- "Weak" votes were already being cast long before the rating system
- They are very clear on purpose
- 5 steps is a far cry from 100
Also I like the idea of the "weak" votes.
More than 5 choices would start being too much. It would immediately start being a rating rather than an opinion. Less than 5 choices (ie. practically 3) feels a bit too little. It's like an all-or-nothing choice: Either you like/hate it a lot, or you don't care. No middle ground possible.
And as you say, people were already making "weak" votes in the old system. Now they would have an official way of saying so.
Oh, but then it'll be like those real-life opinion polls where you gotta answer "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", "Strongly Disagree", plus whatever they call the Neutral option in the middle.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Oh, but then it'll be like those real-life opinion polls where you gotta answer "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", "Strongly Disagree", plus whatever they call the Neutral option in the middle.
Oh, but then it'll be like those real-life opinion polls where you gotta answer "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", "Strongly Disagree", plus whatever they call the Neutral option in the middle.
I support the idea of four options.
Honestly, I always assumed Meh vote as something like Weak No. Because TASes are made to excite people, so there won't be absolutely neutral mood after watching them. Really neutral opinion is simply not voting.
So I'm for "No/Nah/Yeah/Yes" polls. There's no need to outweight negative side of polls with 5 options (Strong No, No, Weak No, Weak Yes, Yes).
I support the idea of four options.
Honestly, I always assumed Meh vote as something like Weak No. Because TASes are made to excite people, so there won't be absolutely neutral mood after watching them. Really neutral opinion is simply not voting.
So I'm for "No/Nah/Yeah/Yes" polls. There's no need to outweight negative side of polls with 5 options (Strong No, No, Weak No, Weak Yes, Yes).
No, nah, and yeah, yes say the same thing. No, weak no, meh, weak yes, yes do not say the same thing. Plus, with your 4 options, I can't be neutral.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
No, nah, and yeah, yes say the same thing. No, weak no, meh, weak yes, yes do not say the same thing.
These were just fond abbreviations, nothing to be taken seriously.
Sticky wrote:
Plus, with your 4 options, I can't be neutral.
But even with today's 3-option-polls, when you're voting Meh you're not being neutral, you're actually voting weak no. If a movie receives many Meh votes, most likely it will be rejected, which is quite natural, because TASes shouldn't arouse indifference.
While you have a point, AnS, I suspect that any poll that doesn't have a neutral-looking option will be plagued by complaints. Even if "neutral" is always used as "weak no". This is one of those places where logic just doesn't triumph.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
We should keep the 'meh' option no matter what. I personally don't think I would really use a 'weak no' option... for me the current three are enough. Don't really mind five options though, if people feel they are useful.
A weak no may not be used, but weak yes' are used all of the time. in order to have a neutral looking vote, you would need an odd number. Thus, including the (most likely never used, aside from Alden) weak no vote, a meh could then be rightfully included.
I don't care how many ways you can say yes, no or maybe, there needs to be an odd number of choices. Then one could cast a truly 50/50 vote.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
I'm starting to warm up to the suggestion that there's no need for a "weak no". After all, what does it mean that "meh" doesn't already convey? After all, you either object to the submission being published, or you don't. If you object, you should have (and state) some reason why not. Exactly what would "weak no" convey in this context?
I agree, 4 options are better than 5. Being neutral when it comes to decide if something is good implicitly means that we think it's not good enough.
Maybe the options should be renamed a bit, though.
Let's see:
Awesome/Fuck yes: something I think it's really good and must be on the site, I'll be watching it again and again
Normal yes: something good to watch, entertaining, but I wouldn't kill myself if it's not approved
Meh/neutral: I don't care about this one, I'm not going to watch it again, I'm not impressed, etc
Strong no: wait, what? Is this a joke? I can do better unassisted!
Hmm, I see your point with neutral. Why bother voting at all.
I do think if things were renamed, it should be kept more professional than "Fuck yeah," or even "Awesome." Can't think of a better way of renaming at the moment, though.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
I agree, 4 options are better than 5. Being neutral when it comes to decide if something is good implicitly means that we think it's not good enough.
Maybe the options should be renamed a bit, though.
Let's see:
Awesome/Fuck yes: something I think it's really good and must be on the site, I'll be watching it again and again
Normal yes: something good to watch, entertaining, but I wouldn't kill myself if it's not approved
Meh/neutral: I don't care about this one, I'm not going to watch it again, I'm not impressed, etc
Strong no: wait, what? Is this a joke? I can do better unassisted!
I see no point whatsoever in renaming them, and I agree with Sticky that something like "fuck yeah" is horrible.
And voting 'meh' doesn't mean to me at all "not interested, I'm not going to watch, I'm not impressed". To me it's most of the time that something in particular is just meh about the movie... too long, too short, too many errors, too slow, too arbitrary goals, etc. For me, it doesn't mean at all that the movie itself isn't interesting...
I have always understood "meh" to mean "I personally didn't care too much about this run in particular, but I see no technical reason why it shouldn't be published, as it meets the quality criteria of the site".
A "I don't care" option would be not voting at all.
"Weak yes" would be something like "yes, it's good, although..."
I have always understood "meh" to mean "I personally didn't care too much about this run in particular, but I see no technical reason why it shouldn't be published, as it meets the quality criteria of the site".
A "I don't care" option would be not voting at all.
"Weak yes" would be something like "yes, it's good, although..."
So, the only thing a "meh" vote does is to indicate that someone has lost interest in that run during watching.
EDIT: By the way, I'd like to go off topic to "inflated ratings" again:
Tub wrote:
So what if I don't like watching crappy movies on obscure, unsuitable games, and hence never have to vote low? Averaging a user's votes is only valid if the user watched an standard distributed set of movies.
It's also doesn't hurt to have our top movies actually display a 9.x on the front page. Promotion and stuff.
If we wish to avoid abuse, we could employ a rating bias metric: Calculate how close a user's ratings were to the public opinion, i.e. the difference between his rating and the total average.
For example, I rated 8 on movie A and 4 on movie B, while the average rating is 6 on A 4 on B. My opinion is on average ((8-6) + (4-4))/2 = 1 above the popular opinion. I'm a high-voter, reduce all my ratings by 1 point.
(there are some corner cases that need to be taken into account to avoid unwanted side-effects, though. Like users with only 1 vote.)
Of course, any form of normalization can be manipulated by placing a few strategic votes to shift your average. But I feel that my suggestion will give better results than just setting the rating's mean to 5.
Another way is to just ignore 1 or 2 or a certain percentage of highest and lowest ratings in a category, and then take the average of the rest ratings.
With reasonable clipping, this way most of the inflation caused by extreme ratings will be eliminated.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
