Map ratings

~Void~ · Jul 19, 2009

(1) Unacceptable
(2) Lacking
(3) Useful (wtf?!)
(4) Recommended
(5) Highly Recommended

||||||||||||
vvvvvvvvvvv

(1) Unacceptable
(2) Poor
(3) Solid
(4) Fair
(5) Excellent

Why? Well things like "useful" just don't make sense for maps. Since when is a map useful? And I don't like the recommended/highly recommended either. This is simpler and better for maps.

Thoughts?

Kwaliti · Jul 19, 2009

I fully agree with you. However, I'd keep Recommended and Highly Recommended for easier sorting under the "Recommended" category.

Slaydon · Jul 19, 2009

Ive also wondered why they got that.

krisserz · Jul 19, 2009

Looks good, I just don`t like 4th one. "Fair" it sounds kinda... strange. The idea is re3ally good.

Rui · Jul 20, 2009

The rating system is global, Ralle didn't create different ones for separate resource types.

I don't think I like «Solid» and «Fair». I'd rather have «Acceptable» for 3 and «Good» or «Exceeds Expectations» for 4. «Poor» is alright, but so is «Lacking».

Steel_Stallion · Jul 20, 2009

1. Unacceptable
2. Poor
3. Fair
4. Good
5. Exceptional

xp3r009 · Jul 20, 2009

For a internet magazine I used to go to, tools, products and other electronics as such would be rated as this (NetGuide to be precise, a magazine about internet etc...)

(1) Don't bother
(2) Fair
(3) Good
(4) Very Good
(5) Excellent

However I would like to put it this way in my taste, however it might depend with others taste otherwise:

(1) Don't bother
(2) Poor
(3) Fair
(4) Very Good
(5) Excellent

Billy the Cat · Jul 20, 2009

Heard of others talking about the sense behind that useful and I agree with you Void.

Fair to me doesn't sound like a 4 though.

Squidle · Jul 20, 2009

(1) Unaccaptable
(2) Lacking
(3) Good enough
(4) Great
(5) Excelent/Epic!

Mehh, I only don't like the "Usefull" rating like void said.
But those above are just suggestions.

~Void~ · Jul 21, 2009

3/5 is somewhere in the middle, thus "solid" and not "good".

Hawkwing · Jul 21, 2009

I agree with this. The colours could use some work too (Eh, Resource Mods?).

I dislike the "Solid" the most. The rest are fine, but there are still other options. Out of everything I've seen I personally like the following (I've added some, but following the same principles of other given ideas.):

1/5 - Unacceptable
2/5 - Lacking
3/5 - Decent / Fair / Acceptable / Average / Meets Expectations
4/5 - Recommended / Above Average / Fully Meets Expectations
5/5 - Highly Recommended / Exceeds Expectations

l0w_kwaliti brings up a good point about the Recommend filters though, and that sort of changes the appropriateness of the above titles.

The World Is Flat · Jul 21, 2009

I agree, the rating this does seem a bit odd, lol i was just thinking about posting a thread about it when i saw yours

67chrome · Jul 22, 2009

pha0001 said:
For a internet magazine I used to go to, tools, products and other electronics as such would be rated as this (NetGuide to be precise, a magazine about internet etc...)

(1) Don't bother
(2) Fair
(3) Good
(4) Very Good
(5) Excellent

I like these, they could be applied to just about anything to. As for colors, maybe you could go WoW/Diablo item enchantment color codes for them, like

Don't bother
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent

Directors Cut

But ya, the current map ratings don't really fit maps :/

Dreadnought[dA] · Jul 23, 2009

Beyond Terrible
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Gost · Jul 25, 2009

Dreadnought[dA];1231705 said:
Beyond Terrible
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

I lol'd at Beyond Terrible haha, no motivation to make your resource better like getting that rating.

I don't like unacceptable for 1 because the map was in fact, accepted.

Poor
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Amazing/Excellent

Hawkwing · Jul 25, 2009

Gost said:
I lol'd at Beyond Terrible haha, no motivation to make your resource better like getting that rating.

Agreed.

Gost said:
I don't like unacceptable for 1 because the map was in fact, accepted.

