• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Ratings System

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually having a 5/5 with decimals will still be more simple than a 10/10 system considering how the base number goes up into the tens.

Considering that some people won't even notice the you could rate with decimals depending on how the system is implemented.

It will end up being somewhat more flexible and a simpler number to read when the resource has the rating averaged out and I don't think people really register much after 2 decimal places anyway.

If we were to have a rating system with decimals I don't think users should be able to have the power to rate with more than one decimal points considering that anything else more could become nuisance for the eye to read.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't saying that the decimal system was more complicated. I was saying that 3.5, and x/10, were not as complicated as x/100, or 5.452348123, so they would be a good compromise between people who prefer x/5 and people who want x/100. I believe that x.x/5 (3.5/5 for example) would be the best system to use.
 
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't saying that the decimal system was more complicated. I was saying that 3.5, and x/10, were not as complicated as x/100, or 5.452348123, so they would be a good compromise between people who prefer x/5 and people who want x/100. I believe that x.x/5 (3.5/5 for example) would be the best system to use.

Me understanding or not I think we kinda have an agreement anyway lol.
I was just throwing my thoughts out there.
 

Ash

Ash

Level 22
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,684
Shadow Flux said:
stuff about how 'Taties has a point on research not being applicable

This is absolutely not true. Research is very often generalised across bigger boundaries, and I already brought this up in a reply. It is fine in this context.

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.

I would say something different if what you were bringing up in reply prompted me to change anything. But you just seem to beat around the bush, ignore the thrust of the arguments, and increase the length of your posts as if it magically makes what you're pushing more legitimate.

Don't try and appeal to the masses with a "you do X to everyone" post, when it's fairly clear that the everyone to which you refer is yourself and OP. It's also fairly clear that you don't know what constitutes being insulting, as you are up there with the best of them. On the subject: there is nothing stupid about you but certainly the argument is stupid when it fails to address objective criticisms. Again, there is a level of emotional involvement here that you absolutely must detatch yourself from.

Once more: ratings are not for the maker, or not even really for the users. They act as pseudo-categorical variables (this is a very important term to understand, read up if you don't know it) that just categorise good, bad and ugly. More thorough sites still maintain x/5 for this exact reason, it is just to give a clear indication of perfect, good, approvable, needs improving, and rejected. The review is your meat and gravy. Good comments your burritos and hot sauce.

And on the note of drinking a beer, I'm mighty hungover now so if you are maintain verbosity in your next post I swear to god I will throw something at your head >_<
 

Ash

Ash

Level 22
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,684
@Ash but wouldn't it be better if the maps are categorized more precisely because the current categorization of maps is not precise. A lot of maps share the same category even though there is a large difference between them.

What's Taties?

That is a fault of poor moderation, not a fault of the system. Around the same time I was modding there was another who was totally wrongly promoted. He was terrible at what he did, and would have been terrible under any system. Categorise with ratings, critique with reviews.

If you feel like maps aren't diverse in terms of quality, then make a push on how to give good feeback. I don't know of any case whereby two maps with the same ratings are entirely incomparable, barring those that were approved by the :cgrin: cohort. There is no logic or sense behind those guys.
 

Chaosy

Tutorial Reviewer
Level 40
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
13,182
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.

You're basically expressing your opinion in numbers, my 6 year old brother can do that if I asked him to. Therefore if someone says that it's confusing with 'high' numbers he either got a psychological disease or he's just insanely stupid.
This is not about somehow making everyone to give the right rating. This is about giving people the option to give a more accurate score.

You can rate a map 75/100 while I rate it 56/100, that's your opinion, that's fine. However if you can't even GIVE a score because the numbers are too high for your brain, then you're indeed stupid. Or you're living under a rock in Somalia and can't count that high. But then you wont have a computer either so that leaves us with option 1.

MC... Donalds? I don't know what links an x/100 system with MC Donalds...
Good luck getting a job anywhere if you can't even rate something. Even at MC Donalds you need an IQ above 10.
 
Level 21
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
2,017
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.

The problem is not with me. I wouldn't mind about the x/100 personally. The problem is how the accuracy of the ratings would be. Repeating what I said before to bring about some proofs, people already give imprecise ratings with the x/5 system so imagine the x/100.

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.

Again, it's not a matter if I personally want accuracy or not, rather the impact of the x/100 would have on the accuracy of ratings.

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.

I actually agree on the x/10 system or one decimal place x.x system. I don't even understand what the rest of this quoted part even serves for but never mind.

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.

Those who have an IQ of a hamster and those who are inexperienced in reviewing as well. Not everybody on Earth is capable of reviewing. In addition, if you would like to adopt this method of multiplying the x/5 rating by 2 to make it out of 10, I concur. But if you tell me multiply it by 20 to make it out of 100, I do not because you'd just create an imprecise replica of the x/5 system.
Now you even admitted of receiving complaints about ratings with the x/5 system. Do you think the x/100 system will solve the problem? Certainly not.

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.

People can do so but I'm quite certain that the majority will also do this, causing the x/100 to be a failure. The main aim of the x/100 would be increasing the accuracy but if a lot of people decide the simple "I can't decide if it is a 60 or 80 so I'll give it 70", then it's better to return to the smaller numbers (even if they have to include decimals).

It definitely hasn't.

What's the solid proof about this? Just a quality range between ratings like 3/5? I was talking about the difference between good maps and bad maps, if you can't even differentiate them with an x/5, you are the hopeless guy.

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.

And you are sure 100% of this point? If people do not want to download maps below 60/100 while they could be equivalent to a 4/5, then how will they know the ratings are lower than they should be?

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.

I didn't see any signs of agreement with my views. And if you think the system is a potential solution, other people (like myself) do not think so. As such, you try to contradict me.

