!!! _ _ PETITION _ _ !!!

[DanYjel]

!!!PETITION!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big problem at J2O. Trafton and Violet often make improper use of their administrator status. They are editing almost every short review and remove rating with reasons too short and undetailed. They probably want to see objective reviews on .:their:. web. But what are reviews for, what is objective? So is it useless to do any reviews these days?
BECAUSE: TO MAKE OBJECTIVE RATINGS YOU NEED LOTS OF .:::SUBJECTIVE:::. RATINGS WHICH ARE MADE OF .:::FEELINGS:::. OF REVIEWERS.



But they're saying they will delete it because it's not detailed. But subjective feelings do not always have to be detailed, do they?



Although, if they hate undetailed reviews, what's this???





Review by Trafton AT (J2O admin) Rating: 7.7

A very good space level, especially with all the Mezz-based horrors out there.




And this is unfair. If they want to see objective reviews, why didn’t Trafton remove his rating? We want admins to repair bugs, double reviews, delete multiple accounts... But not to make unfair reviews...



Also, that review was made when there weren’t many people posting long reviews and it was accepted... SO STOP BEING UNFAIR!!!



So, everybody, stop with supporting that! Stop writing reviews until they reasonably convey to this and they will stop with it.



Write here everybody, who agrees.



PLEASE! It will be helpful to everybody in the Jazz Jackrabbit community.

[cooba]

Do you know date of review? Trafton may posted this before he went adminmadd0.

[MoonBlazE]

You have to understand that rating standards have changed over time, the review by Trafton you quoted is three years old.

In your review you need to support your opinion. You aren't being asked for two pages, just valid support that explains WHY it is bad or good to you. Writting one line, "this is good", is going to result to be removed.

Also I see no reason to blame Trafton and Violet. They just enforce the rules. They didn't make them.

[Trafton]

You should probably have done some back reading before posting this petition.

http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showthread.php?p=218500

This topic explored the evils of removing the ratings from older reviews, something which I never actually did. In it, it was decided that since review standards have changed over time, we will not be removing ratings from old reviews due to length - only new ones. There is no "double standard" here. I regret writing such stupid reviews, and try to repair them when I get the chance.

Although a public spectacle is always welcome, it would be nice if you had private messaged me to inform me of my "double standard" before posting a semi-factual JCF entry. Not that you should have not posted this to avoid my being embarassed or anything; if I did something wrong, I deserve to be embarassed, but I do not think I did anything wrong here. However, it would have at least been worthwhile to inform me of my behavior in a more direct way.

Either way, this is a case of irresponsible reviewing several years ago, and nothing more. If you still want to file some sort of complaint, I will - as I do with every viable user comment - make a note of it for the other administrators to see.

~ Traft

[DanYjel]

AND what about OBJECTIVITY?

[DanYjel]

i know lot of people (300 reviews and more) who stopped review only because it. They are boycotting it long time. This Topic is NOT MY IDEA!!!

[Risp_old]

So these boycotting reviewers told you to make this topic?

[Violet CLM]

Will this topic never die?

[cooba]

DIE, TOPIC

Derby: Severe filter bypass removal. Never filter a word on your own; let the filter catch it.

[Trafton]

AND what about OBJECTIVITY?
What about it? Objectivity is the ability to make a judgment about something. I don't know where objectivity even came into the view here.

i know lot of people (300 reviews and more) who stopped review only because it. They are boycotting it long time. This Topic is NOT MY IDEA!!!
For information's sake, there are only seven reviewers who meet the criteria: Taz (341), dx dc (367), Blackraptor (412), Violet CLM (429), Labratkid (482), aiko (534), and me (652). Of those, five still actively review, while only Taz and aiko no longer commonly do. Taz, I believe, simply stopped reviewing due to inactivity months and months ago; aiko has not reviewed actively in over a year. It would be interesting to meet these people you describe.

If it was not your idea, why did you post it? Why did you not let the other person post it?

I am fine with receiving criticism, but you have to give me something that I can reply to in order to defend myself. It is more effective to give a reasonable description, anyway, as that will make it more likely that there will be reprimand, if necessary.

~ Traft

[Lama]

I regret writing such stupid reviews, and try to repair them when I get the chance.


This review was done a bit over a year ago (definitely NOT 2 or 3 years ago):

Original Link: http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads/moreinfo.php?levelid=1505



No comment.

<font color="red">[This review has been edited by Trafton AT]</font>


I don't know when you passed the rule that useless reviews will be removed but is that how you repair reviews?