An approved resource would never receive 1/5.

ike_ike · Jul 25, 2009

Nyeh. I think all *approved* CnP icons should get 1 automatically. Or nothing at all. Probably nothing.

~Void~ · Jul 25, 2009

ike_ike said:
Nyeh. I think all *approved* CnP icons should get 1 automatically. Or nothing at all. Probably nothing.

Why? Because you're sore that people can make resources that are just as useful with a few clicks instead of spending a lot of time and effort?

Kwah · Jul 25, 2009

It's silly.

Map should either: Be rejected, or be rated an approved.

Having a rating that is equivalent of rejection is just wasting away your potential accuracy.

Squidle · Jul 25, 2009

What hawk is saying is kinda true...

Maybe there should just be 3 levels of it?
1 - Unaccaptable 2 - Accaptable 3 - Outstanding!
And the users can vote with 5 levels.

A mod doesn't has to "really" vote for it.
Just check if it's accaptable or not, or if it's really special.

Hawkwing · Jul 25, 2009

No, a moderator certainly doesn't need to give a rating. Half the time they don't.

~Void~ · Jul 25, 2009

Hawkwing said:
No, a moderator certainly doesn't need to give a rating. Half the time they don't.

They should, though.

Hawkwing · Jul 25, 2009

~Void~ said:
They should, though.

Yeah.

leet.firefox · Jul 25, 2009

Are we giving opinions on what the rating should be?
1 - Unsatisfactory/Trash/Not playable
2 - Mediocre/Needs improvement/Below expectation
3 - Satisfactory/Adequate/Playable
4 - Excellent/Great/Well made
5 - Perfection/Amazing/Beyond Excellence

Hawkwing · Jul 25, 2009

I like those ideas. Trash is a real put-down, so I dislike that. Playable/Not Playable would really only fit on a scale of 1 to 2.

I really like Adequate. Mediocre is decent too.

67chrome · Jul 26, 2009

Hawkwing said:
An approved resource would never receive 1/5.

Well, a select few approved skins and maps actually did get a 1/5. Btw, if you ever run into a true/false question that has the words never or always in it it is usually false :xxd:

But I think this was mostly the case for resources that were improved from a lower rating and no one bothered to give it a higher rating :/
and as-is, people are generally reserving 1/5 for resources that are unapprovable, and few 2/5s are even given to approved resources. From looking at the ratings of everything currently rated, it seems that most people interpret the scale with 3 or 4 as average.

Of course, the rating 1/5 can help people figure out what to avoid with regards to pending resources, so having 1/5 be for a failed resource will still have some functionality.

Hawkwing · Jul 26, 2009

67chrome said:
Well, a select few approved skins and maps actually did get a 1/5. Btw, if you ever run into a true/false question that has the words never or always in it it is usually false

But I think this was mostly the case for resources that were improved from a lower rating and no one bothered to give it a higher rating :/
and as-is, people are generally reserving 1/5 for resources that are unapprovable, and few 2/5s are even given to approved resources. From looking at the ratings of everything currently rated, it seems that most people interpret the scale with 3 or 4 as average.

Of course, the rating 1/5 can help people figure out what to avoid with regards to pending resources, so having 1/5 be for a failed resource will still have some functionality.

I've never seen a 1/5 on an approved resource.

Asomath · Jul 26, 2009

0/5 to be on the opposite end of the spectrum of 6/5

1/5 had somthing functional or a good feature about it...

~Asomath

Hawkwing · Jul 26, 2009

Well, if you ask me, that's sort of bending the whole idea of a scale, which just complicates things. What's wrong with 1-5?

67chrome · Jul 26, 2009

Hawkwing said:
I've never seen a 1/5 on an approved resource.

Well, here you go

1/5 skins
1/5 models
1/5 maps
1/5 spells
1/5 icons

Hawkwing · Jul 26, 2009

Whatever filtering you did didn't copy over in the URL.

leet.firefox · Jul 26, 2009

All I got was links to random pages. :\

syltman · Jul 26, 2009

How about:

1. Needs work
2. acceptable
3. Decent
4. Good
5 Excellent
?

HFR · Jul 26, 2009

Acceptable for a bad map? That's wrong. It can be:

1. Bad (can't think of anything more)
2. Needs work
3. Acceptable
4. Decent
5. Excellent

Linaze · Jul 26, 2009

1. Unacceptable (Rejected)
2. Needs Work (Rejected until updated)
3. Mediocre (Rejected until updated/Approved)
4. Good (Approved)
5. Recommended (Approved)

HFR · Jul 26, 2009

It's a better way. I liked it.

