Development Cycle Archive
Thread: SWG Forum Ranking Changes...
TK868
Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:37 pm
#222
GarVa wrote:
A: Contrary to popular belief, these are 1. rare and 2. have very little effect on the rating or ranking systems. The only thing it hurts is the bandits wrist. It takes 20 1 star ratings to cause a post to be hidden by the default system. Additionally we are putting measures in to be able to track and even "title" these posters so everyone will know who they are. When we findsomeone who abuses the rating systemwe do lower their "rating" weight to prevent abuse.
LOL
That's cool!
I like these new changes too
Boatillo
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:00 am
#223
New titles or whatever is all well and fine, my only worry is will I get to keep MY special title?
I like Interior Decorator...fits what I spend most of my time in game doing.
-2323, 883 Tatooine
Alciril
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:14 am
#224
Out of curiosity, why is the starring of dev and administrator posts disabled, GarVa? If you truly believe that the star system works and that stars are a good reflection of a post's quality, then I'd think that you'd want to see how many stars your posts are receiving.
If the devs and administrators are as confident in the starring system as you'd like us to believe, I think it would be fair to open their posts up to starring and allow people to view their accumulatedstar averages. I'd imagine that dev posts would be the standard for "high quality" posts and would consistently receive high ratings.
I'm not a big forum poster, but I know that a lot of people take the community here as seriously (if not more seriously) as the in-game community. I consistently seeclever and intelligent posts with low star ratings simply because people don't agree with the content and the new forum title system won't change that.
The EQ2 forums are different; it's a pre-beta community and it's a small, manageable size. Most people are there because they want to help guide the development of the game andit's a far different situation than it is here. SWG has been around for over a year and people have developed very passionate feelings about things in-game, so people are far more likely to star based on whether or not the poster's opinion threatens their conceptions about the game.
The new system does encourage conformity, and I think that it's a bad message to send. Especially when devs and administrators themselves are exempted from being starred.
Message Edited by Alciril on 08-19-2004 12:17 PM
admiraljz
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:15 am
#225
Can we get a special rank and title for people with a certain number of "first" posts? 
"**edit**" comes to mind
"**edit**" comes to mind
Rikilii
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:19 am
#228
Hate to sound like a party pooper, but how about just getting rid of the star system and the ranking system all together, and give everbody the ability to edit their posts.
This forum is strained enough, which is evident from its frequent poor performance. The star and ranking systems just add to the strain, and also encourage immature behavior and forum trolls.
Giving everybody the ability to edit and delete their own posts, would also cut down on the total number of posts in the system.
GarVa wrote:
We are currently in the process of revamping the Forum Ranking System, and wanted to fill you in on how it will work. We are changing it for two reasons. First to add diversity and fun to the ranking system (its pretty slim currently), and to encourage better use of the star ranking system. You can reply to this thread with your thoughts on this system. Please also make sure to read the questions at the bottom to ensure it that I did not already answer it, I will update that part of the thread as the replies come in.
Forum Ranking System
2 Ranking Trees
a Star Ranked tree
a Non star ranked tree
All users under 1 month "New Member"
There are 18 ranks after new member, in the two trees, 9 star ranked and 9 normal ranks.
Posters willget the normal rank -or- if their star ratingis high enough they will get the star rank, star ranks will override any normal ranks. So if you qualified for normal rank 6, but had the appropriate star weight you will have the star rank 6 (Galactic Ambassador). Additionally in the coming weeks we will be adding more avatars and other forum abilities that will be distributed throughout the ranks.
The colors that the line is written in below willbe the "name" color for each rank
Normal Ranked:
Required for rank 1 (Community Member same as current) 1 month minimum 50 post
Required for rank 2 (Sr. Community Member) 3 month minimum75 post
Required for rank 3 (Community Contributor) 3 month minimum100 post
Required for rank 4 (Community Veteran same as current) 6 month minimum125 post
Required for rank 5 (Community Guide) 6 month minimum175 post
Required for rank 6 (Community Elder same as current) 9 month minimum250 post
Required for rank 7 (Community Advisor) 9 month minimum2.75 starrating300 post
Required for rank 8 (Community Leader same as current) 9 month minimum 3.0 star rating350 post
Required for rank 9 (Community Advocate) 12 month minimum 3.0 star rating750 post
Star Ranked:
Required for rank 1 (Advisor) 1 month minimum 3.1 average rating given 50 post
Required for rank 2 (Steward 3 month minimum 3.2 average rating given75 post
Required for rank 3 (Emissary) 3 month minimum 3.5 average rating given125 post
Required for rank 4 (Diplomat) 6 month minimum 3.7 average rating given150 post
Required for rank 5 (Galactic Counselor) 6 month minimum 4.0 average rating given250 post
Required for rank 6 (Galactic Ambassador) 9 month minimum 4.2 average rating given 250 post
Required for rank 7 (Galactic Senator) 9 month minimum 4.5 average rating given 350 post
Required for rank 8 (Chancellor) 9 month minimum 4.7 average rating given 500 post
Required for rank 9 (High Chancellor) 12 month minimum4.9 average rating given 1000 post
Questions I'm sure will be asked, and Answers.....
1. What If I just have my buddies go through and 5 star all my post wont that get me higher up pretty fast?
A: It may help in the short term but the more post ratings you have the less it has an effect on your ranking and will actually hurt you at the Higher post ratings. So the system naturally discourages this type of behavior.