[Tubz]

--No total offense when I say this though--
~I'm glad that Trafton doesn't have power in JCF
~Trafton reminds me so much of Simon from American Idol, doesn't actually do the job, just gets to rate meaning. Simon doesn't sing or ever has, I think, he just gets to flame or commend the singers....Basically review...

[Violet CLM]

So you're saying that Trafton doesn't review things, all he does is tell people how what's wrong or right with their reviews and how to improve them? Ok.

[DanYjel]

Trafton never did it so often like you, Violet. Just don't delete ratings to save any objectivity... You can say "this is short" but not "this is short so rating removed". It makes J2O your own and not our...



TY KRIPLE! (-David)

[ShadowGPW]

note to all:
- keep it civil.
- Poll Closed and results edited to 0 - 0.
Because it does not represent the perspective of the admins at J2O or JCF.

[Trafton]

This review was done a bit over a year ago (definitely NOT 2 or 3 years ago):

Original Link: http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads/moreinfo.php?levelid=1505
J2O did not exist that long ago. It was probably in mid or late 2002; back then, this sort of review was acceptable.

I don't know when you passed the rule that useless reviews will be removed but is that how you repair reviews?
A while back, users started to complain that reviews were of poor quality. They were too short, and Newspaz started to remove them. If you mean "you" as in me, I have never passed any new rule that I am aware of. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I suppose the short answer would be yes. Part of "repairing" the downloads section would include removing ratings that are unexplained - the reviews are left as is.

--No total offense when I say this though--
Absolutely none taken.

~I'm glad that Trafton doesn't have power in JCF
As am I.

~Trafton reminds me so much of Simon from American Idol, doesn't actually do the job, just gets to rate meaning. Simon doesn't sing or ever has, I think, he just gets to flame or commend the singers....Basically review...
This is an odd analogy. What job am I not doing? This example would be true if I never reviewed, but the fact is that I HAVE reviewed - quite a lot - and so has Violet. If you mean creating levels, I no longer upload many, but I do create them when I get a chance. I have used JCS for a long time, and am decent with it. Not that it would matter; a basic understanding of JCS mechanics is really all that is required.

Trafton never did it so often like you, Violet. Just don't delete ratings to save any objectivity... You can say "this is short" but not "this is short so rating removed". It makes J2O your own and not our...
I am not sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that the J2O administrators are turning it into our site instead of yours, that's an odd point. It sort of is our site - not as much us base admins, but the "main" admins. We maintain the site, and have control over it. It's to some extent an authoritarian meritocracy.

I am going to share this in the J2O Administrators Forum because you feel so strongly about it. I cannot promise there will be any response, but I will do my best to represent what you are trying to say there.

~ Traft

[Ninja]

originally posted by trafton: J2O did not exist that long ago. It was probably in mid or late 2002; back then, this sort of review was acceptable.


bs. so why were reviews back then that you didnt deem right edited?

[Violet CLM]

...unless you're speaking about something we don't know about, we've been over this before. They WERE edited, but it was an ACCIDENT, and they have ALL been put BACK AGAIN.

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

!!!PETITION!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big problem at J2O. Trafton and Violet often make improper use of their administrator status. They are editing almost every short review and remove rating with reasons too short and undetailed. They probably want to see objective reviews on .:their:. web. But what are reviews for, what is objective? So is it useless to do any reviews these days?
BECAUSE: TO MAKE OBJECTIVE RATINGS YOU NEED LOTS OF .:::SUBJECTIVE:::. RATINGS WHICH ARE MADE OF .:::FEELINGS:::. OF REVIEWERS.



But they're saying they will delete it because it's not detailed. But subjective feelings do not always have to be detailed, do they?



Although, if they hate undetailed reviews, what's this???








And this is unfair. If they want to see objective reviews, why didn’t Trafton remove his rating? We want admins to repair bugs, double reviews, delete multiple accounts... But not to make unfair reviews...



Also, that review was made when there weren’t many people posting long reviews and it was accepted... SO STOP BEING UNFAIR!!!



So, everybody, stop with supporting that! Stop writing reviews until they reasonably convey to this and they will stop with it.



Write here everybody, who agrees.



PLEASE! It will be helpful to everybody in the Jazz Jackrabbit community.

I'm mad! Then they remove ratings they does it for a resson, you're self unfair of talking to the admins like that!

[Violet CLM]

I can't really tell if this is still being discussed, but I just went through all my reviews and removed every single rating of mine which I found unsupported. I will willingly do this for anyone who requests the service, due to their not liking their old reviews but being too lazy to do it themselves (or having forgotten their old password).

