Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Moozooh: We don't need any labels for ratings. People can decide themselves what they think a rating means. The decimal system would solve the problem since the labels will be gone.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bisqwit wrote:
jimsfriend wrote:
I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying here. Things can happen that are contrary to the will of God?
What do you think sin is then?
But even though sin happens in the small scale, sin does not pervail. God's will still wins in the grand scale :)
Things happening that God does not like, does not mean that the world is slipping out of his control and that he's watching helplessly. God has always been clear to guide the human by telling what he thinks is best, but the choice is with the human. But unlike today's parents, he keeps guiding people -- rewarding those who follow his will, and punishing those who don't. Eventually, all of those who chose to follow him, will be able to join his place and fully enjoy everything he can offer for all eternity, in a new, non-degrading body that is not subject to the same laws of physics as we are here, and all of those who chose to reject him, will be eternally separated from him together with the rest of those who chose to live in sin, including the spiritual beings that were cast out before the creation of humans, in the place that was prepared for punishing those spiritual beings (demons) for all eternity.
This post made remembered me a lot of this youtube movie http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68
It depicts God as a cloud, and is being outreasoned... so it might be offensive to you. This is not my intention at all, so if you are, then feel free to ignore or delete this post.
I do think it makes some valid points, and I was wondering what you think about the points that are being made (In particular the question "What would happen if all good persons would go to heaven?").
I was also wondering what assumptions about God were made in this movie that you disagree with (besides obvious things like how he is being depicted).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Apo123 wrote:
I voted with the herd (last choice), but I'd like to point out a problem:
With ratings, at least for me, it's hard to be able to give a useful answer on the Technical aspect (1). While 5 may be average(2), I don't exactly know how to judge how optimized a movie is(3). While some mistakes can be obvious, it's hard to see those little, tiny mistakes costing only a few frames, which more experienced people will be able to spot immediately(4). I may end up voting an unoptimized movie a 9, because while the end result looks very good, there may be many many little mistakes which cost time. How would that get factored in?(5)
(1)It is for everyone. Hopefully the suggestion at the rating thread of giving a clearer definition of the intended purpose if the technical rating will make it a little easier.
(2)I don't know where people get the ridiculous idea that 5 should be the average. Well, actually I do, it's because it says "average" right next to the rating. I think it's very misleading, and a 5 actually is a pretty low score. Some people will vote higher on movies than others, so the averages of people will be different, but that's perfectly fine. 5 should not be, and was never intended to be, the average. (I also suggested getting rid of these labels like "average" at the rating thread.)
(3)No one really knows. It's hard for everyone to determine just by watching the movie. Do note that the "How close is this movie to perfection" was not the intended purpose of the technical rating, and like I said at (1), hopefully this will be fixed some time soon.
(4)I don't think improvements of a few frames can be seen immediately. Experienced people might indeed be able to spot more, but they will either spot clear improvements, or might see something that needs to be tested, which could be a few frames faster. It's most of the time impossible to spot frame improvements right away, without actually testing it.
(5)I don't think anyone can really tell. Everyone can be wrong about something in the end. I personally think it's good to compare a movie with other movies you rated, and rate it in a consistent way with your previous ratings.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Xkeeper wrote:
I honestly cannot fathom why in the world anybody could possibly have a use for ratings outside of integral 1-10. Seriously.
Cpadolf wrote:
Really though, I don't see how people would be able to rate accurately with a 1-100 scale, and I think it would end up making many go +/- 0.1-0.3 depending on their mood, the game or other ratings.
What defines 8? What about 8.1?
I already somewhat responded to this:
Baxter wrote:
moozooh wrote:
Why does this movie deserve 9.2 and not 9.3? What about another pair of 9.2-9.3 movies? Same kind of a difference? Or not?
If you rate enough movies, you will get quite a large list of your ratings. When watching your list, you can determine if you like a certain TAS better or worse than others, or equally well. If you like it nearly equally well as some other TAS, but just a tiny bit less, you might want to give it a 9.2 instead of the 9.3 the other TAS got.
You basically would want to list them in a way that you get a rating list in the end that truly reflects your thoughts, and being able to rate decimals will make it possible to make small distinctions between different movies, if you like one movie slightly better, and want it to be slightly higher in your rating list.
Voting that take into account other ratings you gave is perfectly fine. You need to give consistent votes to all movies you rated, which kinda makes this necessary.
