AltArc

[Nexx]

Now that you're talking about it, Avarin, I actually agree with having visible ratings. Of course, only visible to the authors, but it would be useful, especially if mods had the power to remove snipes. That would make people happy... except for the problem of mods getting CONSTANT requests to remove a 'snipe' from a map that never got sniped, just rated low.

Actually, having ratings visible to the author would resolve that problem, not worsen it. People could see that no one sniped it, but that someone simply rated it a 3 when it was on the brink, or perhaps gave it a perfectly legitimate 2 but without a comment.

[KlanKaos]

Well, yeah, but I'm talking about the idiots who think EVERY low rating is a snipe, even if the author posted a lengthy comment detailing exactly WHY they only rated it a one. God knows there are far too many of them.

[//Zander]

one more suggestion.
I only use my "favourites" for storing maps I will go and look at later, like bookmarking.
I noticed on Deviant art you can make little folders and collect maps in them, like "things I want to play later",
"things I found fun", "hard things I am yet to finish"... and favourites.
well If possible this kinda thing would be cool if you could integrate it

[Fraxtil]

one more suggestion.
I only use my "favourites" for storing maps I will go and look at later, like bookmarking.
I noticed on Deviant art you can make little folders and collect maps in them, like "things I want to play later",
"things I found fun", "hard things I am yet to finish"... and favourites.
well If possible this kinda thing would be cool if you could integrate it

Perhaps this could be interwoven with the idea of creating mappacks? There could be "public" mappacks that are combinations of others' maps, and then "private" ones that are actually what we define as mappacks, where the user submits his own maps. Does that make sense?

[SkyPanda]

Anyway, I was wondering if maybe AltArc could try out having visible ratings (you can see who rated and what they rated). I personally don't see what all this stuff against them is. If someone snipes your maps you won't snipe theirs back and so on and so forth, you'll click "report abuse" and mods will remove the snipe, and you'll be happy. That's exactly what mods are for. Though on the other hand, I can't really say why I'm so keen to have this feature. It's certainly not necessary, it'd just be interesting to look at the resulting info. So nevermind, I guess. But I very much support the system being able to hold people accountable. I think that's definitely a step in the right direction.

I don't participate in the ratings system, but I'd like to jump in quickly on this one anyway because I love the sound of my own voice :)
I respect and admire heaps of your ideas, but I don't quite agree on this one. Voting is not something to hold people accountable for. Ultimately, we want people on NUMA to rate honestly. What if we're voting on a crappy map made by a friend? If this friend is able to see what we vote, some people would not feel comfortable rating honestly.
What if you give a new guy a 2 out of 5, and he then decides to rate a few of your maps twos? Privacy prevents retaliation, coercion and bribery. I suspect that it also reduces the amount of bitching about ratings slightly.

It's a slightly different case for comments, which are more complex. It's harder to conceal the identity of comments. Putting names to comments prevents impersonation. It also aids conversation. I'm sure there are other reasons specific to NUMA for why the site is set up the way it is, but you'd need to talk to Arachnid or someone about that.

[Nexx]

I respect and admire heaps of your ideas...

Thanks! I really appreciate that! :)

Ultimately, we want people on NUMA to rate honestly. What if we're voting on a crappy map made by a friend? If this friend is able to see what we vote, some people would not feel comfortable rating honestly.

That's ridiculous. How is it NUMA's fault if you don't feel comfortable being honest with your friend? My point is that this has nothing to do with NUMA and everything to do with you and your friend, so this just comes down to a personal decision. I think both honest and bloated ratings will continue to happen in a ratings viewable system. This is perhaps easier for me to say because I ALWAYS provide an explanation of my rating, so the current system holds me just as accountable as a ratings-viewable system would.

What if you give a new guy a 2 out of 5, and he then decides to rate a few of your maps twos?