[DanYjel]

but one rating doesn't makes nothing.

In J2Ov2 you can highlight, like new post in PM, red (bad rev) and blue (super rev) reviews what you are not glad with (in .:reviews:. and in .:All reviews by user:. too)

It will be good, especially if you will make table of 10 worst and 10 best reviewers (sorted by % of red and blue highlighted reviews. Please reply...

[DanYjel]

i hate automatic smilies... LoL

[Trafton]

but one rating doesn't makes nothing.

In J2Ov2 you can highlight, like new post in PM, red (bad rev) and blue (super rev) reviews what you are not glad with (in .:reviews:. and in .:All reviews by user:. too)

It will be good, especially if you will make table of 10 worst and 10 best reviewers (sorted by % of red and blue highlighted reviews. Please reply...
...Huh?

One rating can severely affect a level's rating. That logic is logicless. What are you saying in the second and third paragraphs? I do not understand.

~ Traft

[DanYjel]

...Huh?

One rating can severely affect a level's rating. That logic is logicless. What are you saying in the second and third paragraphs? I do not understand.

~ Traft

I think that you can add (like author's name and rating) third column, review rating. Red(-1), normal(0), blue(1). And from this make table of bests and worsts reviewers...

[DanYjel]

Trafton, i don't hate you...

[Violet CLM]

Are you suggesting a review/reviewer rating system? If so, many such things have been thought of in the pass, but we're still looking for one that isn't biased. Yours is a little too biased to work.

On a side note, I like how you claimed your original complaint was useless as soon as it was addressed. REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE!!!11111

[DanYjel]

Yes. But on J2O downloads will objectivity and that's important. By the way this system is biased only little, that's not the problem. Whole system is strange...

[MoonBlazE]

Peharps it's strange to you because it does not farvor you?

[Trafton]

Yes. But on J2O downloads will objectivity and that's important. By the way this system is biased only little, that's not the problem. Whole system is strange...
The truth is that there is no way to take the bias out of any system which involves human intervention. If it could be done manually, I'm sure it would be. Unless there is any significantly better solution, which I have not heard, it is not really worth bringing up as I see it.

Additionally, I did not think you hated me...but, for the record, I'm glad you don't.

~ Traft

[FQuist]

I would reply but this topic has had so many twists and turns that I don't know anymore what to reply to.

I will say I support Trafton and Violet in this. I see no reason to think they're inept at their jobs.

[DanYjel]

When Trafton was only .:: active ::. administrator, it was O.K. But now, when Violet is admin too, it's triple. Trafton didn't do that always when he wanted. Or yes, but he wanted much much less... Violet does it always when it's short and undetail. But REVIEW CAN BE OBJECTIVE...

K. I can agree with that like Traftie was doing it... But now, admins don't cooperate (I think) and there are lot of them (too - two). First things what I do when I go to J2O is looking to my reviews and look at all N/As. It wasn't so often, when there repaired BAD REVIEWS only Trafton. It was once per three weeks...

so what, unknown?

[Violet CLM]

So you're saying the problem is that when you don't follow the rules, it gets noticed more quickly?

[Tubz]

This petition seems to be out of order or something. Perhaps if you have a website, you should make your poll on that website and tell people to vote on the poll. Or try your poll in #jj2 or something.

[Ninja]

...unless you're speaking about something we don't know about, we've been over this before. They WERE edited, but it was an ACCIDENT, and they have ALL been put BACK AGAIN.


I wish I knew how to accidently edit over 200 levels. =9

[DanYjel]

...but Violet's system is better. He says what he wants to improve, not like Trafton. But Trafton did it only in cases when it was needed...

[FQuist]

I wish I knew how to accidently edit over 200 levels. =9
There are multiple kinds of accidents, Ninja besides the the "oops I clicked the button" accident. You should know that.

[DanYjel]

???

[Tubz]

^^^

Apparently you don't want to listen to my suggestion. Oh well, I am sure it would help.

[DanYjel]

i only don't understand

[MoonBlazE]

What a shame. Now let this topic die, please.

[Trafton]

...but Violet's system is better. He says what he wants to improve, not like Trafton. But Trafton did it only in cases when it was needed...
Huh? I have suggested a slightly more lenient set of rules in the J2O Admin's Forum. I do my best to improve. Not that it matters; it's not like you get to vote for admins and need to weigh the best candidate choice.

