6 Mar 2006 at 15:28

Everyone has probably noticed by now we’ve put back reviewers’ ranks in the downloads section. Ranks are given based on review count. The higher the reviewer’s review count the higher the rank. Any thoughts and suggestions? (one suggestion will already be implemented at some time, probably: only non-N/A reviews are counted towards the rank)

Here are the new ranks:

0 reviews: ‘CTF Bug’
10 reviews: ‘Frog’
25 reviews: ‘Turtle Goon’
50 reviews: ‘Spaz Slackrabbit’
100 reviews: ‘Jazz Jackrabbit’
200 reviews: ‘Carrot Juice Addict’
300 reviews: ‘Aiko wannabe’
400 reviews: ‘I might as well work here’
500 reviews: User can specify personalised title in profile

There might also be a few secret ranks :o

- Frank Quist


CrimiClown on 6 Mar 2006 at 16:22

Yay! I’m a turtle goon! >D

Odin314 on 6 Mar 2006 at 17:43

Spaz slackrabbit \o/

Hopefully this will encourage reviews.

Enigma on 6 Mar 2006 at 18:15

I’m busy deleting some of my older, more terrible reviews, but even though the review count in my profile is dropping as it should, my reviews still show me as a Jazz Jackrabbit with 105 reviews, even though I’ve already reduced the count to 95 (and still working it). Is it supposed to stay like that or is it some kind of bug?

ÄÉæÛÕ on 6 Mar 2006 at 23:06

BR has a secret rank “I dig your mom :(”

FQuist on 6 Mar 2006 at 23:07

BR’s rank is a personalised one, because he has > 500 reviews.

Blackraptor on 7 Mar 2006 at 02:38

BR is just that awesome.

MoonBlazE on 7 Mar 2006 at 11:23

Where is the Shield User rank :O

White Rabbit on 7 Mar 2006 at 22:42

Some people wear Superman underwear. Superman wears Chuck Norris underwear. I, on the other hand, wear Aiko underwear.

Sonyk on 8 Mar 2006 at 17:37

I still think it’s unfair that people who spam the downloads section will get ranked faster than those who don’t.

Oh well.

White Rabbit on 8 Mar 2006 at 17:55

I foresee that ranks will no longer be based on the number of reviews, but the number of ‘points’ you have. Reviews should carry points depending on its length, its HI rating and whether it is featured or not. This way, longer reviews that were written before the rating system will still carry more points than shorter reviews, so people with a long reviewing history prior to J2Ov2 should still have lots of points and a good rank, e.g. Aiko.

Blackraptor on 9 Mar 2006 at 01:02

keep it the way it is, who cares. ranks do not give you any benefits except having a small title under your name which isnt too important anyways. it encourages reviewing either way, and reviews of any lenght should be welcomed anyways.

besides, a long review doesn’t necessarily equal a good review. you can sum up everything you want to say about a level in a medium size paragraph and your criticism can be just as helpful as another reviewer’s who writes like 6 – 7 paragraphs.

Birdie on 11 Mar 2006 at 04:40

I want the Aiko review system more commonly used (5 is adverage 10 is perfect 1 is crap)

Violet CLM on 11 Mar 2006 at 06:31

The average is 5.5, not 5.0.

blurredd on 16 Mar 2006 at 08:29

The way I see it is, assuming the review is helpful, short reviews say what’s good and bad with appropriate reasons and a few suggestions. Long reviews do the same but go into more detail (like mentioning specific spots in a level) and offer more advice for improvement.

Based on that, I believe reviewers should be encouraged to write longer reviews. Factors like the average review length, the helpful index, and the number of reviews could each be weighted differently in the rank.

master sven on 25 Mar 2006 at 12:11

How can there be secret ranks if you can specify your personalised title after 500 reviews???

Post a comment

You need to log in to post comments on this newspost.