I still absolutely disagree with what you're saying, and you ignore so many of my points that I'm not going to waste my time replying when I could be drinking more beer. Realistically, there have been countless conversations like this since the Hive's opening, and your crusade now won't make a difference: I sincerely doubt we are going to change our rating scale.
If you would actually like to discuss any of the points I've raised, please address them and stop falling back on your ignorant defence of calling me elitist. When you present an idea that isn't stupid and actually raises a good argument, I'll reply. Until then, please continue to waste your time writing replies that essentially say the same thing because you're too emotionally involved to do otherwise. /Yawn.
As if you said anything different? You repeated the same argument each time as well. But no, everyone else is stupid, and you're smart! You don't make the same mistakes!
We both repeated ourselves, because we were both responding to the same thing every time. I repeated myself because you repeated yourself. When you say the same thing that you said the first time, my response is going to be the same as the first time, because it was true then, and it's still true now. You repeated yourself for the same reason. I don't hold you at fault for it because we both did the same thing, however I do hold you at fault for constantly being insulting, when I did nothing to you but try to discuss our two different opinions in hopes of coming to a compromise that satisfies both parties.
And here you are again, being insulting with every post you've made. I have not once insulted you. You say I am "too emotionally invested". You are assuming that I am emotionally invested because of your own emotional investment. You care so much that you insult anyone with a different opinion. You tell everyone their ideas are stupid, just because they disagree with you. There is nothing stupid about my suggestion. Whether or not x/5 or x/10 is better, is debatable, but to assume that either rating system is stupid, is to be so conceited as to assume that only your own beliefs are of any worth. Do you yell at people who support the other team in sports, and insult everyone that is of a different political party than yourself, too?
And the typical "I'm too cool to care, gonna go drink a beer" response. Yeah, right. I wouldn't be able to post such absurd walls of text if I didn't have your own lengthy (albeit shorter than mine) posts to respond to.
If the reason of implementing the x/100 system isn't being more precise, then I don't see why even implementing it. An x/100 is supposed to give more accurate ratings so if you say that a 44/100 can be rounded to a 40/100, then why not sticking to the x/5 system? A 40/100 gives a worse impression than a 2/5.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't advising that people refrain from using the precise numbers such as 44/100. I was saying that using a precise system would not force people who oppose precision to be precise. If they have something against being accurate with their ratings, they can continue using x/5 and multiplying it by 20. They don't
have to use all of the numbers available. But having them there would allow people who want to be accurate to be accurate.
Like I said before, though, a decimal system would work well also. I would prefer a decimal system to x/100; x/100 was not my idea, but rather someone else's. I'm not asking for x/100. I'm asking for a more precise rating system, whether it's x/100, x/10, x.x/5; whatever. It just needs to allow a higher degree of precision. You don't
have to be precise. But why force everyone to use an inaccurate system just because you prefer not to be accurate? You can always continue being inaccurate as always if you dislike hitting near the mark. I don't care; shoot your arrows at someone else's target if the idea of being accurate is that terrifying. But don't tell everyone else they're not allowed to shoot near the bull's eye just because you don't want to.
The human brain is structured to go for the easiest ways of solving problems so an x/5 is more convenient. Consider that the larger the maximum rating is, the greater the probability of giving inaccurate ratings and receiving complaints from users.
Solving the problem is the issue. Taking the easy way out, but not really fixing anything, isn't going to do anyone any good. While half of people prefer to keep things as simple as possible, the other half would like to have a chance to really get in there and do exactly what they plan to without being restricted to the few paths that are made available to them. People wanting things to be simple is the reason we have terrible facebook games. Go play those. Everything doesn't have to be as simple as possible. If that were the case, we would never have even invented electronics in the first place.
Nobody's asking to allow us to rate things based on the square root of the factorial of an imaginary number. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how x/10 works.
All we want is a balance between simplicity and flexibility. x/10, or a decimal (to the first value, such as 3.5; not 4.38479284797627868127), is not incredibly sophisticated. If the meter between simplicity and complexity was a meter in length, x/10 would be a few centimeters away from far end of simplicity. It's still extremely simple.