Kwah · Jul 26, 2009

Approved.
Not Approved.

But meh. What we call the ratings doesn't really matter.

Billy the Cat · Jul 26, 2009

Linaze said:
1. Unacceptable (Rejected)
2. Needs Work (Rejected until updated)
3. Mediocre (Rejected until updated/Approved)
4. Good (Approved)
5. Recommended (Approved)

I agree with this one

Asomath · Jul 26, 2009

Linaze said:
1. Unacceptable (Rejected)
2. Needs Work (Rejected until updated)
3. Mediocre (Rejected until updated/Approved)
4. Good (Approved)
5. Recommended (Approved)

I don't know, although the system is sound, mediocre is a menacing word for an "average" quality resource.

Why not pick a syn. for it: common, adequate, fair, ordinary, passable, tolerable, undistinguished, average, decent

~Asomath

Linaze · Jul 26, 2009

Mediocre or average, who gives a damn?

~Void~ · Jul 26, 2009

How about we ditch the names after the ratings and allow moderators to rate halves as well.

Hawkwing · Jul 26, 2009

~Void~ said:
How about we ditch the names after the ratings and allow moderators to rate halves as well.

I wish.

leet.firefox · Jul 26, 2009

1. Unacceptable (Rejected)
2. Needs Work (Rejected until updated)
3. Mediocre (Rejected until updated/Approved)
4. Good (Approved)
5. Recommended (Approved)

I thought this thread was created to get rid of the "recommended" rating.

The World Is Flat · Jul 26, 2009

Don't Ask
Needs Work
Average
Great
Masterpiece

Ralle · Jul 26, 2009

Hawkwing said:
I agree with this. The colours could use some work too (Eh, Resource Mods?).

I dislike the "Solid" the most. The rest are fine, but there are still other options. Out of everything I've seen I personally like the following (I've added some, but following the same principles of other given ideas.):

1/5 - Unacceptable
2/5 - Lacking
3/5 - Decent / Fair / Acceptable / Average / Meets Expectations
4/5 - Recommended / Above Average / Fully Meets Expectations
5/5 - Highly Recommended / Exceeds Expectations

l0w_kwaliti brings up a good point about the Recommend filters though, and that sort of changes the appropriateness of the above titles.

Hawkwing can you PM me with what you guys end with?

Hawkwing · Jul 26, 2009

Ralle said:
Hawkwing can you PM me with what you guys end with?

Sure. That might be awhile though, since nobody can ever agree on anything.

leet.firefox · Jul 26, 2009

Make a poll.

The World Is Flat · Jul 26, 2009

yes make a poll...
and what happened to our rep gems?

leet.firefox · Jul 26, 2009

Rep eggs ftw
lol Why does Hawk still have blue gems?

Edit: Oh, they are slowly changing.

Pyritie · Jul 26, 2009

We had a similar topic in the moderator forums a while ago. This is kinda what we ended up with.

Hawkwing said:
Ughh. Please god, not cyan for Highly Recommended. How about this?

6/5 Director's Cut - Highly Recommended
5/5 Highly Recommended
4/5 Recommended
3/5 Useful
2/5 Lacking
1/5 Unacceptable

General Frank said:
Good thing, but deleted and rejected should also get a
'0/5 Deleted/Rejected' thing.

Ralle said:
I like the a bit dark green for director's cut, and maybe keep the other neutral while unacceptable is red?

I didn't really go anywhere last time though, as usual. Which is a shame because I'd like it to change too.

Gost said:
I don't like unacceptable for 1 because the map was in fact, accepted.

Same. I never rate models 1/5 just because "Unacceptable" sounds like it shouldn't be approved.

Map ratings

Warhammer 40,000 TD

Similar threads