I wish I knew how to accidently edit over 200 levels. =9
More accurately, it was a misunderstanding, not an accident.

i only don't understand
I do not want to sound rude, but I am beginning to believe you are simply pretending to be confused for the purposes of keeping this topic alive and keeping the spotlight on this. What don't you understand? PM me about it unless there is some reason it should be public. This topic deserves death.

This petition seems to be out of order or something. Perhaps if you have a website, you should make your poll on that website and tell people to vote on the poll. Or try your poll in #jj2 or something.
The poll isn't going to do anything, no matter where it is. This is the best forum for suggestions, but we can't improve if all that we receive is complaints, not recommendations. If we already knew what was the best method for everything, we would be doing it. However, this has gone way beyond the realm of simple suggestion into the realm of just looking for continued attention.

What a shame. Now let this topic die, please.
Thank you.

~ Traft

[Lama]

J2O did not exist that long ago. It was probably in mid or late 2002; back then, this sort of review was acceptable.



Warning: The following paragraph will attempt to explain the utterly obvious

What do you mean it did not exist that long ago? The date on the link I provided clearly proves that J2O did exist during the time the review was made. If there was no J2O, how can you write a review for a level that was uploaded to J2O? :cool:



A while back, users started to complain that reviews were of poor quality. They were too short, and Newspaz started to remove them. If you mean "you" as in me, I have never passed any new rule that I am aware of. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I suppose the short answer would be yes. Part of "repairing" the downloads section would include removing ratings that are unexplained - the reviews are left as is.



Okay, so back then it was Newspaz who removes poor quality reviews. You said in this thread:



I regret writing such stupid reviews, and try to repair them when I get the chance.



So, now, I know that when you say "repair" you mean, you would leave the reviews that have no use, such as "No Comment" as is, and the only real action you would take is to remove only the ratings.

But, imo, if you wrote a "stupid review," (as you stated) removing the rating and leaving the review as is, does not make the review any less stupid. My recommendation, so that you don't say I just complained, is that when you "repair," you should do something about the "stupid review" itself, not just the rating.

I wish I knew how to accidently edit over 200 levels. =9

You need to be a J2O Admin and you need to have the special skills needed for mass accidental edits (which even Derby does not have). :lol:

[Violet CLM]

The review is still just as stupid. The repairing part is preventing the review from actually doing anything to the average rating of the upload in question. And Disguise likes seeing old bad reviews, so we just remove the ratings and leave the text (or lack of it).

[Link]

This topic is getting very confusing, but I think useful discussion can happen. This post is to focus the subject.

There seem to be two discussions happening here. One relating to hypocrisy in edits, and the other relating to review standards. There is no need to continue with the first. People who have problems with Trafton's reviews can talk to him through private messaging.

The second was already discussed previously (http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showthread.php?t=10322), but it could possibly continue here. The concern seems to be objective versus subjective reviews.

A subjective review is based on feelings and emotions. For example, "I really liked this level because it was fun when I played it in X's server and it uses my favorite tileset."

An objective review is based on critical analysis: how good it is from a technical perspective. For example, "This level has lots of eyecandy, making full use of Z tileset, and has good flow in a medium-size server but can get crowded at times."

The debate is whether subjective reviews should be allowed to have ratings that affect the average rating. Currently they cannot.

[Trafton]

Warning: The following paragraph will attempt to explain the utterly obvious

What do you mean it did not exist that long ago? The date on the link I provided clearly proves that J2O did exist during the time the review was made. If there was no J2O, how can you write a review for a level that was uploaded to J2O? :cool:
You misunderstand. I was referring to whoever said the review was "three or four years old" (whatever the original quote was.)

Okay, so back then it was Newspaz who removes poor quality reviews. You said in this thread:



So, now, I know that when you say "repair" you mean, you would leave the reviews that have no use, such as "No Comment" as is, and the only real action you would take is to remove only the ratings.

But, imo, if you wrote a "stupid review," (as you stated) removing the rating and leaving the review as is, does not make the review any less stupid. My recommendation, so that you don't say I just complained, is that when you "repair," you should do something about the "stupid review" itself, not just the rating.
No. By repair I mean write good, helpful, informative reviews. Removing the ratings is not the point. Many who knew me well back then that still know me well are quite aware that I have worked very hard to fix the moron I was back then. Rather, to work at fixing it; I am no less moronic than I was back then, but I harness my stupidity and direct it at something, perhaps turning it into a productive element.

As for your suggestion: that's an interesting suggestion indeed, but we don't remove ratings to avoid stupidity. The ratings are removed just because the reviewer doesn't explain themselves enough that it becomes obvious their decision is based on facts, not just some vendetta against the reviewer or a friendship.

The point is not to protect against stupidity, or I would be the one being banned, not being an admin. Rather, it is to make sure no one is cheating on the ratings system and that people who take the time to seriously look at the level and review it get more credibility than someone who just rates someone based on their name.

You need to be a J2O Admin and you need to have the special skills needed for mass accidental edits (which even Derby does not have). :lol:
I recall one day I spent an hour removing 214 reviews from J2O that a certain user had posted, and then deleting twelve accounts he had made to do it. I asked him later why he did it, and he replied "I was bored." I don't like bringing up the "if you don't like it, why don't you do it?" point, which is why I won't. But it's not like we do this job for glory or anything.

The requirements are basically the ability to press an edit button, be at least slightly partial, and show up. The difficult part is not going on an insane banning rampage. ;-P

And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him. Trafton has a problem with Trafton's reviews, especially Trafton of 2001-early 2002's reviews. This is exactly why Trafton wrote 5,000 character reviews daily for several months - because Trafton felt guilty. Once Trafton gets a moment of time, Trafton will be fixing those reviews and never, ever, ever talking in third person ever again.

~ Traft

[Lama]

You misunderstand. I was referring to whoever said the review was "three or four years old" (whatever the original quote was.)


Then you should have responded to Moonblaze in the first place because he was the one who said:


You have to understand that rating standards have changed over time, the review by Trafton you quoted is <b>three years old.</b>


Long before I made any replies to this thread.


No. By repair I mean write good, helpful, informative reviews. Removing the ratings is not the point. Many who knew me well back then that still know me well are quite aware that I have worked very hard to fix the moron I was back then. Rather, to work at fixing it; I am no less moronic than I was back then, but I harness my stupidity and direct it at something, perhaps turning it into a productive element.


Ah, okay, so I guess this means by repair, you will change reviews that are less than useless (i.e. "No comment" and other extremely short and uninformative reviews like the one danyjel found) to something better.


As for your suggestion: that's an interesting suggestion indeed, but we don't remove ratings to avoid stupidity. The ratings are removed just because the reviewer doesn't explain themselves enough that it becomes obvious their decision is based on facts, not just some vendetta against the reviewer or a friendship.

The point is not to protect against stupidity, or I would be the one being banned, not being an admin. Rather, it is to make sure no one is cheating on the ratings system and that people who take the time to seriously look at the level and review it get more credibility than someone who just rates someone based on their name.


First, let me clarify, this was my recommendation:


My recommendation, so that you don't say I just complained, is that when you "repair," you should do something about the "stupid review" itself, not just the rating.


When I said "repair," I was talking about "reparing" your <b>own</b> reviews, not the reviews of others. You already cleared this up though because you said you meant that you will "write good, helpful, informative reviews."


I recall one day I spent an hour removing 214 reviews from J2O that a certain user had posted, and then deleting twelve accounts he had made to do it. I asked him later why he did it, and he replied "I was bored." I don't like bringing up the "if you don't like it, why don't you do it?" point, which is why I won't. But it's not like we do this job for glory or anything.

The requirements are basically the ability to press an edit button, be at least slightly partial, and show up. The difficult part is not going on an insane banning rampage. ;-P

And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him. Trafton has a problem with Trafton's reviews, especially Trafton of 2001-early 2002's reviews. This is exactly why Trafton wrote 5,000 character reviews daily for several months - because Trafton felt guilty. Once Trafton gets a moment of time, Trafton will be fixing those reviews and never, ever, ever talking in third person ever again.

~ Traft

Unknown said that there was an "ACCIDENT" and Ninja asked how 200 levels could accidentally be edited. Ninja's question was not answered by me (as I gave only a senseless reply) but neither was it answered by you. His implied question, to reiterate, is how does one accidentally edit over 200 different levels?

You can't do that unless you are an admin or you are someone who has uploaded 200+ levels under different accounts and created more accounts to create different reviews for each of his\her levels. The former is easier to do than the latter.

So, by saying "And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him." are you using a euphemism to tell people that they shouldn't send you private messages or inform you in any way of the deficiencies of your reviews? Or in layman's terms: "Lay off my reviews?"

[Violet CLM]

Lama: As someone (I forget who) said, the word is more "Misunderstanding" than "Accident". I simply assumed that since removing bad reviews was my job, I should remove bad reviews.

