Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Where did I propose that it should be discarded? Nowhere did I say that.
Rather, I am proposing that we keep the review-moderating system as it has been since the start of our site, with the exception of editing the really short stuff. How is this completely discarding the review system? It's keeping it as it is!
And it's not just unappealing 'to a few'.
|
If "This has great eyecandy and gameplay, I rate it a 9" is what it takes to be a review, then it was primarily a rating system all along. Keeping it as it is happens to be keeping a rating system, because that is all it apparently takes to constitute a "review." So maybe it was never discarded; it was never there to begin with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
That's really not true. Not everyone is like you, Aiko, Trafton and the other good reviewers. Not everyone speaks english as well as you. Not everybody is as good at writing. Not everybody has the right mindset for it. Not everybody is as old. You're asking a lot of people. No, those ties can't just be materialised. And if we want them to be there there are other ways to purchase them than just editing everything. Like advice and other ways.
Even for me, someone older than most of the users on J2o, writing even medium reviews is quite hard. It's not just "a little extra time" and "using only basic reasoning". This does not mean it's good to have bad reviews, but what you say here is wrong.
|
I personally feel that moderation should have no correlation with the ability to compose English sentences; this is a factor that the administration can control. That said, actually viewing the content should take most of the time, and then a short justified review can be submitted. What is being requested here is not longer reviews, just more justified reviews. I personally do not see a restatement of the rating to be remotely acceptable. Nobody learns anything from the review, and above all, the creator learns nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derby
"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
This has never happened on J2O and there is no reason to think why it would suddenly start happening.
|
Actually, it happens all the time. A user's first review will indefinitely influence the reviews around it, and that is one fact that cannot be argued. This is also empirically true of many reviews submitted on content prior to heavier moderation. I speculate that if it happened in the past, it will happen again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derby
"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."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
No, I haven't. Please read my post. I never ever proposed getting rid of longer reviews altogether. I never even proposed discouraging them. In fact, I'm only countering the people who think we should be much more authoritarian about it, instead of just using normal ways of helping the community get better.
|
Again, reviews have empirically shortened and lost quality. With this result, reviews resemble ratings with restatements of ratings rather than just reviews. It does not matter whether you encourage or discourage long reviews, as long as poor reviews can be made, they will be made. As a result of their materialization, poor reviews will bring poor reviews, and nothing will have been learned. This works both in theory and empirically.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fquist
Where I and you differ is not in how we perceive the downloads section but how we perceive the use of power. I prefer using other methods than power to improve the downloads section. You prefer having strict quality control.
|
I certainly prefer having quality control, but it is nowhere near as strict as you perceive it to be. Even an attempt to justify a review would be understandable, in my opinion. There is no point to having many people enjoying absolutely nothing, and there is no point to having no people enjoying a lot. A balance is necessary here, and that balance cannot be achieved without some sort of quality control. Progress is just as important as prosperity, and having just one or the other is not acceptable.