Xkeeper wrote:
Even then, what about 10? WHat if something comes along that's even better than that movie you rated 10?
If someone is really bothered by this, just don't rate a 10. You will have the same problem with only rating integers, but worse. If you decide not to give 10-ratings, with decimals you could still give ratings in the 9.1-9.9 range, if you think a movie is worth more than a 9.
This just seems to be a list of all mario, sonic, metroid and castlevania games... I don't know if such a list really adds anything. A list of all mario games, a list of all sonic games, ...etc, would probably be more useful. Btw, some of the movies you posted at the start are listed twice (for instance mm1 and zelda). And also, is the Mario Adventure hack really one of the most popular games ever? (And there were some others that just seemed to be there since they had the title "mario" or whatever in it.
Alden wrote:
This quite rightly says "Alden" at the top, and /AldensMovieSuggestions.html would probably be a better name for the page. It sounds like a list of movies that got a rating that you think should be higher. Lots of the movies have a really low rating, (lots below 6, and one even below a 5). I think a movie suggestions list (even if it are of relatively unknown games) that would be based upon general opinion would look really different.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
BoltR wrote:
Baxter wrote:
(2)Posts stating a personal vote:
- I don't see any problem with this. If it states a no-vote, than it's perfect, since especially those need posts attached to them. If it states a yes-vote, then it's fine too I think. People might know the author, and want him to know that they personally enjoyed the run, rather than being just one of the pile of ananymous yes votes. Most of the "I voted yes"-posts contain something like "great movie, yes vote", which gives the author of the run a feeling that his hard work is being appreciated, I think this is a good thing (ok... preferably the reasons why it is a great run should be stated... but I think even without it, it's fine).
Basically you touch on what I want to say at the end. Beyond the fact that there are many yes votes that don't really mention the run, the ones that say "great movie, yes vote" are actually less helpful than you think. If someone votes yes, it's safe to assume that they though it was a great movie. Unless of course they make a post along the lines of, "Although I voted yes, it's a pretty weak one. I think <x> could be improved." Which again, is much more helpful and quite likely would have been posted anyways.
It's also more helpful if someone says "Great movie, I really enjoyed when you <x>", as it gives the judge something to look for.
You didn't adress my main point that an author is getting appreciation from a "great movie, yes vote", which is vital to the authors motivation to TAS possibly.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
AnS wrote:
It would be interesting to see such themed list: tool-assisted speedruns that correspond to unassisted records in terms of time (let's say, unassisted run should have no more than +5% to TAS record). First nominee being SMB, of course.
The opposite could also work: TASes which are enormously faster than their unassisted counterparts.
How about this simple idea: TASes of the most popular games ever. I don't think there is such a list yet anywhere. This list could actually be interesting and useful for many.
A list of surprisingly entertaining runs of relatively unknown games would be a lot more useful I think.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bezman wrote:
For decimals, how about having 2 drop-down menus for each score?
Looking sorta like:
[9].[5]
Just an idea to avoid having a hundred things to scroll through. Folk who want to use integers can use the left drop-down menu only, if they wish.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
alden wrote:
Well you got me to switch from "no voting at all" to that awesome quartile craziness. My only suggestion would be to iron out the definition of "tech" as it was discussed recently that the definition of "close to perfection" is kind of ambiguous.
I can only point to the rating thread (and hope people support my latest suggestions there ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Hmm, if the voting topic would turn out to be in favor of somehow implementing ratings, this topic too is pretty important. I think it's obvious that my initial plan won't ever get enough support. I'll give 3 suggestions, which I think are very reasonable, and should be able to get some support:
1) Being able to give decimal ratings (like 7.8, 5.3, 9.4 etc). Some people might say that they don't think such accuracy is needed... but I know quite a lot of people would also like be able to give more precise votes, and the people who don't want to do that, they can just stay with voting integers.
2) A better description of how the technical rating is intended to be interpreted. The current "(how close it is to perfection)" does not seem to do this well at all.
3) It is somewhat hard to get to view rating list of other users. http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/my/ This page shows a list of the top 15 raters, it would be nice if their names linked to their rating lists for instance.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
adelikat wrote:
I think mmbossman's suggestion is a great one, and a no brainer here. The previous votes indicate that people are clearly in favor of having less information displayed. This addresses that issue, while avoiding a "You guys can't behave so I will remove this feature" kind of approach, AND it increases the amount of information available for judging. I also think that rating the movies will increase the amount of involvement a voter feels when watching submissions. In addition, it improves another aspect of the site (movie ratings). A win/win/win/win if you ask me.
