Metanet Forums

I suggest to get the 3.5/5 4.5/5 etc back. it's gives a more precise look on a map's rating. and mostly I rate 3 or 4 but sometimes I just need the 3.5/5!

this post will problable ignored or something, but I hope the half-ratings will come back.

Ratings are bad.

Get over them.

They're just ratings.
RATINGS.

I would've agreed with you about the same time the new site was here, but now after a while, it doesn't really matter to me at all, as there is a wide range of quality within the maps rated 4. Some are ridiculously bad, while others ought to be rated 5.
It's personal opinion of course, but isn't the feedback in a comment much better than the rating? I'd say yes.

NO!

I think the rounding of the ratings served to take emphasis off of them; to me it seems that I rarely ever get a rating without a comment, since now you have to say exactly where in the range of "4" or "3" you think your rating lies, resulting in better feedback for all.

I am fine with either half ratings or whole ratings for viewing a rating. No opinion there. However, people should be able to VOTE with .5's if they want to. Taking that away was rather short-sighted of the admins, and they have yet to own up for it. But at least they're consistent, right? That is, they haven't owned up for the removal of top-rated either, or for the removal of the all-authors list, or--darn, there I go again.

b3njamin wrote:I suggest to get the 3.5/5 4.5/5 etc back. it's gives a more precise look on a map's rating. and mostly I rate 3 or 4 but sometimes I just need the 3.5/5!

this post will problable ignored or something, but I hope the half-ratings will come back.

Half-ratings are unneeded. Just think of 4 as the new 4.5.

Avarin wrote:Taking that away was rather short-sighted of the admins, and they have yet to own up for it. But at least they're consistent, right? That is, they haven't owned up for the removal of top-rated either, or for the removal of the all-authors list, or--darn, there I go again.

Actually, it wasn't short-sighted of the admins. Who really cares whether your map has an overall average of 4 or 4.5? It's not that huge of a leap from one to the other.
As for Top Rated, I never really checked that, as every time I did Afternoon Dragon was at the top, followed by a bunch of other really well done maps. If a map only stays at the top of the Top Rated list for no more than 10 minutes at the most, what is the point of having one? Top Rated should have shown maps that were Top Rated for the moment only, and that is what the float-and-sink method of the Hot Maps section tries to do. Show top rated maps for as long as people are voting well on them, not by weight.
The All Authors list is something that needs to come back and should have a system like the forum does for member search.
Bitesized was a nice idea and was one of the things which I had hoped could be integrated into the new system, but unfortunately it wasn't. I'd love to have bitesized/featured next to each other but I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe if reviewers could both bitesize and review, meaning for the Best of the Best we could write a few words on, but for the best of the moment we could just highlight.

I dunno, I don't agree with the half-votes, I don't like the idea of Top Rated, and I think bitesized should come back.

Why do people who don't think its important and have no opinion on the subject need to post here? :/


Personally, i'm fine with whole number ratings, because I agree with whoever it was ages ago who said that decimal ratings imply a degree of accuracy that isn't really possible, or something like that.

But i'm slightly confused about there being no "average" option. A map can only be above or below average?



EDIT:

atob wrote:So we can gather a consensus. It is useful, even if it's annoying sometimes.

Ah no, I was referring to the people who don't put forward their own point of view but instead simply tell others to stop debating the issue. But I suppose they are technically in a roundabout way putting forward their opinion of indifference, so nevermind :P

SkyPanda wrote:Why do people who don't think its important and have no opinion on the subject need to post here? :/

So we can gather a consensus. It is useful, even if it's annoying sometimes.

I was against the removal of .5 ratings from the start, but Arachnid has insisted that they'll never be reinstated so I've backed down from the issue.

As for the stuff Avarin mentioned, the decision to remove certain features were for the best: it took an edge of the negative competitive aspects of the archive. There is definitely some work to be done, though (search features, some kind of all authors listing, FIX FEATURED MAPS, etc...)

In removing the half ratings, the administrators have effectively reduced its importance to the community. The ratings system doesn't truly reflect the quality of a map, and only exists as a rough measure.

George wrote:In removing the half ratings, the administrators have effectively reduced its importance to the community. The ratings system doesn't truly reflect the quality of a map, and only exists as a rough measure.

My thoughts exactly. The idea that ratings, which can easily be misjudged and false, are the biggest indicator of the maps ability is wrong. Only through proper feedback and maybe a feature is a map considered amazing, not its 5 for 5 votes.

