Map ratings

[Linaze]

What I'd love to see is the names removed (simply because I don't see a need for them) and moderators given the ability to rate x.5 since that'd make rating resources easier when ones between, say, 3 and 4.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

You guys are silly. If 1/5 is the minimum for approval, then 1 should definitely be "Acceptable." 0/5 would be Rejected, since if it is deleted no one will be able to see the rating anyways. 6/5 would be Director's Cut like WC3S for legacy. This leaves 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I suggest the following:
6/5 Director's Cut
5/5 Highly Recommended
4/5 Recommended
3/5 Good
2/5 Fair
1/5 Acceptable
0/5 Rejected

In this manner, 0/5 is reserved for rejected and clearly not good-enough resources. Thereby following that you have the entire 1-5 range for rating the resource appropriately based on what it deserves. 6 is reserved, obviously, for things that are so amazing that a really good review and a 5 would be nigh-on blasphemy.

Recommended is a good rank because it suggests that you'd recommend the resource to other people it is so good. Highly recommended is even more so because it means you'd recommend it before just a 'recommended' map. These are a fair and unbiased representation of "rankings" for resources. The colors also make sense because dark red inherently looks "worse" than a bright red, gold is naturally renowned as better than just yellow, and dark green is better than lime green for legacy and because Ralle wants it that way. It is also gentle on the eyes because it follows the color wheel fairly linearly.

 

[Linaze]

I can't agree more with what Dusk said.

 

[Kwaliti]

I fully agree.

 

[Archian]

I concur with Rising. If a map is rated to "Unacceptable" it doesn't really make much sense in allowing it into the mainsteam-datebase. While "Acceptable" on the other hand states that the map is not nessarily bad or particually well made, but that's it's not rejected either but could still be improved. Thus allowing it to get a "peak" inside.

 

[Pyritie]

I don't really like that dark yellow colour on the 4/5 but I completely agree with the rest

 

[Archian]

I'll give Ralle a heads-up on this.

 

[Asomath]

Yep yep, dusks got it (0/5 yaaaaaaay)

~Asomath

 

[Hawkwing]

I personally like to use 1 and 2 for rejected/moderated resources to differentiate between total crap and resources that need improvement.

 

[Rui]

Ratings' range should remain 1-5. On my map evaluations, I balance the pros and cons, and the result of that is a rating. If it is 1/5 (Unacceptable), I probably found the cons to be too many and too heavy. If they affect the gameplay greatly, I might as well deem the map to be worthless of being played, regardless of the rating. In that situation, the map is rejected.
Having a rating labeled «Rejected» is useless because I'm still going to reject maps with 1/5 and 2/5 ratings (the latter depending on what I said earlier).

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Ratings' range should remain 1-5.

And they do. Rejections are reserved a 0 and exceptional resources are given a 6. This makes the ratings themselves for all standard and approved resources range from 1 to 5, which satisfies what you're saying far better than many resource moderators' current method of approve on a 3 or better.

 

[PurplePoot]

I like the system, although I don't see the need for numbers as they don't really denote anything (and 6/5 looks a tad silly).

 

[Linaze]

What do you suggest instead then, Poot?

 

[Hawkwing]

I don't see why we need to change the rating system all of sudden in any way further than colours or text. If 1/5 becomes minimal approval then that will mess with a lot of the past resources' ratings.

 

[Squidle]

What 'bout this?

0/6 Failure (No fix needed)

1/6 Rejected (Needs fix)
2/6 Good enough | Plain | Missing something | Not original
3/6 Very well | Good
4/6 Great | Original
5/6 Outstanding | Unique | Wonderfull
6/6 Director's Cut! - Director's Cut!

 

[Kwaliti]

Very well wouldn't work. 'Well' is an adverb, not an adjective.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I like the system, although I don't see the need for numbers as they don't really denote anything (and 6/5 looks a tad silly).

You hobo, 6/5 doesn't look silly, it looks epic. Your resource is so awesome it cannot be contained within the standard ratings!

I don't see why we need to change the rating system all of sudden in any way further than colours or text. If 1/5 becomes minimal approval then that will mess with a lot of the past resources' ratings.

The ironic thing is that all of the resource moderators do their own thing anyways, so your whole "past resource' rating" point is moot. It's already way beyond messed up, which is exactly what brings me to my next point:

The problem with the current model isn't that there are numbers or ranks or whatever. Having those are cute and make people feel good about themselves, so why not. The problem, however, is that there is no consistency among resource moderators as to conventions on when to use a specific rank and when not to. That is more important than changing numbers or changing text, because that consistency is what makes the ranks mean anything in the first place.

 

[PurplePoot]

What do you suggest instead then, Poot?

Almost the same as Dusk's (without numbers), but Dusk made a good point afterwards, so meh.

