Files rating - Could it be improved ? -

[snake_eye]

The files are most often rated without any comments. That conducts to be rather surprised while playing a badly rated one and or disapointed for a highly rated .

Someone being defeated might have a tendency to rate low and or high because he likes the map of a scenario not worth to be played.........

For these reasons a commentary, even short, will be a most valuable needed information and will explain the reason of the rating.

Do you feel the same or do you have another way to improve it ?

Cheers

[Moon]

I assume you're talking about the Repository?

User ratings - or, for that matter, any ratings, including from "professional" reviewers - always have to be taken with a couple tons of salt I don't think that forcing people to post comments and not just a rating would help much in this regard. All it probably would do is decrease the already low download-to-rating ratio even more.

User ratings are a guideline what others thought about it, not an indication if you will like it or not.

[snake_eye]

I assume you're talking about the Repository?

User ratings - or, for that matter, any ratings, including from "professional" reviewers - always have to be taken with a couple tons of salt I don't think that forcing people to post comments and not just a rating would help much in this regard. All it probably would do is decrease the already low download-to-rating ratio even more.

User ratings are a guideline what others thought about it, not an indication if you will like it or not.

Well, Moon,

First -

I am not asking for being obliged to had comments. I am just pointing out that it will help to understand the rating, since that there are no particular rules about it.

Second -

User ratings are effectively a guideline of what others thought about it and I don't see that the fact that I like it or not is relevant, unless, I rate the file for having played it.

Last -

I must say that at different times, I did not like a scenario and that I did not rate it and or made comments, for the only reason, that I thought that the guy having done it with all the efforts it takes just did not deserved to be discouraged; After all , he might be the one coming out with the best scenario some time later.

Cheers

[Moon]

Hi snake eye:

First and Second -

people are free to add comments already. So I may be not entirely clear I guess what you're asking about?

Last -

this is the reason why no comments are enforced, i.e. you can rate anonymously. While it may be hard to "punish" people who often (not always) spent a lot of time on something, it is only with constructive criticism that people can improve what they're doing. By not rating you are not really doing the guy/girl a favor down the road...

[Combatintman]

snake eye - I understand your point but even if comments were enforced it does not necessarily mean you will get quality input because people could just put 'this sucks' or 'this rocks' which is no more help - it would end up like youtube. For what its worth I've played a couple of yours and like the effort you've put into your maps.

[snake_eye]

Well,

Moon and Combatintman, you are mentionning right things. We can rate anonymously or not and add eventually comments. It might help people to know their weakness. However the rating alone, either up or down doesn't give a clue to the scenario map and or playability quality. It is an overall rating reflecting what an individual thinks about the game (but what does he thinks really ?). That brings us to what Moon wrote previously (quote: User ratings - or, for that matter, any ratings, including from "professional" reviewers - always have to be taken with a couple tons of salt )

Ok Nobody can be perfect specially with ratings, lets keep it as it is. We will continue to feel like an S2 having to report a situation and making interpretation of what he thinks, he has found behind reports giving no real information.

In Iraqui Freedom they expected to find people along the road with flags waiving at them. No need to recall what really happen.

Cheers

[theFightingSeabee]

Moon, I'm not complaining too much here, but one big reason that there are less comments is that navigating to what you want isn't always easy to do. If there were some quicker way, like some type of quick list or something where you can see all of the files, then it might take less time to find a mod/scenario and therefor might have more feedback. Just a thought.

[Combatintman]

Agreed - I too think the repository is a bit clunky in execution.

[snake_eye]

ERGONOMICS, that is what should be improved. It will bring to one looking at the Repository, what SITUATION AWARENESS bring to a fightman either on the ground or in the air.

This is not a complaint, just an advice. After all, I have dealt with these things most of my life throught technical issues and or survey analysis, mostly civilians.

When, you say that a decision is sound, you point out the facts. You don't say, that's good and that's it. My boss or higher up, would have told me "Greg, you don't give a damn for what you are saying". In another words, make it short but give the facts.

Anyway, let's hang up with it, if that is your choice, it will be better than not having it at all.

Cheers

[Moon]

Moon, I'm not complaining too much here, but one big reason that there are less comments is that navigating to what you want isn't always easy to do. If there were some quicker way, like some type of quick list or something where you can see all of the files, then it might take less time to find a mod/scenario and therefor might have more feedback. Just a thought.

I am not sure how "a quick list ... where you can see all the files" will help you in finding anything. Without any kind of structure you'll be looking at hundreds and hundres of files from totally different games.

The Repository has categories (and sub-categories) for each game. By simply browsing them you can look up every single file there is. It's not one quick list (because there are sub categories), but it comes very close to it.

You can also use the search feature to "generate" your own quick list, looking for a specific catchword for example.

BTW, I don't agree that the reason there are less comments is any kind of problem with the ergonomics Repository. Every time you download something you're emailed a reminder to vote or post a comment (with a link), and the interface for doing BOTH is right there at your fingertips. People are deliberately choosing to comment or not when they decide if they want to vote or not, and it has nothing to do with finding files if you ask me.

Having said that... there is no doubt that things can improve with the Repository. And they will. I have a new version in testing currently which e.g. is adding tags, so that scenario authors can influence and improve the way that files are stored and make it easier to use the search function. The Repository is very much "work in progress" as it is, and will evolve in the way people are using it.

