Moderator: Community Team
if (min == max) then norm = 3; // boundary condition
else if (raw < min) then norm = 1; // if lowest rating yet, then normalize to 1 star
else if (raw > max) then norm = 5; // if highest rating yet, then normalize to 5 star
else norm = round(4*(raw-min)/(max-min))+1; // else calculate normalized stars
lackattack wrote:Headlines
- You can attach descriptive tags to a rating. This should let a rating communicate more about the player without opening up the door to all that abusive language and nonsense we've seen with written feedback. The initial list of 35 tags is sure to evolve, so please share your recommendations for tags in the Suggestions & Bug report forum.
lancehoch wrote:The problem with this, is there are ways around a filter. For instance if someone wanted to say f*ck (notice the filter), they could type fcuk or fvck and people would still understand what they mean, but the filter would not catch those. Also, how would you say assassin, this would come up as ******in. Filters are not the way to go for game feedback/ratings.
t-o-m wrote:I like the new ratings, although a little comment box next to it would be good.
hulmey wrote:lancehoch wrote:The problem with this, is there are ways around a filter. For instance if someone wanted to say f*ck (notice the filter), they could type fcuk or fvck and people would still understand what they mean, but the filter would not catch those. Also, how would you say assassin, this would come up as ******in. Filters are not the way to go for game feedback/ratings.
Im quite certain that CC could put in all the necessary filters to do the job!
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
maique wrote:...
As for the scale, here's what I think:The scale should be cut down to 3 - positive, neutral and negative (wonder where i got that from...) or good, neutral, bad (notice how i don't use the word average). As another user said, you can think of it as a rating of the rater's experience of that user.
...
Now that you've already managed to drop the attendance and teamwork ratings, with just a little nudge, you can get rid of two of the others and go back to having only one rating, now that you've introduced tags to descriptively complement the rating. Is it really that necessary to have Fairplay, Gameplay and Attitude?
If you do put it down to 3 "stars", i think the feedback numbering system was a lot nicer instead of the average that's currently used (just an opinion) and that, whether or not you include the neutrals as well, you could just have a sum of all the positive (, neutral) and negative ratings a person has received next to their screen name (as you did before).
There's no shame in leaving no feedback, and I think fluff feedback is part of the problem with the current system. I think the ratings medal should be eliminated as soon as possible.
lackattack wrote:There is still one remaining issue that we have yet to tackle: the fact that different people rate based on different scales (i.e. some typically leave 5s others typically leave 3s).
yeti_c wrote:hulmey wrote:opinions are like farts, every1 has one
Jesus christ - get the quote right... your version just doesn't make sense.
It's
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
C.
cre8tiff wrote:yeti_c wrote:hulmey wrote:opinions are like farts, every1 has one
Jesus christ - get the quote right... your version just doesn't make sense.
It's
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
C.
I have a fart stored in a jar by the door. You know, in case of emergencies.
Doesn't everyone?
Return to Announcement Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users