 

[Kwah]

but Dusk made a good point below

Above, you tard. Above.

 

[PurplePoot]

Bah, below his post and my twice last post, above my last and this one.

Fine, "afterwards".

 

[67chrome]

Well, one way you could get more consistency with ratings is to create a grading rubric; a list of criteria for each rating. Something such as:

[created with skins in mind]

1. - resource is barely acceptable
resource meets the majority of the fallowing:
skin is at most 75% freehand
execution is lacking, but good idea
bad idea, but decent execution

2. - resource is acceptable
resource meets the majority of the fallowing:
greater then 75% freehand work
shading could use some work, but is at least noticeable
coloration is conflicting, but not enough to destroy the overall feel and look of the skin
unwrap looks good, but wraps awkwardly on the model
seems may not line up on the edges of the model

3. - resource is well made
shading is consistent and noticeable from in-game views
coloration works
team color has been used to complement the wrap
seems may not line up, but are close

4. - resource is skillfully made
resource meets the majority of the fallowing:
skin is greater than 85% freehand
skin is useful
shading is well done, and gravitates towards areas were it make sense.

5. - resource has no flaws
resource meets the majority of the fallowing:
seems match perfectly
interesting and creative spin placed on the skin
skin is done 100% freehand
skin looks flawless on both the portrait and in-game models.
shading is consitant with the direction of the light source upon the skin.

6 - Resource is perfect, or as close to it as possible.
resource meets the majority (if not all) of the fallowing:
100% freehand
skin looks spectacular in the in-game view, portrait file, and up close for cinematic
all transitions between seems are seamless
team color is blended in with the skin with great skill
textures on the skin look very much like the textures they are supposed to represent.
coloration of the skin is flawless, neither to little or to many colors are used
high level of usefulness

If it was implemented it should have a tooltip or perhaps even direct voters to a page that displays the description of the criteria along side of the check boxes for the various votes, similar to a ballot. Of course, one would have to be created for each resource category. Perhaps the moderators of each section could collaborate on writing one up, if this idea is adopted. It would allow for greater consistency in ratings from at least the staff, especially if they work together to create this. Detailing what the ratings mean could offer more consistency with standard members as well, and having a rubric could encourage more people to vote in general, as their vote is backed up by a written document. It could also make this site look more professional than it already is

As for the links to resources given a 1 I am sorry to hear they were not working. You could always sort resources by ratings and search for the lowest rated resources that did not get a 0, approved ones do exist in every resource section as far as I know.

As far as colors go I do not think they will work out to well for ratings, it would probably be best to stick with whatever the default color is. If you do go a colorful route for resource ratings, I would suggest going a color scheme that is easily recognizable though, such as a diablo or wow item coloration scheme, as it would be easily and quickly picked up and fit in with the theme of this site.

 

[Joe-black-5]

I remember once a rating of 7/5 called subzero or w/e.

 

[Pyritie]

I remember once a rating of 7/5 called subzero or w/e.

That was just septimus' silly invention

 

[Pyritie]

You guys are silly. If 1/5 is the minimum for approval, then 1 should definitely be "Acceptable." 0/5 would be Rejected, since if it is deleted no one will be able to see the rating anyways. 6/5 would be Director's Cut like WC3S for legacy. This leaves 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I suggest the following:
6/5 Director's Cut
5/5 Highly Recommended
4/5 Recommended
3/5 Good
2/5 Fair
1/5 Acceptable
0/5 Rejected

Everyone else okay with this?

 

[syltman]

Everyone else okay with this?

Eh nope becouse a 0/5 is a map that hasn't been rated

 

[X.e.r.e.X]

Everyone else okay with this?

Yes.

 

[67chrome]

I don't think 0 out of 5 should be a rejected rating, partially because you cannot rate a resource a 0, and partially because about a third of the resources on the site are unrated (rated a 0). Other than that it works.

 

[Linaze]

We'll just have to set all those 0/5 resources to -1 or something, which is "Unrated".

 

[Hawkwing]

Everyone else okay with this?

I am completely against almost everything.

 

[Rui]

«Useful» has already been replaced with «Acceptable». The initial problem is solved, I'd recommend no further actions.

 

[Hawkwing]

«Useful» has already been replaced with «Acceptable». The initial problem is solved, I'd recommend no further actions.

Agreed.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I don't think 0 out of 5 should be a rejected rating, partially because you cannot rate a resource a 0, and partially because about a third of the resources on the site are unrated (rated a 0). Other than that it works.

Or have Ralle add it, which is obscenely easy.

 

[Hakeem]

1. Bad.
2. Sorta bad.
3. Okay.
4. Sorta good.
5. Good.

Or even...

1. Really bad.
2. Bad.
3. Okay.
4. Good.
5. Really good.

Or maybe...

1. Low.
2. Low-medium.
3. Medium.
4. Medium-high.
5. High.

OH! OH!

