I have some kind of question here.
It concernes ratings (again :P). Nothing important, really…
Everyone seems to have a different view on “average”.
For some, 5 is the average rating, for others it’s 7, and for some it even seems to be 8.
Who’s right?
This makes it hard to know if your stuf is actually average or not.
That’s why I wanted to suggest the following:
10 = perfect
9.7 – 8 = very good
7.7 – 6.7 = average
6.5 – 5 = rather bad
4.7 – 3 = bad
2.7 – 1.2 = very bad
1 = horrible
This article migh seem useless to many, but I want to avoid cofusion in the future. And the above is just a suggstion. We could also have 5 as the average rating. We must just all have the same “average rating” from now on, I think.
If this article seems to be totally useless to admins, let them feel free to delete it.


Waz on June 04, 2003 04:00

Violet CLM on June 04, 2003 04:00

Technically, 5.5 is the average.

Waz on June 05, 2003 04:00

5.5 is average?!
Wow! That means I’m above average! YEEHAAW!

You weren’t kidding, weren’t you?

DanYjel on June 05, 2003 04:00

5 is average.
<5 is under average
>5 is over average.

1. Ohh… (bad stuff)
2. very bad
3. bad
4. not good
5. average
6. little over average
7. Good
8. Super
9. Briliant
10. GOD

(Major filter bypass. You receive a subwarning for this offense. -Trafton)

Blackraptor on June 05, 2003 04:00

For me i consider average levels 6. Since you are curious about what the average for people is, I decided to say this:
Level rating judgement by BR:
1-2: Quite poor. Level needs severe fixing/remaking. Aka Crap.
2.1-3: Not pure crap, but needs severe bug fixing.
3.1-4: Level has at least 1 good point, but still needs lots of work.
4.1-5. Not that bad, but nothing spectacular and several things could be improved/fixed.
5.1-6. Around the average. Everything is decent, but nothing spectacular or interesting.
6.1-7. Ok, but could be improved and lacks some things.
7.1-8. Basic levels having good eyecandy, gameplay etc etc. May be some spectacular stuff.
8.1-9. Really good and a worthy download. Few cons.
9.1-10. Rarely levels reach this, but if they do it means they have very few/no cons and are amazing.

That is my standard. Feel free to comment negativly or positivly on it.

the real one Bjarni on June 05, 2003 04:00

No double posting, no double posting! Please delete the old article, Fquist, thanks alot!

Violet CLM on June 05, 2003 04:00

1 + 4.5 = 5.5
10 – 4.5 = 5.5

10 + 1 = 11
11 / 2 = 5.5

Cazz NP on June 06, 2003 04:00

6.5, really. That’s my usual score, and I’m quite average.

Bobby aka Dizzy on June 07, 2003 04:00

According to the records, out of the 1720 files which have an average rating that is not 0, the average rating is 6.23.

ScionFighter on June 10, 2003 04:00

You don’t think that this should go to forums, didn’t you?

Waz on June 11, 2003 04:00

… er… naa, articles, forums, there’s no difference… is there?

I wasn’t planing a discussion, I just want to know what’s the average rating on j2o.

American on June 13, 2003 04:00

Here is a somewhat sketchy scale that I use:

1 – Horrible; no effort. Author displays absolutely no knowledge of JCS and has produced an unplayably flawed work.

2 – Some effort perhaps, but way, way too many mistakes. Author shows little ability to use JCS beyond the most simplistic of features, and often even messes those up.

3 – Little effort shown, but still a bit. Work is ugly and no where near finished. Author shows rudementary knowledge of JCS, but has not yet learned to use most of its functions.

4 – Some degree of effort is shown. Work could probably be salvaged, but not easily. Author shows developing knowledge, but no real understanding.

5 – Average. Work is neither good nor bad. Author shows a working, but superficial knowledge of JCS.

6 – Somewhat above average. Work demonstrates a good knowledge of JCS, but not a deep enough understanding or amount of effort to produce anything of lasting interest.

7 – Good, but not outstanding. The level looks good and plays well, but lacks anything worth of note. Author obviously knows how to use JCS, and well, but does not venture into deeper creative waters.

8 – Author has created a high-quality work. The work is interesting, at least partially original in ideas, and both looks and plays well. Level is, above all, enjoyable to play. Author shows a deep understanding of JCS and an ability to create very good works. However, the work is probably not likely to last for way too long and is not above and beyond.

9 – Author has created a work of exceptionally high quality. An expert knowledge of JCS is displayed, and the work is creative and shows an immense amount of effort in addition to skill. Author has gone above and beyond creating a long, playable experience which maintains high standards from start to finish.

10 – Author has created a work that more or less revolutionizes the field that it is created in. The author has a deep and profound understanding of JCS, level design, and the reaction of players, in addition to being a master. Legendary work that is sure to stay around for many years to come.

It just happens that the average level might deserve a six. So be it. I do not adjust my ratings to maintain a cumulative average. That would be a waste of time, really.

That is my two cents.

Blackraptor on June 14, 2003 04:00

/Was pwned by Traftu’s post.

Mike on July 23, 2003 04:00

I think the average rating is 6… I only download things with rating 6.7 or higher… am I missing something because of that?