Seriously? I mean, what if that happens in the current system? (Because it does happen) In any case, my answer would be that in the first place, you provide an explanation of your original rating, and if the result is the same, then if it's just 2 maps, it's possible that person didn't like both. If it starts happening on a lot of maps, report abuse.

Privacy prevents retaliation, coercion and bribery.

No, it doesn't. All of those things can still happen just as easily under the current system. And as I mentioned last answer, I think viewable ratings would make people more accountable for their ratings, so they have more reason to provide an ever-so-helpful explanation in the kinds of cases we're talking about.

I suspect that it also reduces the amount of bitching about ratings slightly.

True that! In fact, it probably reduces it significantly. That's part of the reason I said nevermind to it. Storing the rating information at all (for the admin to be able to see) is really the most important part anyway.

[Fraxtil]

I respect and admire heaps of your ideas...

Thanks! I really appreciate that! :)

Ultimately, we want people on NUMA to rate honestly. What if we're voting on a crappy map made by a friend? If this friend is able to see what we vote, some people would not feel comfortable rating honestly.

That's ridiculous. How is it NUMA's fault if you don't feel comfortable being honest with your friend? My point is that this has nothing to do with NUMA and everything to do with you and your friend, so this just comes down to a personal decision. I think both honest and bloated ratings will continue to happen in a ratings viewable system. This is perhaps easier for me to say because I ALWAYS provide an explanation of my rating, so the current system holds me just as accountable as a ratings-viewable system would.

What if you give a new guy a 2 out of 5, and he then decides to rate a few of your maps twos?

Seriously? I mean, what if that happens in the current system? (Because it does happen) In any case, my answer would be that in the first place, you provide an explanation of your original rating, and if the result is the same, then if it's just 2 maps, it's possible that person didn't like both. If it starts happening on a lot of maps, report abuse.

Privacy prevents retaliation, coercion and bribery.

No, it doesn't. All of those things can still happen just as easily under the current system. And as I mentioned last answer, I think viewable ratings would make people more accountable for their ratings, so they have more reason to provide an ever-so-helpful explanation in the kinds of cases we're talking about.

I suspect that it also reduces the amount of bitching about ratings slightly.

True that! In fact, it probably reduces it significantly. That's part of the reason I said nevermind to it. Storing the rating information at all (for the admin to be able to see) is really the most important part anyway.

Maybe you could all just care a little less about who rates what? Voting will not be public, just as voting for a president can't be seen by others. The author isn't going to see who voted either- again, the idea of a president being able to see who voted for him and who didn't (except apply it to a far smaller group, where everybody generally knows everyone else) wouldn't be right. If somebody's maps are being consistently sniped by another user, I will be able to tell for sure. (This does NOT mean I will tell you who's been voting on your maps upon request.)
I realize this is a very debatable topic, but simply put, any sort of public rating system will ultimately result in chaos. One user will give a map a low vote, the author of said map will then get mad at the voter and snipe one or a few of his maps, then both users will end up sniping every one of the other author's maps, and both users will have a significantly lower average rating. Then the two of them will try to snipe the authors whose average ratings are higher than their own, and those authors will return the favor... it'll just be a war zone!

[Nexx]

Well, it seems like we're all agreed on the issue of implementation, so that leads me straight to:

I realize this is a very debatable topic, but simply put, any sort of public rating system will ultimately result in chaos. One user will give a map a low vote, the author of said map will then get mad at the voter and snipe one or a few of his maps, then both users will end up sniping every one of the other author's maps, and both users will have a significantly lower average rating. Then the two of them will try to snipe the authors whose average ratings are higher than their own, and those authors will return the favor... it'll just be a war zone!

Why does everybody say that? It's completely preposterous! As I said earlier, as soon as you get a few snipes, you click "report abuse", because surely you'd prefer raising your average back to what it was than simply dropping some other guy's down.

For the record, it would NOT result in chaos and disorder and corruption. It would be just fine. Some sites use just such a system, and those sites run A-OK.

As I said above, I'm still agreed on it not being implemented.

[Fraxtil]

Why does everybody say that? It's completely preposterous! As I said earlier, as soon as you get a few snipes, you click "report abuse", because surely you'd prefer raising your average back to what it was than simply dropping some other guy's down.

That's what a sane person would do. People can easily behave irrationally when they're frustrated, and even if they do click "report abuse", what if the vote was a legitimately low rating? Furthermore, if people don't snipe because another author gave them a low rating, then why do they snipe? Are they just mad because the other author is more popular?

Debate aside, yesterday I added a help link to the end of all error messages. The link points to a small documentation of the error and possible causes.

[Amadeus]

I agree with Gforce on this one
It only takes one person (him) to know if a map has been sniped
If you suspect, say so, and he can tell

[Fraxtil]

Updates:
Some weird bugs on the map browsing page have been fixed. For example, if a title had more than one word, all words except the first appeared as tags. Also, there was a bug where the first map wouldn't appear.
The browsing page now supports start= and count=, but there are no 'next' or 'previous' links (yet).
I've begun to work on the map editing feature.

[SkyPanda]

That's ridiculous.

Agree to disagree, then. We can never know til its been tried, anyway.

[Fraxtil]

Okay, you guys lost me a few posts back. This argument is getting way too complicated. Will a poll satisfy you?
New poll: Should voting be public?

Aside from that issue, the "Next" and "Previous" links are implemented now. Next to be implemented: map editing, sorting by views and number of favorites, and custom theme selection.

[Nexx]

Okay, you guys lost me a few posts back. This argument is getting way too complicated. Will a poll satisfy you?
New poll: Should voting be public?

Sorry! You needn't have done that. I was quite serious when I said I was against it, but I took the opportunity to discuss it in theory, primarily because I was against it for reasons other than that I thought it would result in chaos and stuff. I simply sought to defend the idea on that front while it was being talked about.

But it's good to know that you're listening in and I'm glad to hear that other things are coming along.

[isaacx]

But dont people when they rate, usually say what they rate the map? This is VERY confuzing

[wumbla]

I've always wanted a voting system by a percent, so out of 100, I thought this would be teh most accuarate way of voting and will give teh author a good idea about how thier maps were rated.

[Fraxtil]

I've always wanted a voting system by a percent, so out of 100, I thought this would be teh most accuarate way of voting and will give teh author a good idea about how thier maps were rated.

Well, the decided system is ?.?/10, so it's just as accurate as a percentage.

Also, incluye has PM'd me his design idea, and I'm quite impressed. I've begun to implement it with CSS. (Rhyme unintentional)

[KlanKaos]

Ahahaha.

It took me a couple reads through to get that one.

But srsly, I'm glad you got incluye on board, 'cause I think he's pretty awesome at graphics stuff. Can't wait to see what he's done.

[Arachnid]

Why does everybody say that? It's completely preposterous! As I said earlier, as soon as you get a few snipes, you click "report abuse", because surely you'd prefer raising your average back to what it was than simply dropping some other guy's down.

That's what a sane person would do. People can easily behave irrationally when they're frustrated, and even if they do click "report abuse", what if the vote was a legitimately low rating? Furthermore, if people don't snipe because another author gave them a low rating, then why do they snipe? Are they just mad because the other author is more popular?

Debate aside, yesterday I added a help link to the end of all error messages. The link points to a small documentation of the error and possible causes.

In addition to GForce's other points, a couple more:

First, let's examine a likely typical sequence of events. Alice rate's Bob's map a 1, because she thinks it deserves it. Bob sees this, gets angry, clicks 'report', and then goes and retaliates by finding Alice's worst map and rating it a (justified, he thinks), 1. Alice sees this, gets angry, clicks 'report', and goes and votes down 5 more of Bob's maps. Repeat ad infinitum.

