That Rating System
Throw it in the trash !
Sunday, July 30, 2006 by _02 | Discussion: WinCustomize Site Issues
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Monday, July 31, 2006 1:02 PM
| my biggest thing I hate about the ratings is the mouse over " I hate it " It's Ok " etc etc |
Exactly what I said the first time I saw that.
Here's the dilemma with those descriptions. Take a well known skin by one of the greatest skinners of all time (names omitted for obvious reasons). I don't like it. Does that mean I should rate it two stars? The work and quality is worth five+. No doubt if I did give it two stars that would be seen to be unfair. So I chose not to rate it at all.
On the old system (out of 10) I used to give up to 3 for skill level, up to 3 for appearance, up to 3 for functionality and an extra 1 for something that was really special.
Rating probably needs to be in skilled hands only.
Reply #23 Monday, July 31, 2006 8:52 PM
| Rating probably needs to be in skilled hands only. |
Perhaps thats the solution. So many have the ability to rate skins but im sure most dont bother unless they have the time to browse. Other sites have a slide bars to rate 1 through 10. No " I hate it " or " I love it " or " To die for " mouse overs.
Its really a catch 22 - the reason most complain about ratings is because some libraries are not seen by the public unless they have a rating of 7 or higher.
Reply #24 Monday, July 31, 2006 9:07 PM
Reply #25 Monday, July 31, 2006 9:50 PM
I can't draw a stright line or make any of the wonderful icons - WB or DXW's that I get from here but If I download anything it is because I like how it looks on MY computer
and most of the time the ratings on the things I get are low.
So what ? There are beautiful in my eyes.
Reply #26 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 12:04 AM
| Sorry to say, but everything can't be a 7(31/2 stars) or above. |
No of course not - thats kinda what I meant. The fact that certain galleries have this rating standard is what causes all this dissension. That was why I said maybe there was a way to break up the walls into catagories. Like Zoomba said about having to wade through pages of Bryce etc. But there are a lot of 3 star walls that are wonderful - yet noone gets to see them. But you can have a windowblind with 2.5 stars ( 5 rating ) with thousands of downloads. Because in that section - everything is seen.
Reply #27 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 1:07 AM
| But there are a lot of 3 star walls that are wonderful - yet noone gets to see them. |
Site Members get to see them....and there are over two and a half million members....so I guess that's a totally 'different' interpretation of 'no-one'...
Reply #28 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:17 AM
| Site Members get to see them....and there are over two and a half million members....so I guess that's a totally 'different' interpretation of 'no-one'. |
Yes thats true - but site members dont always sign in and also have the ability to set their preferences to not view skins under a certain rating. Which could account for so many of the walls I had seen with 2 stars and had a 4 week old date but yet they had no downloads at all. The new forum shows how many members are logged in - with so many members its surprizing to see the logged in member count usually under 50.
Reply #29 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 7:39 AM
Reply #30 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:56 AM
| Which could account for so many of the walls I had seen with 2 stars and had a 4 week old date but yet they had no downloads at all. |
No...any 'older' ones with no downloads are likely to have been recent re-evaluations of past previously rejected walls now made public...
Reply #31 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 2:40 PM
| Some things could have zero downloads because people think they're rubbish. Just a thought |
Yeah , but we have all seen rubbish sell at an art show for hundreads of dollars
| No...any 'older' ones with no downloads are likely to have been recent re-evaluations of past previously rejected walls now made public |
Ok..I had asked that question on another thread 'cause thats what I thought it was - but noone answered. So that makes sense.
Reply #32 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:43 PM
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
| however you don't put a rating system on art. |
Facts are, all art is rated, if you go by this definition of art. Movies, Plays, Paintings, Sculpture, art exhibits, art galleries, food, fashion, etc, etc.
You can go beyond that to Ratemyfacedotcom, ratemy(insertbodyparthere)dotcom, etc. Almost seems an overwhelmingly majority of people want to be rated for something. I won't even go into the hidden meaning or reasons behind it.
