I don't think it makes any sense not to vote 1 or 2 stars in a system that manifestly has them.
The system also allows you to leave your name with your review, but most of the people who left bad ratings on my quest didn't bother to leave their name.
Wouldn't it be an interesting day if all of those bad reviews suddenly had the names of the players who left them there.
I think the forum moderators would be extremely busy on that day.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
The system also allows you to leave your name with your review, but most of the people who left bad ratings on my quest didn't bother to leave their name.
Wouldn't it be an interesting day if all of those bad reviews suddenly had the names of the players who left them there.
I think the forum moderators would be extremely busy on that day.
Yeah. Though ... it gets complex. I know I've anonymously given out a 1 with no name because it seems really likely I'd get bs troll reprisals for it.
If there was more active moderation I'd be all for keeping it all visible, so that reprisal campaigns can be stomped out. Mmph.
It's complicated.
[Peggy Hill voice] Mhmm, mhmm... or... we could just remove the negative effect of the reviews so there is no incentive to do it anonymously?
If their 0 rating doesn't have any effect on the quest, the only way they could be negative is to leave a derogatory comment. Which, derogatory comments are usually more insulting to reviewer than the author.
Nothing we do, ever, will get rid of the trolls altogether. They'll always be there in one way or another. I'm just looking for a way to take away their power.
[Peggy Hill voice] Mhmm, mhmm... or... we could just remove the negative effect of the reviews so there is no incentive to do it anonymously?
If their 0 rating doesn't have any effect on the quest, the only way they could be negative is to leave a derogatory comment. Which, derogatory comments are usually more insulting to reviewer than the author.
Nothing we do, ever, will get rid of the trolls altogether. They'll always be there in one way or another. I'm just looking for a way to take away their power.
Can I get one clarification... I think we went over this before, but I think it is important to note for others to see.
You state "we could just remove the negative affect of the reviews" and "If their zero rating doesn't have any affect on the quest". What you are talking about is how a quest is listed on the various pages you propose. That is it. Low ratings will always have some sort of negative affect on quests.
And lets be honest here in two aspects. 1. We will never take away the power of a troll. We may limit in some way, but we will never take it away. and 2. You are talking about have only one rate per account. Right? Not per IP.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
You state "we could just remove the negative affect of the reviews" and "If their zero rating doesn't have any affect on the quest". What you are talking about is how a quest is listed on the various pages you propose. That is it. Low ratings will always have some sort of negative affect on quests.
And lets be honest here in two aspects. 1. We will never take away the power of a troll. We may limit in some way, but we will never take it away.
The complaints from authors are usually "the negative reviews lower my rating," not "so-and-so didn't like my quest." It's not a Utopian system where everything is butterflies and wild flowers and free icecream cones, but it's an improvement over the negativity we have now.
and 2. You are talking about have only one rate per account. Right? Not per IP.
This is Cryptic's system, not my idea. One account = one review. People make alt accounts and give multiple reviews that way. There is nothing i can do about that.
The complaints from authors are usually "the negative reviews lower my rating," not "so-and-so didn't like my quest." It's not a Utopian system where everything is butterflies and wild flowers and free icecream cones, but it's an improvement over the negativity we have now.
Got that. But aren't they talking about the adjusted rating? Which you want to get rid of. Right?
This is Cryptic's system, not my idea. One account = one review. People make alt accounts and give multiple reviews that way. There is nothing i can do about that.
I just wanted to make sure you want to keep it that way.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Got that. But aren't they talking about the adjusted rating? Which you want to get rid of. Right?
Yes, that has been the purpose of this thread.
I'm sorry. I really appreciate the support and feedback i've gotten here. But, i've exhausted my enthusiasm. I hoped for multiple pages of ideas, support, and challenges to my proposals. But, instead there are multiple pages of me answering for Cryptic's current system, with very little input for the changes i proposed. So, i surrender, the trolls can keep their negative review practices, and everyone can go back to the negative whining revenge-laden threads that you're used to. Nothing more to see here.
I'm sorry. I really appreciate the support and feedback i've gotten here. But, i've exhausted my enthusiasm. I hoped for multiple pages of ideas, support, and challenges to my proposals. But, instead there are multiple pages of me answering for Cryptic's current system, with very little input for the changes i proposed. So, i surrender, the trolls can keep their negative review practices, and everyone can go back to the negative whining revenge-laden threads that you're used to. Nothing more to see here.
I totally support your idea. Know why? I'm tired of getting down-voted for BS I can't help like my sky backdrop being cut off below a certain altitude, guard AI not working well, people dying to easy difficulty minion encounters, or for using difficulty options that are more flexible than the norm. I'd really love to see a LIKE or +1 system like on Facebook or Google Chrome. With the current system it doesn't matter if you have 300 five star ratings once half a dozen trolls one star you. Sorry I don't have more useful feedback on how this system could be improved. I really doubt they'll ever change it. It would be nice though.
