Development Cycle Archive
Thread: SWG Forum Ranking Changes...
GarronDarkweaver
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:39 am
#40
1 star bandits are not a rare ocurance on the Farstar forums, there seem to be quite a few in operation. My-self and a few other members seem to be 1 starred almost every time we post, one member in particular. Despite what you say, i don't believe for one minuit that this won't hinder our advancement through the new star rating system.
I always thought the rating system was rediculouse to begin with as it opens the way for in-game griefers to provide anonamous griefing via the forums as well, and to be honest this new system really takes the biscuit.
AragornIII
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:40 am
#41
Think it's a nice revamp, hope the rank "rewards" are diverse and not just new icons but something else (too) 
Is this a ploy to encourage ppl to post "better" posts, likegreat design ideas and comments for the design docs that will be out soon then? 
Cuz it's cleverly donehehe 
TheLateAnakinSolo
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:40 am
#42
I WOULD like this, except for the fact that about 20 or so 1-star bandits have been through my post history 1-staring everything that I've done...
CommanderKendall
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:43 am
#43
Owen-Lars wrote:
Alternative Proposal:
I propose that ratings are only taken into consideration and thus can effect your overall star rating if they are with 1 or 2 starts of the mean value for that post. For example:
I post a long winded proposal on a ranger revamp. I get 10 '5 stars'. Someone comes along and thinks it would be funny to 1 star my post because he/she disagrees with it. The mean for that post would be 5 at that time so this one star would be classed as 'abuse' of the system so wouldnt go towards the ratings.
This solution allows people to spend the time and effort to post constructive feedback and discussion points whilst at the same time limit and even remove the abusive and immature behaviour found common on these forums.
Does anyone have any points or opinions to add on this?
Message Edited by Owen-Lars on 08-19-2004 04:21 PM
Unfortunately Owen-Lars, I think it would be hard to designate someone else’s feedback as being invalid for not agreeing. Such that discounting someone’s rating because it differs from previous ratings would be somewhat along the same lines as what seems to occur in some forums now where if one posts something in agreement with the masses it receives high ratings and low ratings if it is an alternative viewpoint well stated and thought out or not. I think, however, one way they might be able to have a weighted average system instead of the current rating calculation would be to remove a certain proportion of the highest and lowest of the ratings based on the total number of responses. Such that if in your example you had received your ten 5 star ratings and one 1 star rating both the upper and lower end would be discounted so the average rating score would be something like an average of nine 5 star ratings (basically using a bell curve weighted average and not including the highest and lowest standard deviations).
TheLateAnakinSolo wrote:
I WOULD like this, except for the fact that about 20 or so 1-star bandits have been through my post history 1-staring everything that I've done...
Garva, this is a good point, is there anyway to prevent those who are trying to grief or harassother forum users by using the 'View all posts by this user' function to just 1 star every post ever written by someone? Even if a single 1 star does not have a large bearing on ones star ranking in the new system, wouldn't this type of rating other posters have an effect?
Message Edited by CommanderKendall on 08-19-2004 11:53 AM
Geral_Corasjo
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:45 am
#44
Hey, this system is cool and it is alot of variaty. However, I think the star system should be brought down a notch, maybe .1 for a new rank because on average peoples star rating is about 3.0 - 3.5 and so most of the people would fall within there, (mine is 3.2 *almost my HS gpa*).
I also think the rank should be influenced alittle on the number of stars you give, to kind of balance it out alittle. Plus you need better colors for higher ranks, I can't stand purple
supa187
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:45 am
#45
Very cool idea guys! I can't stress enough though that we need special icons for each rank.. example.
If you are a normal rank 9, you should have access to all icons from 1-9 plus any star rank ones you qualify for.
But like I said this is a great idea and Im anxious to see how it works out
Also Id say for the star ranks maybe come up with some cooler titles.
Message Edited by supa187 on 08-19-2004 08:47 AM
Tstorm
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:45 am
#46
GarVa wrote:Actually in the reset the other day the login issue was fixed for most users, unfortunately lithium does not 100% support browsers other than Explorer but they do take those browsers into consideration in their programming.