2. What about one star bandits (eq: those that go through one starring every post)
A: Contrary to popular belief, these are 1. rare and 2. have very little effect on the rating or ranking systems. The only thing it hurts is the bandits wrist. It takes 20 1 star ratings to cause a post to be hidden by the default system. Additionally we are putting measures in to be able to track and even "title" these posters so everyone will know who they are. When we findsomeone who abuses the rating systemwe do lower their "rating" weight to prevent abuse.
3. Why are you doing this?
A: We want to encourage to post more responsibly and using the time/post count along with the rating system we can do this. We will also be granting icons, titles and even some privileges based on the new rankings.
4. What if I qualify for normal rank 8 but also qualify for Star rank 7?
A: The highest "rank" you qualify for will be the one you get, regardless of the star side of things... this is due to the fact that your "star" rank can come and go, you will always have your base rank. In the case above you would be Normal Rank 8.
5. Can I choose to stay at my current rank?
A: Sorry but the answer is no, if you qualify for a higher rank you will get it, unless you stop posting
6. What privileges come with my current rank?
A: We will have this list as well as the associated privileges posted when we convert to the new system.
Message Edited by GarVa on 08-19-2004 08:11 AM
Message Edited by GarVa on 08-19-2004 09:29 AM
Red-Dwarf
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:23 am
#229
WookieIsshe wrote:
Red-Dwarf wrote:
Garva
A while ago I read from a CSR that the 1-star button was designed to be used to identify posts that qualify for a report (as in they are abusive or violate the EULA).
Since then I have only used the 1-star rating in that way and very rarely - I have used it one one post I felt truly offensive (if memory serves the whole thread was later deleted) and on a few which have been widly off topic in either the In Test or In Concept forums. Could we confirm either if you believe that is an appropriate use of the star system and how you view ratings - one possible suggestion below:
1-star - This post is offensive and should be deleted or is off topic in a controlled thread (e.g. This one!).
2-star - This post adds nothing to the current discussion.
3-star - This post has been useful in some way - i.e. answered a question raised, made a useful suggestion.
4-star - This post is important - It is a key answer to a question, makes a number of useful comments (whether or not the individual agrees with them)
5-star - This post is incredible - If there is one post everyone reads (devs included) it should be this one!
Brilliant is all I can say about this idea. How about it Garva?
I would recommend if possible that users are only allowed to postONE 5-star rating per 24hours so that this really means something if you can only choose one thread a day.
May I be as so bold to add on a bit to your idea? Anyways, I think they should be able to rate as much as they want to in a day.
But, for the one star bandits the moderators should have the ability to review the post and decide if it was offensive and then revoke the one star rating.
Message Edited by WookieIsshe on 08-19-2004 02:02 PM
Thanks. 
Good idea on the mod review, but I would suspect that may be too much work for the CSR's.
The reason I suggested the limit on the 5-star was to really put a value on it, it would a useful way for TH to see if a post was appreciated by the community, if it had a number of 5-star ratings it might be worth reading and limiting to one per account would only give him a handful to review each day. If something is free is has a limited value if there is a price (not necessarily cash form) you will be more selective over your rating.
Drunkenjedi420
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:25 am
#230
Sounds like Fun - I think the names could be worked on a bit more. They sound so "IMPERIAL" man! Give us Rebs some Love! Either way, something new for us here at the boards - it sounds great to me.
-Sazo
CommanderRamius
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:26 am
#231
Exactly, I doubt many people at all use 2,3 or 4, lol
CharPrime wrote:
did people really use 2,3,or 4 stars.
most people use 1 star for bad, 5 for good.
I definatley agree
Alcirilwrote:
Out of curiosity, why is the starring of dev and administrator posts disabled, GarVa? If you truly believe that the star system works and that stars are a good reflection of a post's quality, then I'd think that you'd want to see how many stars your posts are receiving.
If the devs and administrators are as confident in the starring system as you'd like us to believe, I think it would be fair to open their posts up to starring and allow people to view their accumulatedstar averages. I'd imagine that dev posts would be the standard for "high quality" posts and would consistently receive high ratings.
DarthMinos
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:32 am
#232
I'm skeptical about this. In theory, it sounds great. However, I think any star rank that is above 3 stars will be impossible to attain. The reason for this is that I don't think most forum users give posts anything other than one star or five stars. If you are posting constructively, and 50% of the crowd agrees with you, and 50% disagrees with you, and each votes accordingly, then you end up with a three star ranking. The only thing this encourages is not discussion, but conformity with a dominant viewpoint when one emerges.
Sure, the priveleges might be similar, but if the star rank has anything extra (besides a better sounding title), then those that don't get it because they don't follow the mainstream are cheated.
If this system is implemented, it might as well be called a popularity contest as all it will do is measure the popularity of opinions, not how well they are thought out and communicated.
If these thoughts have been echoed elsewhere, then I apologize for repeating them.
Also, a question, and sorry if I didn't look through a dozen pages to get the answer: will a star rank that is lower than a non-star rank (example: star rank 5 or 6 vs. nonstar rank 7) ever have more privileges than a higher ranked poster that has a non-star title? That seems unfair. The more a poster posts, the higher the quality has to be consistently.
Kagg
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:33 am
#233
Sounds nice, GarVa. Yeap Ilike it alot.
Not thatI think it would really serve any real purpuse but still...
Worthless1
Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:33 am
#234
I hope this works. I love to see the what happens. I guess I better start posting more.
. Which are you?"