I know not everyone is sensitive like that, and not everyone rates the movies much lower than the average, but I still wouldn't want such things to happen, as it might hurt the integrity of the community.
I don't think it would. The only thing it would do is it would make it better clear which members actually have a clue, and which don't, about the movie they are rating.
Giving them a option to "hide" their ratings will obviously be subject for abuse by those who know they rate movies just by their own flavour (probably without even watching in some cases) to boost up movies they like or pull down movies they don't, no matter what the true facts are about the movie (this applies at least to technical ratings, which should be exclusively judged by the facts they show).
I'm pretty sure having all ratings published would increase the overall truth behind them for every movie, those making this site of higher quality in the rating department, and therefore making the first time visiter/watcher much clearer what to expect about a movie they are interested to watch.
About the hater thing, I said before that it was just a thought. I take it all back and apologize if it was truely a missclick or any other reason.
The only thing it would do is it would make it better clear which members actually have a clue
now there's a very fine demonstration of the attitude leading to peer pressure. Now who would dare to have an individual taste if it leads to people considering one clueless?
The only thing it would do is it would make it better clear which members actually have a clue, and which don't, about the movie they are rating.
Giving them a option to "hide" their ratings will obviously be subject for abuse by those who know they rate movies just by their own flavour (probably without even watching in some cases) to boost up movies they like or pull down movies they don't, no matter what the true facts are about the movie (this applies at least to technical ratings, which should be exclusively judged by the facts they show).
But people will still rate movies by their own impression, rather than facts. Moreover, facts often don't stop people from rating a certain movie lower or higher in tech score than it probably deserves. Like, for example, even knowing that a certain run can be improved doesn't stop people from throwing 10s at it, while there are runs that are very close to be unimprovable rated lower than 8.
But the truth is, until a person tries it and gets some result (a clue you mentioned) themself, they wouldn't know how improvable it is actually, so only about 3-5% of the ratings are trustworthy in this respect.
Furthermore, as ratings stay subjective, they might be influenced by comparisons with other movies, certain mood (fascination especially), misinterpretation of author's actions or intentions, or anything else that might lead to the mark being "clueless". Facts have little significance here in the list of everything that the rating score consists of.
I have even decided to formulate a definite scale to rate the movies with, both to stay consistent myself and explain my marks for others' movies, let any of them be publicized in some way, without arguing or other hassle. It illustrates what factors I usually consider when rating each movie, and I believe this scale to be rather good and consistent, but so far I am the only one of about two hundred rating users I know of who actually has written such a thing down, so that people could at least know that I'm being consistent in my rating activity.
Moreover, since I formulated that scale, I usually was among the first ones to rate almost all the recent movies, and there was a peculiar thing I discussed with Xkeeper in IRC. I noticed that the more recently published movies' overall rating scores almost always coincide with my own, or at least stay very close to them in both categories. I was puzzled, since I rated those movies among the first three users, and thus couldn't see what the others have rated it with, so I couldn't fall under the peer pressure.
So I wondered if it was me whose tastes became more like the others', or the others' more like mine. Xkeeper expressed a thought that it likely wasn't me who fell under under the pressure, but those who rated afterwards; that is, I helped generate this "clue" with my early rating mark that might have led to slight peer pressure in the end.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Thats why I only rate movies of games I know the TAS-possibilities pretty well and only after taking a closer look on the quality of it, to make my rating as true as possible.
But I understand that there are people who rate much more movies they actually don't even know the game of pretty well, so I agree that sometimes cluelessness is unavoidable in that case.
In any case, causing peer pressure or whatever is definitely not my intention, I just stated my view on it.
I don't see a reason to adjust personal votes to other's votes. Maybe it just me.
Just look at the workbench. Anyone voting "No" on a popular submission is instantly attacked for their opinion.
I find this to be an overgeneralization. If you look at these 5 current submissions (Star Control 2, Pulseman, Metroid 2, SMW walkathon and NES Test) you'll find that all of them have 'no' votes and none of them have attacks against the people who voted 'no'. Even when there's a 'no' vote for the more popular games like Super Metroid or Mega Man *, cooler heads usually prevail.
Non-anonymous ratings would help make abuses public faster. This is a minor issue right now. Hopefully it won't become a more important issue in the future.
I'd also like to see how certain people rated their own movies, but that's just me.
As for peer pressure, that already happens when users are shown the average rating right below the rating select. When I vote I have to make a conscious effort to ignore others' ratings. (I'd like to see a layout change addressing this.) It's not the case that peer pressure shouldn't be a consideration, just that it's already a factor.
The results of this poll were quite distributed, each option getting almost an equal amount of votes, but if I count that the "voluntary option" is a half-vote for both "yes" and "no", then "yes" gained 27 and "no" gained 19 votes.
Because the "voluntary option" is a superset of both "yes" and "no", I decided to implement it, and hence, it now exists. There.
The majority of this change was implemented by Warp, so thank him for implementing it so fast.
Also, he did the long-requested change of hiding the ratings of obsoleted movies at the same time. (This affects the ratings page only, not the profile summary.)
Anyway, you can now change your preference whether to publish the ratings, at your profile page.
Viewing the profiles now contains a link to user's ratings if it's permitted, and a note about not permitted otherwise.