A few hours later, a mod comes along and sees a storm of reported users/maps and low votes. They're now expected to spend _how_ long exactly making judgement calls about the validity of votes, undoing votes, and straightening the whole thing out?

And what of the storm of reports on individual low votes? You're now making the proper rating of a map (and thus, whether or not it's a 'snipe' to rate it low) a judgement call by a mod, not an actual decision by a group of users.

The other problem with open voting - even as a voluntary option for voters - is that it makes collusion practical. I can agree to rate all your maps a 5 if you rate all mine likewise, and I can actually check up and make sure you filled your part of the bargain.

[chume14]

Well, the decided system is ?.?/10, so it's just as accurate as a percentage.

Thank you so much I've always thought rating should be out of 10 (its exactly the same as half ratings just more sensible and looks better)

Also I know there is a poll but I'm saying here votes should not be public for all the reasons already given plus a couple more that I'm not sure it they have been mentioned

A few hours later, a mod comes along and sees a storm of reported users/maps and low votes. They're now expected to spend _how_ long exactly making judgement calls about the validity of votes, undoing votes, and straightening the whole thing out?

Who says the mods judgement is correct anyways it would end up being anyone who thinks a map is bad when a mod thinks its good is wrong which takes away the point anyone who isn't a mod rating at all.

also it would effectively eradicate the use of ratings below 2 or something like 4 in Gforces system I know I wouldn't take the risk of giveing a noob whose map deserved it 1 even with explanation to likely to end up causing offense and difficulty for me I just wouldn't bother rating unless I liked it which would give noobs less feedback=bad

This is just my opinion I do think mods should be able to see ratings in order to identify ongoing patterns of sniping not just a single map. There could even be a function for average rating given which only mods could see that would show up people who gave consistently high or low ratings.

also Its nice to see you taking a constructive role arachnid thats a really positive thing to be doing (makes me feel all warm inside =) so respect to you

edit: looks like the polls going my way hoozar!

[Fraxtil]

New poll: Should voting require a review? (Should a user who votes on a map need to leave a comment as well?) This is separate from the public voting topic: votes can still be hidden, even if a comment is required.

Yesterday I implemented the "number of views" field. It isn't supported as a sorting method yet, but that will literally take 60 seconds to code.

[aids]

New poll: Should voting require a review? (Should a user who votes on a map need to leave a comment as well?) This is separate from the public voting topic: votes can still be hidden, even if a comment is required.

boo! 1.

technically I left a review, so I counts all the same. it will never be possible to to totally eradicate spam, but if you for think this will lower it, good luck.

[KlanKaos]

I voted no. It would probably increase people spamming because they're too lazy to comment but they have to post something, so they post something worthless. Comments need to mean something.

[Nexx]

New poll: Should voting require a review? (Should a user who votes on a map need to leave a comment as well?) This is separate from the public voting topic: votes can still be hidden, even if a comment is required.

That's a bad idea in theory, and a pointless idea in reality. The former because I imagine pretty much everyone has wanted to rate without commenting at least once before (I've done it a few times myself), and the latter because how are you going to enforce it? Making people type at least 1 character is much too simple to get around, and making a higher limit starts saying that simple comments like "5/5 loved it" are not welcome, which isn't true. It's just an all-around bad idea.

[Fraxtil]

New poll: Should voting require a review? (Should a user who votes on a map need to leave a comment as well?) This is separate from the public voting topic: votes can still be hidden, even if a comment is required.

That's a bad idea in theory, and a pointless idea in reality. The former because I imagine pretty much everyone has wanted to rate without commenting at least once before (I've done it a few times myself), and the latter because how are you going to enforce it? Making people type at least 1 character is much too simple to get around, and making a higher limit starts saying that simple comments like "5/5 loved it" are not welcome, which isn't true. It's just an all-around bad idea.

I guess I didn't really think about how it could be abused like that. I guess it's pretty much decided, then- comments and votes shall be separate.