(Obviously I voted for this option).
Exactly my opinion... it's by far the best option that could possibly get a majority ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
BoltR wrote:
First of all, people seem to think that I'm completely against all sort of voting type system. This isn't true. I just firmly believe that the former system was not doing it's job, and was in fact becoming a hindrance. I am more than open to discussion to get a better system, but I do agree with Bisqwit that nothing would have gotten accomplished if we had just started with discussion. Rocking the boat is sometimes the best way to get things changed.
Perhaps this is true... still don't know if I agree with it though, it seemed kinda sudden, but I guess it indeed was the best way to get things changed. I do hope whatever change is determined to be best, that it doesn't take a long time to be implemented... since I think the majority doesn't like the current state of having nothing.
BoltR wrote:
It was originally added to help judged sort through a list of over one hundred submissions to see which they should read/watch first.
Even if it lost its original purpose, it could still be something people got used to, and started to like for other reasons.
BoltR wrote:
Since then it has grown into some sort of beast that people argue over, and think actually matters even though they are often reminded it doesn't. I think it's safe to say that at least half the posts in the submission forum now adays is either discussing/complaining about something related to the voting system(1) OR a post just stating what someone voted(2). (Such as "I voted yes", or "First yes vote. I'll watch it now"). Neither of those types of posts are of any help at all.
(1) Posts debating the votes:
- I think posts wondering why people voted in a certain way are perfectly legit, and very much on topic of discussing the run. I agree that posts like "OMG, 10 yes votes already" or "a yes votes 2 minutes after the run is submitted" aren't useful at all, but I don't think the majority of the posts is like this. Discussing the reasons for what was voted, and if the votes should indicate publication or rejection seems perfectly fine to me.
Also:BoltR wrote:
The posts stating how someone voted, are even less helpful because there is a poll in the thread already telling judges the totals. They just take up space.
(2)Posts stating a personal vote:
- I don't see any problem with this. If it states a no-vote, than it's perfect, since especially those need posts attached to them. If it states a yes-vote, then it's fine too I think. People might know the author, and want him to know that they personally enjoyed the run, rather than being just one of the pile of ananymous yes votes. Most of the "I voted yes"-posts contain something like "great movie, yes vote", which gives the author of the run a feeling that his hard work is being appreciated, I think this is a good thing (ok... preferably the reasons why it is a great run should be stated... but I think even without it, it's fine).
I'm not gonna argue against your comments about judges... they should do that for themselves if they feel like it. But I will say that I can imagine if I were a judge that I would be interested in the voting results, even if I had watched the movie, and read all the forum posts.
BoltR wrote:
Just adding "Yes/No/Meh" post buttons won't solve the garbage post problem. It will make it much, much worse. There will be floods of people who just post "I vote yes !!!!!!!" to get past length filters. The idea here is to make the forum more lean, not more spammy.
Well, like I said, I disagree that it's spammy, for reasons stated above. I am however also against it, since some people just want to give their support for a run being either published or not, without being the 10th person in a row to post "great run, yes vote" (note that I'm not saying that would be spammy, I'm saying some people might not like to do it).
BoltR wrote:
Just hiding the vote count until the submission is judged is just as bad of a solution. It will only increase the amount of junk posts that go in the submission forum, when everyone and their dog starts to feel it necessary to let everyone know how they voted. In a three word post.
Well, without a voting system, people might just make such posts what they would have voted, had there been a voting system :P. Either way, I'm also very much against this option, for lots of reasons I stated in previous posts.
BoltR wrote:
Ratings, assuming they are just an average of everyone's ratings is a slightly better solution. It's already implemented in the site, and can be integrated in, which is very nice. However, it does suffer slightly from the same problem as above. I don't think as many people would make posts just to give their rating scores, but it still might happen. I think we would need a rule trying to forbid this. POSSIBLY don't allow people post their ratings at all, they can have them shown when the run is published.
Well, obviously I disagree with your statement that it's a bad thing if people would start posting their ratings (although obviously better with explanation of course). And you have to agree, someone just saying "8 entertainment, 5 technical", is more informative of someone just saying "yes vote". I also think this system encourages voting, which will be a good thing for the statistics (more ratings = better). I personally wouldn't mind these votes being public before publication, as it's nice to see what people voted (two 7's or a 5 and a 9 are quite different)... but I know this will never be done... so I'm just in favor of an average, and the amount of voters being public before publishing).