EDIT: I set the option to "yes" for all who voted other than "no" in this topic, "no" to everyone else. The default for new users is "yes". But everyone can change their preference.
Wow, good job Warp for the fast implementation. :)
Might want to change the "Ratings are not anonymous, although a public tool to identify them does not exist yet." note though if it wasn't already changed by the time I posted...
<Zurreco> if so called professional players cant adapt to every playing field, theyre obviously not that great
Joined: 12/26/2006
Posts: 256
Location: United States of America
I found a glitch in the implementation. For any user with a space in the user name, clicking the "details" link brings up the site's error 404 page. That means that there's a mistake in the address provided by the link, doesn't it?
It's a very humorous 404 page; I'm glad I got to see it. It's a parody of that ludicrous dialog from Mega Man 7, isn't it?
The mistake appears to be as follows: the space character is represented in the URL by a '+'. Substituting "%20" fixes it. That's was probably just an oversight and is a very easy thing to fix, am I right?
But Bisqwit probably won't let me fix it, correct? Deep Loner doesn't have administrative privleges on the site, isn't that true? Also, Deep Loner isn't a very good programmer, is he? Letting him touch the site's code could potentially bring everything down, couldn't it? ; p
These appositive questions are pretty annoying, aren't they?
I am very confused about where everything is located at the moment.
The options for the rating (such as wether to hide them or not) should be on the ratings page. I wish there was a way to reach other people's rating short of going through their profile, which usually means you have to find a post they made, or do some magic on the ULR bar.
The mistake appears to be as follows: the space character is represented in the URL by a '+'. Substituting "%20" fixes it. That's was probably just an oversight and is a very easy thing to fix, am I right?
Thanks, fixed. I used urlencode, should have used rawurlencode because it was a path component and not a query component.
Truncated: Maybe it could be put on the ratings page as well. I just put it on the profile page because that's currently the only place in the entire site with personal settings.
What do you suggest as for reaching other people's rating pages?
One way is to link them from Users.html. An automatic link on personal homepages probably woudn't hurt either, because the first impulse is to click the people on the "most rated movies" to see what they have rated.
Joined: 12/26/2006
Posts: 256
Location: United States of America
Truncated wrote:
I am very confused about where everything is located at the moment.
The options for the rating (such as wether to hide them or not) should be on the ratings page.
I don't know where it's "supposed" to be, but the option is located on the forum profile options page.
Truncated wrote:
I wish there was a way to reach other people's rating short of going through their profile, which usually means you have to find a post they made, or do some magic on the ULR bar.
But some sort of link from the ratings page isn't a bad idea. : )
Edit:
EDIT: fixed now, disregard this.
Now that I can see the ratings of others, I can't seem to access my own.
rating.exe wrote:
Fatal error: Call to undefined function RedirectTo() in /home/WWW/wikisites/nesvideos-site/doc/rating.php on line 664
(It's likely something temporary, but I have no way of knowing it's not some problem specific to my username.)
Also, non-rating users have a "Details..." link that is missing a newline or space before it and sometimes leads to a "User not found" page.
Sometimes, those users have never logged in on the main site. Meaning they don't have an account there, either. (It is automatically created upon a successful login using the forum account.)
In case I said this too indirectly: I think there should be no details link when there are no ratings. I wasn't suggesting those little problems be fixed individually.
In case I said this too indirectly: I think there should be no details link when there are no ratings. I wasn't suggesting those little problems be fixed individually.
You said it too indirectly for me to notice, yes, but I did that change anyway.
Considering the new direction-
Is there a way so that possible new members have to answer a "do you want your ratings to be public [y/n]" style choice when registering, if this is not already the case?
It could detract from the people who register the very instant they learn about the site, but it might increase awareness about community involvement.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Um, might not be related but...
The http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/my/ page is not working properly for me. Ill try back later and see if its on my end.
Joined: 12/26/2006
Posts: 256
Location: United States of America
Now that players' ratings are (optionally) public, how about the ability to query individual ratings on a game-by-game basis? The page could start out with the average entertainment and technical ratings and the number of public and privite votes, followed by a report of each individual (public) voter's entertainment and technical ratings. Ratings are already shown for a user-by-user basis, and I'm sure this added information could be found useful in many respects.
Joined: 12/26/2006
Posts: 256
Location: United States of America
Warp wrote:
I coded something like that and Bisqwit added it to the site engine.
Bisqwit wrote:
And it is found by clicking the "(# users)" link in the movie entry.
Awesome! Just one piece of constructive criticism: I think that displaying the names of those who gave non-public ratings is a bad idea, since those users had wished to be anonymous. I suggest something more along the lines of: "n users' ratings are hidden by request." Additionally, perhaps each user profile could have a boolean "Ratings Abuser" flag that would cause ratings by that user to be treated differently, perhaps adding to the bottom of the page, "The ratings of the following users were ignored due to past abuse:"
Of course, if that were implemented, such an "abuser" flag would naturally only ever be set by Bisqwit or very highly trusted site administrators...
Besides these, very nice work with the implementations, Warp! Thumbs up!
Also, I'm curious as to whether this "MovieWatcher" is a human or a bot...
But some sort of link from the ratings page isn't a bad idea. : )
Edit:
