Suggestions to redo the rating system

[Oscar]

there are too many complaints in the forum due to the rating system. Some don't want a rating system, others can't like without it. Some wish to have their track NOT rated. What I want is you, the ones who fight amongst each other to give me your input on resolving this ever evolving issue so I can make it a better place here.
Some ideas I had in mind for those who here don't want x member rating their coaster is to add a block list to the rating system but charge a percentage of the overall rate you'd get. For example if you don't want me rating it, you'd add me to the bloicklist and whatever rate it gets, it's automatically discount 10% of the rate that it gets and award that as a feww for blocking x user from rating it and this the more users you block, the higher the percentage you are charged and stuff. Anyway, throw me your ideas, such as the one where the uploader can have a tickbox to make his track rate able or just commentable and stuff.

I think the system as of now is a bit too complex. Do we really need to rate coasters in 3 categories with 20 options in each category to choose from? Seems a bit TOO precise. Personally, I would like a more simple system, such as a 5 star rating scale -- I think that would work just fine.

[hyyyper]

or don't give points to technical, orginality and adrenaline but in more categories like supports, terrain, layout, pacing, smoothnes and much more

[Brtnboarder495]

I like the block list idea, but rather than the discout idea howabout you lose 100 points per month for every member on your block list? You can't go below negative points and that way in order to upload coasters and have blocked member you would have to participate in the forums, quizzes, ect. in order to keep members on your blocked list.

------------

A block list ... well, hmmmm ... let's see what we would have, shall we?

Let's take a look around and those who rate honestly (I can count those numbers on two hands), I am guessing those people would be on the immediate block list, and for sure the awards would increase, eh? My opinion? Bad idea - mainly because people that rate (and don't know how) will give glowing responses to POS tracks and the designer will NEVER improve, nor will they even know that their ride is a POS because a bunch of n00bs rated it by saying:

Wow, this is an awesome ride. There are some bumps here and there, but you really did a good job.
Thanks for creating it!! Weeeeeeeeeeeee!
Technical: 9.5 Adrenaline: 10 Originality: 10

I mean, WTH would that benefit anyone? Add a block list, and watch the truly involved members disappear.

However, the rating system here is fine. Rates are opinions and meant to help designers. Folks around here need to get some thicker skin and stop crying to staff cause they got what they needed, honesty.

That is MY 2 cents -- do with it what you will.

[hyyyper]

and please make them translateble, cause i don't have a clue of djavixxxxx rating

I also HIGHLY disagree with the block list. I mean, if that was to be implemented, then we're better off not even having a rating system...

Originally posted by hyyyper

and please make them translateble, cause i don't have a clue of djavixxxxx rating

hyyyper (and any other moron that reads this in the future) -- we are not going to tell you this again. Use an online translator. It takes about three seconds and then you will know what is said. Geesh, the freakin stupidity and off-subject crap here is rediculous.

And here, take your freaking pick --

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=online+translator
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=online ... 1&ei=UTF-8
http://search.msn.com/results.asp?FORM= ... translator

<severe eye roll inserted here that busts out my sockets from the exertion>

[Oscar]

ok scratch the block list, suggest something else?

in response to IntaminFan's comment about the 5 stars... I was here a long time ago, when the rating system was just 1-10 stars... it sucked. I like knowing what specific aspects of my ride need improving. I think the rating system is fine as it is. When one of your coasters isn't as good as your others, deal with it. One of the things you will learn in the real world is that you can never please everyone. Not every member is going to love your coaster and give it a 10, so listen to what the people that give you low rates have to say. You can learn alot more from the people that don't like your track than the people that do. Make adjustments in your future coasters, and you won't have to worry about complaining raters.

One of the real issues is tools... lots of peeps are rating down for tools (you know who you are...) and that absolutely needs to stop. Most of the low rates are on tracks with tools, and we need to start putting out official standards for not downrating for stupid crap like that. I hold my stand that the problem on this site is the raters and builders, and not the system itself. The current rating scale is fine.

Math question:

With our current rating system, what is the maximum amount of possibilites we can rate a coaster, in combination of adrenaline, originality, and technical. I'm sure its a VERY high number, and I think thats a bit ridiculous.

What about a 5 star rating system for each category? I think the originality category is stupid though. It should really be changed to "Layout". What if someone makes a perfect coaster that is incredible but not too original? They dont deserve to be rated down for that!

Frankly TJ, online translators are worthless. At the very least, if a member has publically expressed a preference for english-only ratings, that should be enforced. I also think that posting files should be a requirement for rating. Something like have to have posted a file in the last, say, 60 days or something.

I also think origiality should be dropped as a rating criteria. Many great rides are not that original. Imagine Shivering Timbers for instance. Practically everyone who's ridden it considers it be a top 10/A+ ride. Imagine if that design were posted here without the real one exisited. It's probably get a rating of about a 6, with a bunch of stupid comments like "Another out and back. meh." and poop like that. I purpose that it be replaced with an "aesthetics" rating. This would cover all aspects of the rides visuals. Coasters as art basically. I think this is sorta what most people use as a major component of the originality score anyway. Basically this would cover, supports, an inviting layout, colors, themeing etc. Anything related to how the coaster looks. For recreations, I think the Adreneline score should become accuracy. If a ride has been recreated accurately, it deserves a good score, regardless of how exciting or not the actual ride is.

