The Rating System is going to be changing..
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Okay, we've made posts and news items trying to get people to rate things in a reasonable manner but all have failed.
As someone else correctly wrote, the rating system here is a JOKE.
There are basically two problems: People who rate everything high and griefers who go around sabotaging other people's ratings.
The new system WILL work as follows. Yes, most of you will be ticked off for different reasons. Tough. The system is broken, we're going to fix it. Play time is over. It will work this way:
There will be a WEIGHT used to calculate the ratings. A rating by a citizen will counts a 1Xtheir rating. An apprentice 2X their rating, Master Apprentice 3X their rating and so on.
So when an admin or moderator rates a skin, it matters. Now, the default rating from moderation will still only count as a weight of 1. But as people deliberately put in the effort to rate something, it will matter.
Yes, it's unfair. It's unequal, whatever. But the current system has become meaningless.
I have seen excellent ObjectDock icons get ratings of 4 because some griefer comes along and gives a bunch of them 1 totally counter balancing an admin rating of 7 (where the admin in question makes icons for a living).
I'm not sure when we'll get to this. It's pretty high on the priority list. This will probably result in a more skins going down in rating than skins going up in rating. A rating of 5 is an average looking skin. NOT 8. Some people seem to rate things as if anything under an 8 is bad. No, 5 is AVERAGE. Most skins should be rated at around a 5. Not 8.
 |
|
Page 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #62 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:54 AM
Reply #63 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:09 AM
or put Mr Seldon and Mr Heisenberg in a room and don't let them out until all this uncertainty business is sorted once and for all!
Reply #64 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:17 AM
| Look at your petrol [gas] gauge..... Empty Half Full |
Your gas (petrol) gauge is not used that simply. First who lets their gauge actually get to empty before deciding to push their car to a gas (petrol) station. During winter months, unless I want a frozen gas (petrol) line, I don't let the gauge go below half. So during winter months the average amount of gas(petrol) in my tank is 3/4 of a tank. During summer months, I don't let it go below 1/4 full, so the average amount of gas (petrol) in may car is 2/3 of a tank. So somewhere between 66-75% is the average for my car not 1/2 or 50%.
Reply #65 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:22 AM
Reply #66 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:46 AM
| During winter months, unless I want a frozen gas (petrol) line, I don't let the gauge go below half. |
Thats funny since Gas will not frezse at all.
Diesel will.....i have stories!
Reply #67 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:05 PM
| Gas will not frezse at all |
but condensation of moisture in the gas tank will
Reply #69 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:41 PM
Outside of a 10 or a 1, I figure everything's subjective. Eye of the beholder stuff. And when you consider tools like me, well, I may not know skinning, but I know what I like. I imagine that among talented skinners, peer ratings would be very important. They could probably give a flip about what I think of their work. I've uploaded a grand total of 2 screenshots and nothing else; one got a 6 and one a 7. That was nice, but even if they got a 1 or 2 it wouldn't change the fact that I like them and wanted to share with the other Mac GUI wannabes out there. Sorry, I'm rambling. I would value a library section where I could peruse only the Apprentice or higher skins, or only the Master skins, and so on. That would mean more to me in my searches than ratings.
FWIW,
Jeff
[Message Edited]
Reply #70 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:03 PM
Ratings are a waste of time, but a suggestion anyhow: if this merit system we have here (citizen, apprentice, journeyman and so on) is to really have an impact and balance things, make the weight exponential, not linear.
If a citizen votes 3 and a journeyman votes 7, make the citizen count as 3^1 and the journeyman as 7^4 (yielding 3 and 2401 respectively), meaning that a journeyman's vote counts 10^4 = 10.000 times. So the exponential weights for repectively citizen, apprentice, master apprentice and journeyman would be 1, 2 (100 votes), 3 (1000 votes) and 4 (10.000 votes). Even more for wizops and higher (imagina a wizop having weight 5 (100.000 votes) rating something an 8 ~ 8^5 = 32.768, let them try voting that down, eh?).
The distribution of members across these classes probably isn't linear (there will be far more citizens than apprentices), so why should the weighing be that way?
[Message Edited]
Reply #71 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:26 PM
Crae.....it doesn't need to be exponential....that'd wipe out any meaning to anyone's rating contribution once an admin rated something......like if I gave something a '4' it'd take 2000 years of dedicated consideration by all and sundry to bump it to a '5'....
That'd be OTT in the other direction from where we are now...
Reply #72 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:38 PM
Perhaps a base two exponent would be better: citizen (level 0) giving a 6 would be 6*2^0 = 6, journeyman (level 3) doing the same: 6*2^3 = 6*8 = 48 = 8 votes of 6. (admin: 6*2^4 = 6*16 = 96 (16 votes of 6)).
At any rate, my point is that I don't think a linear scale is "heavy" enough to balance things. But we'll find out soon enough.
Reply #73 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:13 PM
Actually one thing I'd be in favor of doing ON TOP of this change would be this:
Having what is displayed in stars.
You rate 1 through 10.
But then the actual star rating (1 through 5 stars) would be based on that skin's rating relative to other skins. I.e. on the curve.
So if the average skin is getting a 7 then 7 would be 3 stars.
Reply #75 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:39 PM
The current rating system is not working in your favor, and must
change it to benefit Stardock/Wincustomize.
Now if a Citizen’s rate is 1 vote and an Journeyman’s rate is 5 votes,
WC can control what skins are shown to non-members based on the
current rating of 8 for walls 7 for skins, thereby controlling the
bandwidth used by non-members.
This makes more sense to me than a rating from 1 to 10 and 5 is
average, or 70% of 100% is average. The quality of work
performed by the skinner is not a factor in this proposed rating
system, it merely serves the purpose of offering the purchaser the
right to download ‘free’ skins without joining the site and still
maintaining control of the bandwidth.
Therefore, the new rating system will not take into consideration the
work performed by the skinner, only the number of skins available to
non-members. Sorry if this is something you don’t want to hear, but
business ethics dictate the means....
Reply #76 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:54 PM
The rating system is being changed (at least to my knowledge) because of abuse and complaints.
Reply #77 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:06 PM
Reply #78 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:09 PM
Reply #79 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:11 PM
Author: Buko22 Buko22
Nick: Buko22
UserID: 455144
Now you crack me up...
I wasn't going to post for a while, except for the odd response to someone needing support in some manner now and then.
But...
you really REALLY crack me up so much I just had to let you know...
Mindless and ineffectual as your post is in my opinion, it still gave me a very good laugh.
--suffer the fools? why when a quick smack with a shovel is quicked and less painless--?
Reply #80 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:18 PM
anyway...
enough from me, back to lurking...
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 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:04 AM