You say that the larger the maximum rating is, the greater the probability will be that people will give inaccurate ratings and receive complaints from users. Sure, people who have the IQ of a hamster will give less accurate ratings. Anyone incapable of rating things on a scale from 1 to 10, can always just rate it from 1 to 5, and double their rating, while others who want precision can take advantage of the system by giving a 7/10. If they can't multiply a single-digit number by 2, they have no business using a computer. You say it would cause more complaints from users. It hasn't happened lately, but I've received quite a few messages from people complaining about my ratings, and a lot of them asked me to give partial ratings, such as 3.5/5, or to increase the scale of my ratings to 1-100. They cared so much that they even sent PM's and VM's.
What are you saying man? If you can't rate something accurately out of 100, it doesn't mean you're brainless. To give the right rating, you must have experience and professionality and those who lack them are not to be considered idiots. It's like saying "If you can't review a map well, you are stupid." False statement of course because not everyone is able to review maps professionally yet this doesn't justify stupidity.
MC... Donalds? I don't know what links an x/100 system with MC Donalds...
You don't have to rate it to the nearest number. If you have trouble deciding what to give something, but you think it's in the 60-80 range, and decide on a 70, and an all-knowing being with supernatural judgement capabilities decides it's worth a 64, that's not an inaccurate rating. But if you can't figure out whether you want to give something a 40, or an 80, you're hopeless.
You cannot deny it's effective because it's been around for over 10 years and it successfully distinguished bad maps from good maps.
It definitely hasn't.
And the quality among, for instance, a 60/100 and a 79/100 wouldn't be pretty horrible as well? Seeing a 3/5 gives a better impression than a 60/100 thus incrementing the downloads of the map. You should also think about this crucial point as well because nobody is willing to upload a map which will get few downloads since few downloads = few suggestions.
This is because, psychologically, the only thing most people are used to seeing a 100-point scale on is their grade point average, and anything below a 70 (or 60, depending on the scale their school uses) is failing, because it's not judging the quality of their product, it's judging how much of the material they've learned, in which case knowing only half of the material would mean the student really hasn't grasped it.
For the first few weeks, people would think the ratings are lower than they actually are. After a while, they'll get used to it and form an idea of what each level means, just like they got a feel for how good or bad their GPA was.
I don't know if we'll ever reach an agreement here. We just keep debating each other without even convincing the other side.
I have tried to agree with you. Several times. I have repeatedly stated that a decimal system or x/10 system could be used instead of an x/100 system, because a lot of people are terrified of numbers the length of a pronoun. I have tried to compromise. I understand that not everyone wants a complex system, so something as complex as 1-100 would not work for everyone. The x/100 was never my idea, it was just someone else's example of a potential solution, and because it was being discussed by others, I discussed it, because it would be rude to become part of a discussion and ignore a particular part of it that I almost agree with just because that wasn't specifically what I had in mind.
How would 3.5/5 hurt anyone? You don't have to use decimals if you don't want to. You can always continue giving a 3/5 or 4/5. But why stop everyone else from improving the accuracy of their ratings just because you want to keep yours simple? If you want to keep yours simple, fine keep it simple, nobody's stopping you. You don't have to rate to highest degree of accuracy that a system allows. If you don't want to be accurate, don't utilize it; continue on with x/5, and scaling it to fit whatever system is used. Even if the ratings were out of 1,000. What difference would it make? A 1/5 is a 200/1000, or a 100/500, or a 600/3000. It doesn't matter what the scale is, nobody's forcing you to use every number available.
If you have a scale that measures weight to the nearest hundredth of a gram, and you're only interested in knowing how many grams something weighs, you don't have to throw the scale away and buy one that's less accurate. Just round it. Big deal. If you only want to know how many kilograms it weighs, then look at the digits starting at thousands of grams, and ignore the rest. But you can't take a scale that only measures to the nearest pound, and use it to measure to the gram. It doesn't work the other way around.
But you and Ash are right about something else, that it's not worth discussing any further. I've tried to compromise with you, and provided several alternatives, but you're not interested in compromising to use a system halfway between what you want, and what others want; you want to force everyone to use what you want.