As a final idea, make ratings relative. This would basically solve the whole "under/overraters" thing in one swipe. Basically an absolute score for each rate would be determined based on how the scores compare to the other rates that person has made. So like for an overrater, who say only ever gives 8s,9s, and 10s, that 8 would become about a 2 or 3, and a 9 maybe a 5 or 6. For an underrater, it'd have the reverse effect.

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by TConwell

Originally posted by hyyyper

and please make them translateble, cause i don't have a clue of djavixxxxx rating

hyyyper (and any other moron that reads this in the future) -- we are not going to tell you this again. Use an online translator. It takes about three seconds and then you will know what is said. Geesh, the freakin stupidity and off-subject crap here is rediculous.

And here, take your freaking pick --

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=online+translator
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=online ... 1&ei=UTF-8
http://search.msn.com/results.asp?FORM= ... translator

<severe eye roll inserted here that busts out my sockets from the exertion>

And why should i even bother to listen to you if u speak like that, i'm making a note of djavixxxxx spanish languesh, ment as a joke, btw, cause he talks english in the forum and spanish when rating

Originally posted by Tyler

I also think that posting files should be a requirement for rating. Something like have to have posted a file in the last, say, 60 days or something.

I disagree with this. It could be good in some ways, but there are raters that can explain their rating better than most members on the site, and they haven't posted a coaster in a while.

If this was implemented, many good raters would not be allowed to rate.

Well, how about make it something like have posted a file, ever. Or perhaps posted a file for the current sim. I'm noticed that some of the people who post bad ratings have more often than not never posted anything.

Originally posted by Tyler

At the very least, if a member has publically expressed a preference for english-only ratings, that should be enforced.

Enforcing the typing habits of members? Wow, I though I was in America ... eh Tyler?

[hyyyper]

I think we should do the english-only-thingie to everything on the site, but you may post in any langeuce, only if you translate it, so that other members understand what you're saying, most member are already typing two langueges, but not everyone

To everyone who this applies to:

If you can speak English, then please speak it. If you can't, then don't worry about it.

I remember someone proposing a system where rides that wanted a rating could be uploaded and rating like a contest once a week. I still think the biggest problem with our system now is that quite often the guys who can't build a ride with a rating over 5 seem to consistently give harsh ratings. We also have posters who haven't posted in a long time, but still rate like they are experts at NL design. I am all for a system that bases rating ability on prior scoring history. If you want to rate, you need to show that you have the capability to build a good ride yourself. This would keep out the trolls and give a new designers something to work towards. It would also be nice to limit reviewing ability to active designers. If you don't have the ability or courage to put your own ride out for scrutiny, why should you be able to grill someone who does?

Just because they haven't posted in a long time doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Another suggestion: A limit of 1 ride per user uploaded per week. 2 per day is just ridiculous.

I like the idea of using past building/rating experience for future rating criteria, but just because someone doesn't upload doesn't mean they're totally clueless. for example, I'm playing around with tools right now and don't want to upload my first few attempts because they're not very good. also, I don't have time to work on NL often, especially this time of year. by no means am I an expert, but I do try to provide accurate rates to other users and shouldn't have my ability to continue to do so prevented by my being labeled an "inactive" user. just a thought, and please don't make a new system of rating too complex. if anything, it might help to simplify it some.

[Kev]

-> -> This is me, skirting around this entire rating subject....oh, and I put four dots there instead of three so as to indicate no sarcasm. [;)]

regarding dj's comments with ratings, i've never had much of a problem figuring out what he is saying - whether he puts it in spanish or english. Throughout the comments he leaves, you can generally pick up on key words like pumping, e-stop fails, theme objects, etc. Not too hard to figure out, IMHO.

Originally posted by IntaminFan397

Math question:

With our current rating system, what is the maximum amount of possibilites we can rate a coaster, in combination of adrenaline, originality, and technical?

Just repeating that since it didn't look like I was actually asking a question. Could someone figure this out? I'm really curious about it and I don't know how to figure it out.

To IF, i think one a week is not enough, personally, one a day or three a week would be a better system i think, to find a nice even between people who like to build a lot and those who don't like to be monopolised.

To WWS, although i can see what you mean, i don't agree with the idea. Just because a designer cannot build in NL (eg me), he or she should not be restricted from rating just because of that. While i dont consider myself an expert, i like to think i give honest and fair judgement on other peoples rides based on my personal experience and what the simulation has taught me. My problem is not having the ability to work well with the simulator, not with not having the ability to understand it.

A suggestion i would make, following the lines of your suggestion is to use this method in conjustion with the complaints forum. Perhaps you could issue points, like those on a drivers license, to poor raters and subsequently ban them from rating for a set period of time or a particular simulation. I'm not sure how practical that would be, but it seems like a relatively good way IMO.