I think we definitely need the half-rating back if we want the ratings to be accurate. If you would rather have comments than ratings, just disable ratings. As a mathematician, I DEMAND ACCURACY! People and their obsession with integers!

"Eh, just define pi and e as 3 and phi as 2. It's close enough. Pi and e are close enough to be about the same significance. Let's just use 3 instead!"




...WOO! BASE 3 IS THE NEW NATURAL LOGARITHM!!

*Note: I don't think allowing users to rate maps as irrational numbers is a good idea

I say we rate from 0 to 10. You know, like how normal people rate stuff.

I'm literally flipping coins now to decide what to rate maps.

If a rating system is going to be in place, there needs to be the option for an 'average' score. This is my problem with the .5 removal.

Exüberance wrote:I think we definitely need the half-rating back if we want the ratings to be accurate. If you would rather have comments than ratings, just disable ratings. As a mathematician, I DEMAND ACCURACY! People and their obsession with integers!

"Eh, just define pi and e as 3 and phi as 2. It's close enough. Pi and e are close enough to be about the same significance. Let's just use 3 instead!"




...WOO! BASE 3 IS THE NEW NATURAL LOGARITHM!!

*Note: I don't think allowing users to rate maps as irrational numbers is a good idea

I say we rate from 0 to 10. You know, like how normal people rate stuff.

I'm literally flipping coins now to decide what to rate maps.

NO.
a showing of 4.5 was no more exact than a showing of 4. The score of 4.5 meant anything between 4.500 and 4.749. You start out your post saying, "People and their obsession with integers!" and end it with, "I say we rate from 0-10. Y'know, how normal people rate stuff."

Last time I checked 0-10 were integers. Which leads me to believe you don't really know what you want in a ratings system, just so long as it reminds you of something you were all too familiar with.

also, your "pi and e" example can be applied to half ratings. Let's round pi to 3 and e to 2.5. Because 2.71 is closer to 2.5 than it is to 3. And pi is closer to 3 than it is to 3.5. Please, don't come in here criticizing the new ratings system if you're not going to say something that actually means anything.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. It's just a rating system. The result of a 4 vote and a 5 vote is rounded up to show a perfect 5. And if another 4 vote is placed it's rounded down to show a 4. Though it is "less accurate" than the old ratings system it's not like ratings ever mattered in the first place, right?

The current system puts more emphasis on comments rather than ratings. An average of 4 says little about the map, whereas a comment can say a million different things.

southpaw wrote:I don't see what the big deal is anyway. It's just a rating system. The result of a 4 vote and a 5 vote is rounded up to show a perfect 5. And if another 4 vote is placed it's rounded down to show a 4. Though it is "less accurate" than the old ratings system it's not like ratings ever mattered in the first place, right?

Ratings must matter to somebody, otherwise we wouldn't have them, right? :/

southpaw wrote:The current system puts more emphasis on comments rather than ratings. An average of 4 says little about the map, whereas a comment can say a million different things.

Are you saying "We made the ratings system worse, so that people are forced to comment"?
xD

NO.
a showing of 4.5 was no more exact than a showing of 4. The score of 4.5 meant anything between 4.500 and 4.749.

...

what?

4 basically means [ 3.5 , 4.5 )
or in the half-rating system
4 means mean [ 3.75 , 4.25 ), which is obviously more accurate exact because it's half the interval.

I fail to see your point.
Twice as many options means you can describe the map twice as well, since there's less gray area.

Having a 4.5 option was good. I used that a lot.
Obviously adding too much exactness (say 0.1 increments on a 0 - 10 scale) is a bit excessive because then the exactness becomes meaningless as you can only really describe how much you liked a map so accurately without overthinking it.

It's also more informative to the author too when then can see their maps score in 1/2 increments. At least bring back the abliity to see a maps rating in 1/2 increments or better even if you can't vote in those increments.

We don't need the halef ratings back. What we should do, however, is add or subtract one option to the rating scale, resulting in either 0 to 4 or 0 to 6. Both of these would give an average option, something the current system is missing.

0 (worthless)
1 (very poor)
2 (below average)
3 (average)
4 (above average)
5 (very good)
6 (flawless)

Condog wrote:We don't need the halef ratings back. What we should do, however, is add or subtract one option to the rating scale, resulting in either 0 to 4 or 0 to 6. Both of these would give an average option, something the current system is missing.

0 (worthless)
1 (very poor)
2 (below average)
3 (average)
4 (above average)
5 (very good)
6 (flawless)

Good idea.

29403 wrote:0 (worthless)
1 (very poor)
2 (below average)
3 (average)
4 (above average)
5 (very good)
6 (flawless)

Changed the colours a bit. I love that idea.