I think what's important is that the person choosing the art is picking it for their own reasons, not the rating. God knows how many one star movies I have gone to and enjoyed instead of listening to the critics or counting the stars. The same goes for stuff I have downloaded. I've downloaded plenty of stuff under 4 or even 3 stars and some less than that because I LIKED it.
Just incase you have doubts that some people want to be rated (all masochists, I'm sure) here's a couple sites that do just that..rate art
http://www.ratemyart.net/ rate my art
http://www.ratingart.com/ rating art
Reply #33 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:37 PM
| Facts are, all art is rated, |
Thus the term "Art Critic" "Movie Critic" etc.
.....figured I'd jump in on this month's/week's rehash.....
Reply #34 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:46 PM
| .....figured I'd jump in on this month's/week's rehash..... |
me too lol
all art is rated at an auction.
Reply #35 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 7:32 PM
| Lantec: Thus the term "Art Critic" "Movie Critic" etc. |
Which brings us back to fuzzy's post # 22
| Rating probably needs to be in skilled hands only. |
Reply #36 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:00 PM
I'm sure Jafo can come up with more nifty dialog like...
| Re words-into-mouth-placements.... |
or the ever popular...
| If I told you the Earth was flat you'd believe that too, I presume.. |
These are the things that make reading this rehash so entertaining!!
Reply #39 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:39 PM
Phoon....actually....with the eternal plethora of rating threads I'm likely to exhaust my supply of natty quips and one-liners...
Po' ...thanks for #32 ...it helped explain this art/rating thing people always seem to want to ignore/deny as a reality.
Of course all of this thread [and the squillions like it that have come before and will likely follow] presupposes that it is the 'art' that is being judged, not the entity that is a 'wallpaper'.
Almost always these threads are by/for/about wallpapers and wallpaper 'makers', not specifically skins at all.
I for one really do not look at a submitted wallpaper and think "OMFG!!! the pathos...the angst...the raw emotion captured in every tortured Bryce button-press...a brilliance of visual expression!!!" as I cup my face in both hands, mouth agape in a silent scream.....
It's [they're] supposed to be wallpapers...you know, those things you put on a desktop and cover with icons and assorted effluvia. They are therefore judged for function, form, appeal, and technical skill. Why 'technical skill'? In a wall? Because if it's really simplistic and non-technical anyone would be more likely do it themselves than bother to download a 'flea in the distance' wall.
Now the new direction Wincustomize.com is taking with wall moderation means that if you have one rejected you will 'know' it was deemed to be PARTICULARLY POOR or it failed 'function' [a 16x16 pixel icon never works as a wall], or it violated policy [rip/porn/racially discriminatory/etc].
Once it IS 'approved' it is approved as a 'wallpaper', not as 'art'.
Whether you wish to debate the semantics of 'art' and what it constitutes, or not, bear in mind that it is the WALLPAPER suitability being judged/rated, not whether it was Post-Coital Impressionism of the Nihilistic Period or Pre-school Finger-painting 101 for the digitally challenged....
Reply #40 Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:46 PM
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, July 31, 2006 10:02 AM
And we probably would still argue about this rating thing.
( my biggest thing I hate about the ratings is the mouse over " I hate it " It's Ok " etc etc)
Portraits, I understand how you feel and while it seems the ratings are unjust at times - most of it stems from lack of time by people that can rate. Thats why it seems the " Old timers " get high ratings. Their work gets uploaded with 3 stars because its a priviledge they earned. But its not the true rating at the time. Now it only takes 1 or 2 people to rate their work and you now have what looks like an uneven scale here.
I try to look at everything that gets uploaded-if I dont care for something I dont just downrated it because its not my " taste "
I have made a few walls myself - but never uploaded any of them. I figured they would be rejected by the previous standards. But I see the wall section is becoming more " open " to new comers. Im not an Artist - I cant draw worth a dime - you can - I admire anyone that has this talent.
Maybe a solution can be found to this age old rating problem. Perhaps 2 separate wall catagories. One for the more seasoned - one for the up and coming beginners or the artistically challenged like me.