BoltR wrote:
This said, in my perfect world, as infeasible as it would be, there would only be posting. However, all posting would be directly about the movie. Basicaly asking questions and providing improvement suggestions. There would ideally be a bot similar to the ones in those chatrooms that ban people who say a sentence that has been said before. No repeat posts, only raw content. Praise and such can be done elsewhere mostly likely in the game related post where WIPs are posted.
I really, really disagree with this. This TAS authors spend lots and lots of their free time making these movies, and the only thing they can possibly get in return is appreciation from the people who watch it...
I know the argument that you should TAS because it's fun, and sometimes it indeed is... but sometimes, to get great results, endless and endless boring tests need to be done, which certainly isn't always fun. Knowing that it will produce a great result, and that people will appreciate it is a big motivation to pull through.
BoltR wrote:
Certain people have been extremely childish, and quite frankly don't deserve a vote in this.
Well, I hope that, just like the publication of movies, the votes are just an indication, and that the decision will be made on who is giving the best arguments, and not what has the most votes.
Yeah, I'm familiar with this. Though hiding the voting results certainly won't help, since one could still conform to the posts that were made. And the votes are hidden unless you press "show votes" anyway.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Wockes wrote:
Think about how it was when you where at school and the teacher asked everyone to do a hand vote on something. Sometimes only one or two persons raise there hands. What do they do when they realize they where the only people to do that?
They usually lower there hands and keep quite. Well, I did
How is this related to anything? Does this mean people will vote yes even though they didn't like the movie???
But for what it's worth, the teacher should ask "Who doesn't know the answer to this question?"
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Anyway, I wonder who would go to the "published movies" thread just to check the number of votes. (except for the player)
Wondering the same. I personally couldn't care less about the votes after the publication... seeing them before the the movie is judged is somewhat interesting though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I don't get why they would vote yes if they didn't like the run, just because there were many yes votes... but maybe that's just me. Your argument rests on the assumption that most of the TASvideos members are stupid.
What I meant, by "people voting because they see the current results", is stating their opinion because the votes are really close, which I don't think is a bad thing.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Baxter wrote:
I also think that some people might vote because they saw the current voting results, and I don't see anything wrong with that either actually... they would still just give their opinion by voting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
mmbossman wrote:
adelikat wrote:
Let's say someone votes no on a popular submission. Then it is published and the votes are displayed. At that point, wouldn't someone then demand to know who voted no?
I would do exactly what I've done in the past few threads where this has already come up: Tell them to stop whining, because their run got published, which was the end goal anyway.
Well, who voted no might not be that important, but I think it's perfectly ok to be interested why someone voted no.
I also think that some people might vote because they saw the current voting results, and I don't see anything wrong with that either actually... they would still just give their opinion by voting.
And I'd still like to hear a good reason why it's a good thing if I can't see the votes while I'm interested in seeing them (=before it's judged)?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Wockes wrote:
Voted "Restore poll, with only-judges results access, but publicize it when the movie is judged".
Like that idea the most.
Could you, and the others who are in favor of this give a good argument for it?
Before I continue, I'll state why I'm against it: I'm interested to see if the general audience wants to see the movie published (which is what question they are answering most of the time).
I've asked around a bit, and got two main reasons for making the votes only visible for judges:
1) People are influenced in their voting by seeing the other votes.
- I think people are mature enough not to be influenced by it.
- People could still be influenced by seeing the forum posts.
- This seems more like an argument for making the votes visible after voting, and not after publication.
2) If there are lots of yes voters, the no-voter will get framed.
- I thought voting was anonymous... (maybe the worst argument, since posting reasons is wanted)
- If you vote no, you either have good reasons, and are willing to state them, or don't, and then I can see why people wonder why there is a no vote.
- If you post your reasons for voting no, which is what is wanted, the entire flame arguments falls over.
Other reasons why I dislike the option:
- Seeing the voting results might cause some discussion, but I don't think this is bad at all, a little discussion doesn't hurt. It's the main reason why we can post, and I even think it should be encouraged.
- I'm interested to see if the general audience wants to see the movie published (which is what question they are answering most of the time) while the discussion about whether or not it should be accepted is still going on. I am not the slightest bit interested in this after the movie is published or accepted... then my attention turns to the ratings.