[DanYjel]

I only don't like that you perceive it only when you have power to delete it...

[Violet CLM]

Danyjel, I no longer have any idea what you're talking about. Try using fewer pronouns.

[Trafton]

Unknown said that there was an "ACCIDENT" and Ninja asked how 200 levels could accidentally be edited. Ninja's question was not answered by me (as I gave only a senseless reply) but neither was it answered by you. His implied question, to reiterate, is how does one accidentally edit over 200 different levels?
Unknown Rabbit already correct himself. He misunderstood; it wasn't an "accident." I gather you are nitpicking over the terms.

You can't do that unless you are an admin or you are someone who has uploaded 200+ levels under different accounts and created more accounts to create different reviews for each of his\her levels. The former is easier to do than the latter.
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you mean something involving reviewing with double accounts, we have IP tracking, yes. I don't know of anyone uploading 200 levels...

So, by saying "And people who have problems with Trafton's reviews need not contact him." are you using a euphemism to tell people that they shouldn't send you private messages or inform you in any way of the deficiencies of your reviews? Or in layman's terms: "Lay off my reviews?"
No, if I was trying to say "lay off my reviews," I would say "lay off my reviews." I am trying to say that there is no point in contacting me, because I myself am going to edit them back. I have no right to tell other people what they need to do. I meant that as "I can find my own reviews, dislike my older reviews, and plan to edit them back as soon as I can" and nothing more.

~ Traft

[FQuist]

I agree with Link. If you want to quibble over word use or if you want to flame eachother you can use private messages. If you want constructive debate this is not the way to do it.

Now, a reply to Link:

The concern seems to be objective versus subjective reviews.
That's not my understanding. Well, at least, in the big topic about the subject the debate was mainly about allowing short reviews which don't specify a clear reason for rating vs. only allowing reviews that give clear reasons to stay. In this it was mainly what I call a soft power vs hard power argument: I wanted people to have a lot of freedom in what they did and that allowing those things doesn't mean encouraging them, you can still discourage them using other methods. Derby wanted the things which were not recommendable activity to be disallowed. <i>In short, the argument was: should everything not great be disallowed or only be discouraged?</i>

But the debate, including my posts, seems afterward to be pretty vague to me, I think we kind of stopped looking at eachother's points clearly.

Bobby and me, the main admins, pretty much agreed that admin policy should be more lenient towards reviews that are not really clear. Like things like "I give this level an 8 because the eyecandy is really good" should not be disallowed, just be discouraged. One proposal from Bobby was to have a minimum character amount on reviews, for example 200 chars. (not retroactively of course)

[Link]

Well in this topic specifically Danyjel seemed concerned about objectivity vs subjectivity. But anyway, I agree with Fquist. Short reviews should be allowed, but detailed ones should be encouraged. J2Ov2 will have a system to encourage detailed reviews.

As for ratings, there are two types: objective and subjective. A level can be rated for its technical merit, or simply how much fun it was to play. Anybody who has played the level could come up with a rating for it. The current system in J2O though is that ratings can only be given if supported by a review.

My thought is that a rating can be just how much someone likes a level. After all, people make levels so that other people can play and enjoy them. How good a level is technically is related to how enjoyable it is, but not directly correlated. Most people use "Will I like this level" as their primary criterion for deciding whether to download it. Allowing ratings based on how much someone liked a level would be a better guide to potential downloaders than ratings based on technicalities. It would also encourage more people to rate levels, giving a more accurate average rating. Using J2Ov2's encouragement system, a secondary average rating could be calculated only from detailed\objective reviews.

[FQuist]

It's an interesting point to which I'll probably respond later. It's a good thing to think about - so long as you remind yourself reviews are also there for the author of the level.

[update: I'll respond when schoolwork has calmed down a bit and when I have internet access, too]

[Lama]

I agree with Link. If you want to quibble over word use or if you want to flame eachother you can use private messages. If you want constructive debate this is not the way to do it.


How would you respond to me if what I <i>say</i> is different from what I <i>mean</i>?

Still, I am going to take your advice and stop "quibbling over word use" as I realize I will not profit from it anyway. If I want to have a flame war with Trafton, I will do it via private messages. :cool:

[DanYjel]

But it will not objective when only l33ters will be allowed to do reviews for something...

[FQuist]

Who said we wanted that kind of system?

[Tubz]

Quite a debate this is, F.Quist devotes all his time posting on the fourms to tis topic. And will never bother to check my topics in this forum I suppose.

[DanYjel]

so we know our opinions...