1. Two notches below average.
2. One notch below average.
3. Not any notches above or below average.
4. One notch above average.
5. Two notches above average.

This deserves consideration too:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

I'm amused, anyway.

Where's Elenai when you need a colorful metaphor...

 

[Kuhneghetz]

Or.

1. Too depressingly horrible to be accepted.
2. Better, but still looks crap.
3. Dull, but acceptable.
4. Good.
5. Really nice.
6. Superb of awesomeness.

Ok, I wasn't serious.


But I would go for:

1. Unacceptable.
2. Lacking.
3. Acceptable.
4. Good.
5. Really good.
6. Director's Cut.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Dudes, 1/5 should be the bare minimum for acceptance, not 3. Stop limiting the possible ranks for an approved resource to 3, 4, and 5. The ranks are for approved resources, not for rejected ones. You don't rate something a 2 and then reject it, that's ridiculous. You're supposed to not even rate them until they are approved, and then rate them 1-5 based on their quality after meeting basic requirements.

Of course, it's not like the resource moderators are consistent with each other anyways..

 

[Linaze]

As I said before, Dusk is right. It should be something like this:

1. Acceptable
2. Good
3. Very Good
4. Recommended
5. Highly Recommended
6. Director's Cut

 

[Viikuna]

You could use negative values for non aproved stuff to let people know how terrible those maps actually are.

-5 equals to Rly Bad
-4 equals to Just Bad
-3 equals to Semi Bad
-2 equals to Kinda Bad
-1 equals to Maybe Bad

Awesome isnt it?

 

[Linaze]

I truly hope you're kidding. Rejected resources shouldn't get a rating at all.

 

[Kwah]

Rejected resources should be REJECTED. See the logic?

 

[Viikuna]

But then no one will know how badly they were rejected...

Its just so sad..

 

[HappyCockroach]

Well...models, skins, icons and spells are made to be of some use to a project.
Maps are made to make people have fun. So in my opinion, what's better would be:

1 - Unacceptable
2 - Lacking
3 - Enjoyable
4 - Recommended
5 - Highly Recommended

Cuz 3 is a successful score, and maps aren't supposed to be 'Accepted' (Acceptable) or 'Used' (Useful), instead they shoud be just played, and should be funny.
Maybe 'Playable', or 'Amusing', or maybe just 'Average', for something generic.

Nothing wrong about the rest for me, since maps are bad when lack something, and when they are good you recommend them to other people.

EDIT: Now I see Rising_Dusk's post, he's right. The problem would be changing all map's ratings.

0 - Rejected
1 - Mediocre
2 - Average
3 - Enjoyable
4 - Recommended
5 - Highly Recommended

6 - Director's Cut

 

[Linaze]

I'd prefer the same rating names for all sections, and because of that, Enjoyable fails.
What I wrote in my previous post fits very well, if you ask me.

 

[HappyCockroach]

In the other sections, Enjoyable can be changed by Useful.
There's no big reason for having the same names in all sections...

 

[Linaze]

There's one reason, same as for the banned user icon, consistency.

 

[HappyCockroach]

But 'Good' or 'Very Good' are too empty imo, they don't give any reason for the rating. A simple progression like "Average -> Good -> Very Good -> Excellent -> ..." is quite helpless, for me.
It sounds more self-explanatory like this:
(1) Mediocre: The map is of poor quality but has the least of the requirements to be approved.
(2) Average: The map isn't good, neither that bad.
(3) Enjoyable: Although the map can't be recommended by the moderator, it is funny to play, enjoyable.
(4) blah blah blah

I'd rather have this than 'consistency'.

 

[Linaze]

A map of poor quality shouldn't be approved in the fist place. So you failed already on the third line.

 

[HappyCockroach]

I just got the description wrong, Mediocre means medium, not too bad, but not good...oh, fuck it, we're not getting anywhere at all... lol

 

[Ham Ham]

Mediocre or average, who gives a damn?

"Mediocre" is like a blank map, it would be something like a 0 rating. For 3 It must must be Acceptable, or Average.

EDIT:

A map of poor quality shouldn't be approved in the fist place. So you failed already on the third line.

But on it you can determinate how bad and how much the map needs to be improved.

A "bad map " (2) needs a major bug fix, and more features to be accepted, a "very bad map" (1), needs to be completely remade because it's extremely low quality.

 

[PurplePoot]

Mediocre means okay, not terrible.

Anyhow, this thread is really overstaying its welcome.

 

[Linaze]

But on it you can determinate how bad and how much the map needs to be improved.

A "bad map " (2) needs a major bug fix, and more features to be accepted, a "very bad map" (1), needs to be completely remade because it's extremely low quality.

What a person needs to improve should be written in the Moderator's comment and there shouldn't be a rating for that.