===============================================
I think the old system was fine, but the suggestion of using ratings and showing the average rating, and number of votes seems very nice also. It encourages people to rate, and more ratings will be good for the statistics. I think I'm currently in favor of that option. (It might even solve some of the problems people who are voting the "only visible to judges"-option have, since your rating will only count towards an average, and will not be a visible "no" (even thought that would still be anonymous).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Even though right after the technical rating it says "(how close it is to perfection)", no one really agrees on what it actually means, and gives it an own meaning. This might not be a problem to many, but it can be used to argue against people who say they are interested to see what technical rating people are giving.
I don't really understand how can it be used to argue against people who are just interested. The fact that every person defines the scale to themself is not only true, it's fundamentally unchangeable. Which is why we shouldn't really argue about it, let alone try to change it in some way. What we should do is accept it and relieve the importance sometimes associated with it. Victory comes at the moment you decide it doesn't really matter.
My point was that if you say "removing the technical rating will remove some info (other peoples ratings on the subject) I'd be interested to see", that you should still note that you won't get conistent stats, since everyone is basically rating something else under the title "technical rating".
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Assuming that most people do view the technical rating as a measure how close the movie to perfection is, is this a good thing for this to influence the final score?
As good as any other beside entertainment. You can always take this "easy" game and say "this is optimal as hell", and likely be right. If that matters in some way, it can also matter as a part of the resulting score.
To me, it doesn't matter in some way. How close to perfection doesn't matter that much, since it can't be determined anyway... which would matter more to me is the authors effort he put in, and his inventiveness.
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Assuming that most people do view the technical rating as a measure how close the movie to perfection is, how does one know how close a particular movie comes to perfection? The truth is, you have no idea of determining that until you actually TAS the game yourself, and notice howmany, frames you can save. Neither the tricks used, the amount of rerecords used, the author, whatever else you could possibly know of this movie by watching it.
Duh?.. Let me tell you more: even if you do attempt TASing it, there's no way to tell you're doing what's best. Maybe you're overlooking as much as the original author. No way to tell.
This is true, but only strengthens my point.
moozooh wrote:
That means that you (not you in particular) shouldn't pretend to assess the actual quality of optimization, but come to terms with the fact that you're assessing how optimal it looks. Which is neither bad nor wrong; TASes are a form of entertainment, entertainment is subjective, assessment is thus bound to be subjective. Nothing else needed.
This way, it seems like it is all just one big subjective assessment (which it probably is), but all the more reason to combine them into a single rating. How optimal it looks sounds like it is very, very much related to the entertainment value.
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
People might disagree on the fact that entertainment counts for 2/3 and technical rating for 1/3. Some people might find entertainment more important than that, or less important. People might also consider other things besides these two things. Would it not be better for each person to consider whatever he finds important, weigh it as high as he thinks and compiles it into a single rating?
Either too complex or potentially abusable. Hardcoded values won't be ideal, but they'll give a solid, robust base.
Well, you could implement a scrollbar which assigns for what percentage each rating counts for that movie... but more ideal just seems placing the scrollbar in your head, and combining it into a single value.
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
People might want to rate higher than a 8, but wouldn't quite give it a 9 (or want to be between some other numbers). Some people consider a 10 to be a perfect score, and are reluctant to hand it out, but it's the only option if something is worth more than a 9. Being able to give ratings like a 8.2 or a 9.3 would solve this problem.
I don't think such accuracy is needed, either. For one, I'd be just fine with 0—20 system (via .5 decimals), but wouldn't be sad if the current 0—10 one stayed, either.
I have a hard time understanding why someone could be against it. If you personally like to only rate integers, then you are still free to do so. There are a lot of people who would like to give more accurate ratings though, why not let them?
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Being able to rate a 8.2 or 9.3 (or whatever) will also enable you to list the TASes you've rated better by rating. This way, you will truly get a list of TASes you like best to TASes you 'like' worst. The current system doesn't produce this kind of list for two reasons: 1) You can only rate integers, and many movies will get the same rating, even if you like one movie a little better than the other. 2) The technical rating will give boosts to some TASes, even though you don't like them as much... this will especially be the case for the 'easy' games I mentioned earlier.
It won't be ideal at all. For one, I like certain aspects in one kind of TASes, but different ones in another. I value them differently. So far I can express it by giving different tech and entertainment ratings to represent that value. With a single value they'll be equalized, which I would be less comfortable with.