[snake_eye]

BTW, I don't agree that the reason there are less comments is any kind of problem with the ergonomics Repository

Well, Moon, by ergonomics, I mean something you are using as it should be. I have no doubt, that people are able to look and find what they are searching, with more or less difficulties. But, you haven't pointed out that, if finding something is a result in itself, the value and the efficiency (compare to what you expect to find) of what it contains or is made off is what will cause a problem. Why ? Simply because the rating is based on 5 levels and that there are no real rules of the way it should be rated.

Take a scenario and a panel of 10 gamers and you will get 10 gamers ratings, eventually the same level, but for different reason.

If you have to rate the scenario, the map and finally the playability of the scenario, you will know what to expect and you don't need any comments, if you ssee what I mean.

I have the memory of a pretty good scenario and briefing, with a map, making me jealous an unfortunatelly the playability of it what a disaster. The guy knows, what I am talking about, since I checked it at its demand. He made real progress lately.....

Cheers

[Moon]

I am not sure if I fully understand what you're trying to say but if you are after a "reliable" rating system, then I'm afraid it's a noble goal which will never be reached. For my part I am happy that people are rating and posting comments at all. I seem to recall, at least in the early days when I still had time to do fun things like browse through CMMODS that there was a huge lack of ratings overall.

Even if we posted "rules" about how to rate, it would be arbitrary at best. For one, few people read rules, let alone follow them. Coming back to rate a scenario is difficult enough... having to read up rules how to do it is even worse. Even if we split the ratings into categories, the same problem would remain: people have and use completely different and totally subjective ways to rate.

There are no doubt individuals who are interested, willing and capable of giving in-depth reviews. And with the current system, they can do it: the comments section allows for "HUGE" reviews (I think 10000 words is the limit or something like that). Anybody who wants to get a better feel for what *some* people really thought should probably follow that rather than the ratings. But still... the ratings do give you an idea of, let's call it, the "mainstream" acceptance of a mod or scenario. While your personal mileage may vary (a lot) it's as good a guidline as any.

BTW, I have just updated the search function of the Repository. You can now search inside specific categories (e.g. if you want to search for just CMSF mods, and don't want TOW stuff to pop up etc.), something that was not possible before. Combined with the ability to search for title, the full description or an author name this should allow you to find pretty much anything with a couple of clicks.

[snake_eye]

Thanks Moon, for all the efforts and the time taken in trying to answer to my question about a "reliable" rating system. I am sorry to try to describe (rather simply) what a "reliable" rating should be. It happens that without transgressing any rules of disclosure, I have had , being seen by some as an expert, (Believe me, I don’t like to be tagged as an expert, they are the one, ending always with the wrong idea – Don’t take that for the repository !), been chosen during 15 years to establish a very close survey on some industrials plants and rate their economic and technical development and compare them with others elsewhere. These stuffs were analysed and sent to the brass, with a synthesis of the things found and advices if needed. Some sort of a civilian Intelligence, in a way.

I agree with you, to make rules that people don’t care about, doesn’t bring anything. Yet there should be simple rules. Because, you can’t succeed if there are none. Nobody will play the same tune and it will be a cacophony.

However, since It is easier to rate 3 things than only one to the detriment of the others, you should consider to have to rate 3 fields for the file of a scenario and if you do so for each one and as you feel from 1 to 5 for example, you will get a better rating..

You rate the briefing (which is the scenario), you rate the playability of it and finally you rate the map

That is easy, to do : And it the numbers can be translated by : I don’t like it, I like it a bit, I like it, I like it much. It is somehow the same way, an anaesthetist is asking someone how he feels the pain on a surgery ward. You get so many different answer, that the way to get a clear idea is to show him a ruler with numbers 1 to 10 and the patient slides an arrow on a ruler to the number that represents for him on a scale from 1 to 10, its pain.

Pretty handy, no.

By looking at the score for each of the fields, you know if the file is broadly good or if it has some underscore on one or more field.

The same, can be done for the modds. Yet the name of the fields should differ.

1/ explanation – 2/design – 3/interest or whatever you consider fit.

These ratings, don’t need any explanation, besides the title of the fields. They should not be obligatory. You rate the 3 fields, the ones you want or none.

About the comments, if there are some, good, if there are none, that’s too bad, but they should no be obligatory either.

About the Ergonomics of the Repository, I thing that the main difficulty is that you don’t grasp in your field of view a certain amount of files being shown. We are looking at just certain number of them at a time. Well, that is something, we have to do with Internet and its pages. If it is too small, you see everything, but you can’t read the thing.

The answer might be a presentation, rather sober like CMSFMODDS and a rating with 3 fields which make you find right away the interesting files. You just have to look at it, more in details, like it is being done on the repository, to ascertain your choice..

As I said earlier, nobody’s perfect. The only improvement valuable is the one rendering the existing easier and not harder to use. That is what I have always praised and luckily for me, I had been able at time to make that simple statement understood to the higher wanting to complicate the machinery.

In any case, these comments are not in any way a critic of what is being done or has been done for the repository, they are just what I feel could be improved with no much effort (from my point of view) in a near future for the benefit of all.

Cheers