I actually think that's a better colour scheme!

It's a thought, but it's more conventional to have ratings system based on a multiple of five. I would say double it to ten, but it'd a hell of a lot of ninjas, and that would be essentially a replacement of the half rating system.

George wrote:It's a thought, but it's more conventional to have ratings system based on a multiple of five. I would say double it to ten, but it'd a hell of a lot of ninjas, and that would be essentially a replacement of the half rating system.

Yeah, that's what I had suggested before.

But the 0 - 6 rating system... I LIKE IT!!
CONDOG FOR PREZ

Oh, so many posts to respond to! (read: my post is going to be huge.)

First, I'm ignoring all posts about ratings being bad or not mattering. Ratings have a unique, useful purpose, and if you really want to contest that, just hold on a few days as I'm thinking I might create a thread to discuss the semantics of ratings. But my point is to leave out such comments as they are off-topic.

Second, those who want ratings to be out of 10, you are misdirected, and please give your argument a little thought before you present it. The ninja display of ratings is an integral part of NUMA. Having 10 ninjas (ex: 8 full and 2 empty for an 8/10 rating) would be annoying. It would be better to just use 5 ninjas, using full ninjas and half-full ninjas to represent all the numbers. But wait, that's the .5 system! As for having 0 - 10 in the drop down box, 0 - 5 is just those numbers halved (if .5's were included), so it shouldn't be a problem.

And now, for the topic at hand. There are 2 different parts to ratings. There's:
1) What values users are allowed to rate, and
2) What values are allowed to show in the average rating.

For example, at Newgrounds, they use a 0 - 5 system with (1) being whole numbers only and (2) being taken out to 2 decimal places. In my first post, I was saying that whole numbers are fine for (2), but .5's should be allowed for (1), and their removal from (1) was short-sighted. Also, I would like to amend my position on (2) to embracing exclusion of .5's.

Explanations:
For (1), I think users should be able to rate whatever the hell they want. Typically there are other considerations at hand, such as the UI (in NUMA's case, there's a drop-down box that displays all possible values), display of individual votes (like at Newgrounds), etc. Typically this results in a good compromise of the integrals 0 - 10 or 0 - 5. Per my argument above, 5 is extremely likely to remain the upper limit at NUMA. However, if a lot of users are complaining about the inability to use the .5's (and they are), then .5's should be there. Those who want to use them will use them, and those who don't, won't. And if you disagree that a lot of users are complaining, just browse a few random maps. Chances are you'll see a "x.5 rounded up/down" comment. Also, allowing .5's for voting shouldn't be a problem because of the next section.

(2) should use whole numbers only. I had a long discussion with epigone about this on the old forums, and basically my final argument was "4 represents a huge range now, from 3.5 to 4.5", which epigone countered with (something to the effect of) "It doesn't matter if you're looking at maps with 3.5, 4, or 4.5. The point is you're looking at good maps." If you deconstruct that statement, you'll see that he won. There's two reasons for this:
- NUMA is imperfect
- Community consensus != your consensus

Why is NUMA imperfect? Because ratings fluctuate depending on how many people rated, who those people were, and even sometimes what state those people were in at the time. "I agree, but so what?" said I, on the old forums. "Once you get about 10 - 15 votes, your chance error goes way down." If you think about it though, that's not really true. Even at 10 votes it still matters quite a bit who those 10 were. In any case, NUMA is a smallish internet community, and most maps don't even get 5 rates. Even if you exclude noob maps, the average # of rates would certainly be no more than 7 or 8. 7 or 8! Suffice it to say, that's hardly a community consensus.

Which brings me right to the second point, which is that even if NUMA provided a perfect community consensus of all maps, that would not necessarily make the ratings any more useful for users because personal tastes vary considerably.

Thus, as George said:

George wrote:The ratings system doesn't truly reflect the quality of a map, and only exists as a rough measure.

And therefore a more general system is better.

So that's my case for .5's. What do you all think of it?

Some final notes:
For those okay with rating in whole numbers but not liking the absence of an "average" option, please keep in mind that rating out of 5 is an incredibly common system given our base of 10, and furthermore that you don't have to go by what the drop-down menu tells you the specific ratings mean. I have always despised comparing something against "average" for grading it (because what the hell is "average"?) But in any case, I'm saying you should take the text of "above average" on 3/5 and substitute something that suits your personal philosophy better, be it anything from "neutral" to "pretty decent".

CONDOG FOR PREZ

Hear Hear to that!