In the end, your calculated average of both ratings is what matters in the end anyway. If you really want to explain your ratings, you should write a review of the TAS or something, I don't know how just one more rating makes such a big difference... a forum post tells more anyway. This also makes me wonder, if you want to be so precise on what matters, then how come you don't want to be more precise in rating decimals?
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The labels the current integers have "slightly above average" and so on are very confusing, and might not represent what people think. It doesn't matter if one person gives his movies an average rating of a 5, while some other gives them an average rating of an 8, as long as their own list is consistent. I don't think these labels are needed.
These are only guidelines; you shouldn't worry much about them because people aren't taking them literally either.
The fact that people aren't paying attention to them anyway isn't really a good argument for keeping them, is it?
moozooh wrote:
Baxter wrote:
If people want to consider all that, fine, but just come up with a single rating that fits everything you considered.
Yeah, except coming up with a single value and trying to explain it to yourself is much harder. Try it. Why does this movie deserve 9.2 and not 9.3? What about another pair of 9.2-9.3 movies? Same kind of a difference? Or not?
If you rate enough movies, you will get quite a large list of your ratings. When watching your list, you can determine if you like a certain TAS better or worse than others, or equally well. If you like it nearly equally well as some other TAS, but just a tiny bit less, you might want to give it a 9.2 instead of the 9.3 the other TAS got.
moozooh wrote:
A single rating is almost as close to being completely arbitrary as possible. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe not. After all, it's what most are striving for, so basically we're giving them a toy to fulfill their "lowly desires". :)
Well, coming up with a list in the end that truly goes from the TASes you like best to the TASes you like least doesn't seem very arbitrary to me. If you want to eleborate on a certain rating, there are always the forums, and I don't see how a single extra rating makes it that much less arbitrary (especially since it's just as subjective as the entertainment rating like you stated)... I think with being able to rate decimal numbers, it's less arbitrary than the current system.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp: I think that's even worse than the current system. If people want to consider all that, fine, but just come up with a single rating that fits everything you considered. As for your individual suggestions:
- perfection: you can only guess this, and it would give rating boosts to games that are easy to TAS
- Technique&tools: for some TASes, other tools are needed than others. It's hard to really know the techniques that are used, unless you are really interested in the game. I don't think someone who just watched the TAS for fun, would care a whole lot. They just want to watch a fun movie, and give a rating.
- Overall entertainment: this is obviously important in whatever rating system is implemented.
- Interest for gamers/speedrunners: I have a hard time finding the right words for how random and unrelevant this rating would be.
==================================
As for my suggestion, I kinda see that no one seems to be in favor for a single rating... well, if there must be two ratings, it would still be good if:
- You can rate in decimals
- Maybe have the option not to give a technical rating
- Have a clearly stated definition of what the technical rating is supposed to be at the side of the rating system
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
How would the existing ratings be converted to the new ratings? (I'm assuming it wouldn't be a very popular decision to simply drop all the existing ratings.)
The current ratings could be transferred, counting the entertainment value for 2/3 and the technical rating for 1/3, and let that constitute the single new rating. People can then easily, by watching their rating list, change their ratings.
Warp wrote:
How should the web form be changed so that one could enter a value between 0 and 10 with one decimal of accuracy? An editable textfield could work, but it might be slightly confusing to use, as well as error-prone. If the input is invalid, the server would have to do something about it. Maybe javascript could be used to enforce a correct value (but the server would still have to do something if an incorrect value is entered with javascripts disabled).
Yeah, this might be a small problem. I think the best way is indeed a field where values can be written in. I think both 7 7.0 and 7,0 should be valid ways of inputting it. A small line of explanation above could probably clarify it. This would also solve the currently unclear lables.
Warp wrote:
Also, some people might like having two categories more than having just one. We should hear their opinion as well.
Yeah, some more opinions on this would definately be good (although they mostly come after something is implemented). Either way, it doesn't need to be exactly my idea that needs to be implemented, I'm just giving my opinion on what I think the ideal system is. If some aspect (like being able to rate in decimals) would be implemented, it could already be an improvement.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Hmm... I planned on creating a seperate thread, just for my suggestion... and reading this all, I probably should have.
Only Warp sorta responded to it, but not really, as he didn't really respond to anything particular, and mainly stated his own definition of technical rating...
Could anyone (particularly Warp) give some reasons why my idea shouldn't be implemented?