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.

Stop talking about what I want because this is not the matter. I've already mentioned above the reasons of why not implementing the x/100 system yet you keep focusing on what I'd personally want and what I'd personally not want for others, which is a pretty futile point.

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.

And didn't we also try to compromise with you and give you the possible negative consequences? Every alternative you gave us had its drawbacks. And no, we do not force anyone on what we want, we are sharing our views and you think we are imposing it just because they're diverse from your own.

You're basically expressing your opinion in numbers, my 6 year old brother can do that if I asked him to. Therefore if someone says that it's confusing with 'high' numbers he either got a psychological disease or he's just insanely stupid.
This is not about somehow making everyone to give the right rating. This is about giving people the option to give a more accurate score.

You can rate a map 75/100 while I rate it 56/100, that's your opinion, that's fine. However if you can't even GIVE a score because the numbers are too high for your brain, then you're indeed stupid. Or you're living under a rock in Somalia and can't count that high. But then you wont have a computer either so that leaves us with option 1.

Man, you don't seem to get anything of what I say. I understand you're saying that those who cannot rate out of 100 are idiots but if a guy gives a resource 60/100 and another gives it 90/100, it means one of them is judging incorrectly, that's what I mean. Everyone has his own tastes which affect the ratings they give. Everyone is capable of giving a rating out of 100 but not everyone is able to give an accurate one.

Good luck getting a job anywhere if you can't even rate something. Even at MC Donalds you need an IQ above 10.

That damn MC Donalds emerges again... you know you're going off-topic with that? It's a pointless subject that will lead nowhere and you keep repeating it in every single post. Just stop it.
 
Level 22
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
2,466
I will just put it here, proof that you use decimal in ratings.

For me, a director's cut map is over the perfection. I never gave a full 5/5 as a vote to anybody for a map (always about 4.5 or even 4.75). This is what I expect from a DC map:

1- Very exciting gameplay which makes me like addicted to the map and makes me want to replay the map even after 1000 games
2- Extremely marvellous terrain which impresses me. Every single tile and doodad must be used wisely
3- Completely leakless triggers
4- All tooltips must be written in flawless English. This means no spelling, grammar and puncuation mistakes.
5- Not a single small bug or error in the whole map
6- The theme of the map must be attractive and the heroes exciting to play

This is why I think it's impossible to get DC. If you want my opinion, not even the maps that actually got DC would deserve it. No doubt they'd get something like 4.9/5 or even a full 5/5 but NOT 6/5
 
I will just put it here, proof that you use decimal in ratings.
There is no need for proofs, I'll admit that by myself. If you read the posts above, you'll notice that I agree on decimals to one decimal place only (4.75 is just an exception). Even check my old reviews because many of them have x.5/5 ratings.

Oh shit, there's two different Shadow F's. I got you mixed up for a moment.

But, anyway, then why the hell did you argue with me for so damn long, ignoring 2/3rds of my argument and focusing only on the x/100? You kept saying that I was refusing to agree with you. I tried to agree with you. That's where the x.5/5 and x/10 suggestions came from; those were the compromise between x/100 and x/5.

We argued for a dozen lengthy posts. Then you turn around and say you already prefer decimal ratings? Then why did you argue? Just because you'd already decided you were against me? Why didn't you just admit that you agreed with the decimal suggestion and work with me to figure out a good way to implement it?
 
Last edited:
Level 21
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
2,017
Oh dear stop making yourself a victim. You also focused on the x/100 system and I replied back to you by giving you the possible negative implications, that's all. After some posts, decimals emerged. I tried to agree with you but you are too determined to make yourself like "attacked". I concurred on decimals and strangely now you complain. The debate was about whether or not it was a good idea changing the rating system and I expressed my views both on the x/100 and the decimals but you are taking it too personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
Level 22
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
2,466
Then you guys turn around and say you already prefer decimal ratings? Then why did you argue? Just because you'd already decided you were against me? Why didn't you just admit that you agreed with the decimal suggestion and work with me to figure out a good way to implement it?

I hope you're not including me in "you guys turn around and say (...)" because I prefer any rating system with a greater precision than a 5 rating scale. E.g. decimal, 10 scale, 100 scale (though this one is not clearly a good idea as mentioned by you guys).

And I never said 'I' in your quoted post. I said 'you'.
 
After some posts, decimals emerged.

I mentioned decimals and x/10 as alternatives in nearly every post. The only one I didn't mention them in was my first post in this thread, when replying to someone's x/100 suggestion.

If you think it didn't emerge until I'd posted several times, it's because you always ignored that part of the post. The only reason I even spoke about the 1/100 scale is because that's all anyone would talk about. You always ignored my decimal suggestion, and because of that, it was a smaller part of my posts.

We basically didn't even need to argue in the first place. If you'd just admitted that you agreed with me about decimals being a possible alternative, instead of ignoring my decimal suggestion just so you could keep arguing about the other idea that you disagreed with, we would never even have needed to argue. You already agreed with decimals. Decimals were my preferred idea, I thought them to be the best solution because, as I mentioned repeatedly, x/100 could intimidate people who are terrified of numbers, while decimals would be easy for such people to ignore while those who appreciate them could utilize them.

I hope you're not including me in "you guys turn around and say (...)" because I prefer any rating system with a greater precision than a 5 rating scale. E.g. decimal, 10 scale, 100 scale (though this one is not clearly a good idea as mentioned by you guys).

And I never said 'I' in your quoted post. I said 'you'.

Sorry, like I said in the post, I got the two of you mixed up and thought you were quoting yourself. I hope you understand; your names are very similar. I'll fix the post; I thought I already had, but I guess I hadn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top