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).
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.