Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
You've got a nice argument but it is only valid if the point of the site is just rating levels instead of a community site. Yes, so many reviews are not really helpful. They don't have to be in my opinion, that's only what we prefer, but it's not compulsory. The site is not just for the creators of levels, it's for the reviewers, too.
|
Actually, the argument is only valid if the point of the site is reviewing levels, not just rating them. I will address this issue of our views of the site just a bit later.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
It's like a restaurant. The admins are the owners. Now, they could have this policy where everyone who wants to eat in the restaurant has to wear very shiny and high-quality clothes, but that way the restaurant would become so formal they would barely get guests, because some people just don't like that. So what we, the admins, should do is allow in people without a nice tie, too. That doesn't mean they will let in people who wear rags.
|
In the world of the analogy you describe, anyone could have shiny and high-quality clothes materialize right on them using only basic reasoning and a little extra time; that is, if the analogy fits the situation here. It is not my idea to moderate reviews, but just following that idea, it needs to be looser. You would decide how loose it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Obviously some reason has to be given when reviewing a level. But "I really like this levels' graphics and gameplay." is good enough in my opinion. Only things like "Wow this rocks!!" should be disallowed. And even then you can pm the owner asking him to improve it before dumping it.
If you disallow smaller opinions people will go away. Who can blame them.
|
No; saying "I like this level's graphics and gameplay" is no more helpful than simply giving it a high rating. Anyone can tell that the graphics and gameplay of a level are decent when the level is rated a 9 out of 10. Calling this reviewing the level is absolutely illogical because it shows absolutely no effort to review it or evidence that it was reviewed. I do not review or even rate levels often because I even have an opinion of the level; I just do not have the time to post even a small opinion, and so I leave. The review system should not be completely discarded like this just because it is a little beaten up and unappealing to a few.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Indeed an opinion is never wrong. Neither is it invalid. It's just that, when that opinion is expressed people will give it more value if the opinion is supported by arguments. But some opinions are invalid for our site.
|
An opinion is invalid if it has no support. There are many invalid opinions on J2O, because the users only rate the levels and review them with an equally redundant compilation of text.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
If an opinion differs a lot from the majority and has not enough supporting arguments, then we will have to doubt it's veracity. It's still a valid opinion in itself, but we have to see then if it has any value to keep. If it really is badly supported, like someone rating a level with a 1 because it is giving a 404, then actions should be taken.
|
If you start out with an invalid opinion, a chain of invalid opinions with a small variance can easily invalidate a valid opinion if it differs a lot from the majority. This system alone is inaccurate and ineffective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Bad quality disallows giving a rating? That's not something I agree with. See my restaurant analogy.
|
Your restaurant analogy works with simply rating levels. What I described is what was happening just a while ago where users had to review the levels. There is a very big difference.
"Those who submit poor reviews have no excuse at all for posting poor reviews. He or she only has to ask him or herself a few questions and submit a minimum of three to five well-developed sentences to support his or her opinion."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
They have an excuse. They're allowed to. It's that simple. We are not a proffesional site. We are not peer reviewers, scientists, teachers, whatever. We have a community site dedicated to a game. One inhabited by very young people, most of which who have english as a second language. That doesn't mean we can't try and push them to improve, but to just shut all their comments down is harsh. There're better ways for that. Still, it's allowed.
|
They have an excuse because they are allowed to, and because you allow them to. Basic reasoning has nothing to do with what language one speaks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Why should we raise the bar as high as you suggest?
Our admin policy should be that when your rating really differs from the rest of the ratings people gave you will really have to have a good argument. But if it's the same, no, reviews don't have to be that detailed. The positive effects of this, more reviews, will outweigh the negative because more opinions (other than 'wow!' and 'cool!') will give a better average.
I value free speech here above having each review here really good. And it is in my mind that this will stay. I've made up my mind and I don't think my opinion of this will change..
|
The reason I suggested what I suggested was because I was misled by the fact that the link to the "reviews" section reads "reviews." You have a vision of J2O where users rate levels with short comments that cannot logically be considered reviews because they show no evidence of review.
Am I suggesting that you should change the link to say "ratings" instead of "reviews?" Of course not. My vision is different from yours for a reason. For one, I truly believe that better reviews will result in a higher quality in production of levels. If users do not have reviewers' valid opinions to make improvements on their levels, they can only copy off other good levels and hardly come up with anything innovate or remotely good. In my personal opinion, I find a database of good content with some reviews far superior to a database of bad content with a plethora of ratings.
You value free speech, and that is fine. However, by having J2O up in the first place, you imply that you value the community's prosperity and progress. You certainly have the propserity down with the free speech part, but you cannot say that there will be any progress with this "rating" system.
I am not suggesting a radical idea to make everyone think like high-class people with shiny clothing. I am suggesting that users should actually review the content than give their overall opinion of it, so the content increases in quality. Reviews do not have to be long; they can always be a few sentences. In fact, they do not at all have to discuss every single aspect of the content.
The way you want to run J2O is up to you, and I do not plan to influence or change it. I just want to let you know that prosperity of the community is not the important aspect of the community. What you value is different from what I value, and so our views of J2O differ proportionally.