Sorry that this is a little off the topic of forum rankings, but there doesn't seem to be an avenue to discuss forum issues and get information.
I've noticed the login issue has been *better* over the last day or two. It seems to come and go though and I frequently find myself having to relogin. I've tried removing cookies and that type of thing, but it never seems to improve it for me. I would love to understand the problem better.
Regarding browsers, IE does have a monopoly, but not everyone even has it (or likes to use it). Are there plans to support other browsers in the future? SWG runs on Windows so it's easy to assume IE will be used, but if you go to any news site there is usually some IE bug wrecking havoc on the Internet. Some people/companies actually recommend using alternative browsers to steer clear of these security issues.
ZenDragonMLS
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:46 am
#47
I've never been a big fan of any sort of "ranking" based on post count or duration of membership. As far as the "star" system, in a public forum like this it absolute can be and has been abused by people and will continue to be abused.
It has been my experience that the people who genuinely **contribute** to a community by posting (e.g., answering questions, posing new and interesting questions, etc) do so *without* any regard for their "rank" or post count.
If you hold out a "carrot" of ranking / privileges based on post count and/or star system, then people who care about such things will absolutely "game" that system to gain those, without ANY significant increase in the overall quality of the dialog.
The only effect this system will have is to increase the "noise" level of the forums, making it harder to actually find the "signal" here.
A "rating" system potentially can be useful in a board made up of responsible posters who honestly rate posts based on the *quality* of their content. Unfortunately that doesn't describe the population of the SOE boards at all. People rate posts (1 star or 5 stars) based on how much they "like" the poster, or how much they "like" the idea. This turns the rating system into a "battleground" where morons can duke it out. It is now and will continue to be a worthless tool on these boards.
It has been my experience that the people who genuinely **contribute** to a community by posting (e.g., answering questions, posing new and interesting questions, etc) do so *without* any regard for their "rank" or post count.
If you hold out a "carrot" of ranking / privileges based on post count and/or star system, then people who care about such things will absolutely "game" that system to gain those, without ANY significant increase in the overall quality of the dialog.
The only effect this system will have is to increase the "noise" level of the forums, making it harder to actually find the "signal" here.
A "rating" system potentially can be useful in a board made up of responsible posters who honestly rate posts based on the *quality* of their content. Unfortunately that doesn't describe the population of the SOE boards at all. People rate posts (1 star or 5 stars) based on how much they "like" the poster, or how much they "like" the idea. This turns the rating system into a "battleground" where morons can duke it out. It is now and will continue to be a worthless tool on these boards.
SimDroid
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:46 am
#48
Looks like the 1-star bandit has been dealt with..... thanks to 5-star man! 
Owen-Lars
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:49 am
#49
I like that idea where it would go down to nine 5 star posts.
I think an mean/average rating system needs to be made because its the only way that griefing and completely away from the average ratings will be found and controlled.
I like your idea alot and i think it would go a long way in controlling the one star bandits whilst not punishing the genuine posters.
Imperio59
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:49 am
#50
I like it very much personally The star rating is very good, because at a high level it can allow us to see who really is a respected member of the forum community and who is just a veteran player who may not have the same quality of posting...
Messa Like Youssa!
The star rating is very good, because at a high level it can allow us to see who really is a respected member of the forum community and who is just a veteran player who may not have the same quality of posting...Messa Like Youssa!
SimDroid
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:50 am
#51
TheLateAnakinSolo wrote:
I WOULD like this, except for the fact that about 20 or so 1-star bandits have been through my post history 1-staring everything that I've done...
I've had this too.... my rating value dropped from 3 stars to 2 stars over the whole proposed vendor changes when I didn't side with the majority and actually tried to make sense of the matter instead of just complaing about it
Hav0c
Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:50 am
#52
Galactic Chancellors will be rarer than Jedi are supposed to be!! (Can I hunt them??)