View Full Version : Just an idea that'll be turned down probably (about reviews)
February 23rd, 2002, 04:13 AM
People still review with one word like: cool.
EvilMike's news topic didn't help.
I thaught we could do a system with lives: after a post thats in-apropriate (saying "cool, download this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!") then an admin will do something like press a button saying 'knock off life' and after 10 of those, the user will be banned.
What's to stop them from re-registering? I dunno, but remember i did 'I dunno', and not 'I dunno' so you can help. Maybe if your IP was banned then when you (after re-registering) are only permitted for one review per hour, and if you get banned again- one review per day, and so on. And how many people can spoof their IP's?
Derby: Content edit.
February 23rd, 2002, 01:34 PM
A while ago on #jj2, a few people were discussing ways to fix this problem. I didn't really participate in the discussion much, but I do remember some things:
People will not only rate levels, they will also rate reviews. The higher rating a reviewer has, the more their rating will count in the average for a level.
There are a total of 10 people registered on J2O (to keep things simple): Bob, Scott, Jeff, Red, Lisa, Cherry, Mike, Alex, Kat, and Jim.
After posting some levels and stuff, the review ratings for the people are as follows (they all voted on each other):
Bob = 4
Scott = 8.2
Jeff = 9
Red = 2
Lisa = 6
Cherry = 3
Mike = 3.2
Alex = 7.8
Kat = 9.8
Jim = 1
Say Mike and Cherry both rated a level, and they were the only raters (so far). Mike rated it 7, and Cherry rated it 6 (out of ten). To calculate how much their ratings count, it is done like this for every level:
The total of their review ratings is 6.2. Mike is 3.2/6.2, or 0.52. Cherry is 3/6.2, or 0.48. Multiply each of their review numbers by their review weighting, and you get:
Cherry = 0.48 * 6 = 2.88
Mike = 0.52 * 7 = 3.64
2.88 + 3.64 = 6.52, the average rating of the level.
Now say Scott came on the scene too and added his review (say he rated the level 9). The total of the reviewers ratings is now 14.4. After doing the math above, Mike's weight is now 0.22, Cherry's is 0.21, and Scotts is 0.57.
Cherry = 0.21 * 6 = 1.26
Mike = 0.22 * 7 = 1.54
Scott = 0.57 * 9 = 5.13
1.26 + 1.54 + 5.13 = 7.93, the new average of the level.
Now say that Jim, a really bad reviewer comes in and rates the level 2 (completely outrageous; it is better than that). There are now four ratings, with a total reviewer weighting of 15.4:
Cherry = 0.19 * 6 = 1.14
Mike = 0.21 * 7 = 1.47
Scott = 0.53 * 9 = 4.77
Jim = 0.06 * 2 = 0.12
1.14 + 1.47 + 4.77 + 0.12 = 7.50, the new average of the level. As you can see, Jim's rating did not count much at all. If even more people rated the level - say all the other good reviewers like Kat, Jeff, and Alex, Cherry's and Mike's rating would begin not to be worth much at all, and Jim's would be worth almost nothing.
I think that would work. A weighting system is really what we need to prevent bad reviewers from really hurting the level creators. I won't go into more detail (you should have a pretty good idea from what I've explained above), but if you have any questions you can just post them here.
February 24th, 2002, 08:34 AM
In my previous post I didn't really explain how reviews would be rated. Here is my idea.
Instead of rating a person's reviewing ability for one value for them (like you rate Cherry 4, Bob 9, Kat 7, etc.), you would rate each individual review. Like say Kat wrote 10 reviews, everyone could rate each review a number, and the average of all her ratings would be her weighting.
So basically people would rate each review, and then the person's weighting in the total level rating would be determined by the average of the ratings of their reviews.
This way, as people write more and more reviews and get better at it, their rating will go up and they will have more say in the final rating of a level.
February 25th, 2002, 08:57 AM
Nitro: Denied. It simply doesn't make sense to ban people over that kind of stuff.
Thanks for the suggestion tough.
Some people had complaints about that kind of stuff because it isn't really democratic as much as the original system, ie: everyone gets as much a voice.
Personally I would think it is a great system.
You get some problems tough:
Person A started with one line sucky reviews.
He improves. But as he has so much sucky one-liners his average rating barely improves.. So, what does he do? Delete his all his old reviews. But I'd say, better a one-liner then no review at all.
Another problem is:
WizkidABCD and MikeyABCD are both in the same clan.. they rate eachother's review 10.
So, reviews must better be reviewed a lot, to not give a twisted vision of the truth. And if levels get reviewed too little, how often are reviews going to be rated?
Yet another problem, but easy to solve is.. won't level authors give good reviews great ratings?
Easy to get around this, but with multiple accounts..
Maybe, this is just a proposal, we could have a system like Amazon:
5 of 9 people found this review usefull.. it would probably be less of a hassle, but less strict too.
February 25th, 2002, 09:18 AM
I'd say: just hire 20 official raters, then make 2 different area's:
1. Staff rating
2. Members rating
March 1st, 2002, 08:42 AM
Link's idea would work well just not to rate reviews but on the amount of words or some secret un-cheatable factor.
March 2nd, 2002, 03:31 PM
How about this: Only one account per IP number...although this would be a problem for 56kers like me..
March 6th, 2002, 09:07 AM
Ginny, that would pevent people rating themselves but not people rating with one word ect.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.