less. I don't see that as wrong, at all.

Maps should get ranks anywhere from 1~10, not 7~9 as it stands now, using the current ranking scale.

Wojjan wrote:

A massive spam of 1 ratings has never happened

People bitch about 1s. 1s are going to happen no matter what, but people will whine about them. Why? Because 1s are generally unused.

vote_weight = abs((vote_maximum/2)-voter.vote_average) * (1+0.1 log10(voter.vote_count))

strager wrote:

I'm against weighing votes. Everyone's vote should count as much as everyone else's.

Ephemeral wrote:

Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.

None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.

Ephemeral wrote:

Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.

None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.

Ephemeral wrote:

Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.

None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.

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.

Ephemeral wrote:

Thumbs fucking up, thumbs fucking down.

None of this weighting bollocks. You either like a map or you don't.

qlum wrote:

best for me would be thumbs up thumb sideways thumbs down this also gives the option for a neutral vote

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.

strager wrote:

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.

Does it matter?

Is a person's vote significant enough to matter, really?

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 ...).

0_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.

0_o wrote:

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 ...).

I dunno if it's because I just woke up or not, but I'm not sure what you mean? =

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

strager wrote:

Who cares about map rating anyway. =]

0_o wrote:

strager wrote:

Who cares about map rating anyway. =]

Nobody cares about map rating because it's inaccurate and ambiguous, which is the exact problem we're trying to fix.

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.

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.

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."

Ekaru 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.

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."

": ) : | : (" is what he's asking for BTW.

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).