I'm sorry. I really appreciate the support and feedback i've gotten here. But, i've exhausted my enthusiasm. I hoped for multiple pages of ideas, support, and challenges to my proposals. But, instead there are multiple pages of me answering for Cryptic's current system, with very little input for the changes i proposed. So, i surrender, the trolls can keep their negative review practices, and everyone can go back to the negative whining revenge-laden threads that you're used to. Nothing more to see here.
I think my new stance is that Foundry authors need to grow the eff up, because this CONSTANT whining whenever everyone doesn't fall over themselves to adulate their genius is really old.
Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
I disagree with the OP for a "positive" only rating system. We need negative ratings to weed out the dregs of the Foundry quest catalog. However I do appreciate and agree with the sentiment of improving the rating system.
That said, I do propose an alternative idea (sorry if this was mentioned before):
1.) Force names on all reviews. No more anonymous reviews. Hold players accountable who abuse the review system. If I was to find a 1-star review on my quest, and the feedback was constructive and long, I might like to contact the author in a PM to find out if there was anything else I could improve since the review is limited in character length. Other authors might be a little more POed and PM a reviewer to chew him out. I wouldn't condone that, but this does force the issue: if you leave a bad review, you better have some reasons to back it up.
2.) Reviewer history. Reviewers should be clickable within the catalog to bring up a history of any one reviewer's past reviews. Since I assume all of the review and other catalog data is stored in a database somewhere on the servers, this shouldn't be hard to do. Then we can all see if someone reviews honestly or dishonestly (and it can go both ways). For example, I'll admit, I review quests dishonestly. I pretty much give everyone a 5 star review if they're either a member of the community of authors here or a guild member. Random people I don't know would be more honest star ratings. But I will always give critical, constructive feedback as well.
3.) Average rating adjustment based on reviewer history. What I mean by this is to adjust a quest's average rating according to the average ratings each review typically gives. For example: if a reviewer only gives 1 star ratings to all of the Foundry quests they've reviewed, then each of those quests would essentially get a calculated 3 star review. The individual ratings would still show 1 star, but the average rating will include 3 stars instead of 1 for this metric. In turn, if a reviewer only gives 5 star ratings to all of the Foundry quests they've reviewed, then the rating used for the average would be 3 stars instead of 5. This encourages more honest reviews, so that if you've given an average of 3 stars to the quests you've reviewed then your 1 and 5 star ratings will count as 1 and 5 stars towards the average ratings.
No problem with 1, 2 is unnecessary in my opinion and 3 is a convoluted calculation that will arrive at the same result as we have currently.
I'm inclined to agree with Zahinder and after a night when yet another honest, constructive review was outlandishly slandered as "trollish" (by the author whose work was being critiqued :rolleyes:), I have decided to extend my range from 3-5 to the full 1-5.
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
3 is a convoluted calculation that will arrive at the same result as we have currently.
Please tell me how you think it will "arrive at the same result"? If you adjust quest rating averages based upon individual reviewer's own averages, you'll see that it will promote more honest ratings and discourage users who only rate at one end of the scale.
The principle is done in everything from stock markets and trading to credit ratings to account management. It's just an average to affect another average instead of direct impact.
Here is an idea. It is a bit controversial, but it might solve a lot of issues.
If you have published a quest, you can no longer review other authors works.
It is pretty clear to me that because of a few who take sick pleasure in trolling other authors that this solution should be considered.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Please tell me how you think it will "arrive at the same result"? If you adjust quest rating averages based upon individual reviewer's own averages, you'll see that it will promote more honest ratings and discourage users who only rate at one end of the scale.
The principle is done in everything from stock markets and trading to credit ratings to account management. It's just an average to affect another average instead of direct impact.
Cus if I always use 5* and you always 1* everything then together we already make 3*
@ovaltine74, I hope you're fixing Miss Gosse while you have your quest down.
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Cus if I always use 5* and you always 1* everything then together we already make 3*
Our individual ratings of 5 and 1 would still be there for everyone to see, but the average rating would be affected. However, in your hypothetical situation, why would you always rate every quest a 5? Surely you've rated quests lower before, correct? And if not, well, you're part of the problem just I'd be part of the problem too.
But if you're rating a lot of quests, chances are your ratings will vary. That in turn helps solve two problems: it encourages users to play and rate more Foundry quests, and it averages out those who abuse the rating system.
I really can't see a downside except it affects people who are abusing the system, which is what we want to address anyway.
Here is an idea. It is a bit controversial, but it might solve a lot of issues.
If you have published a quest, you can no longer review other authors works.
It is pretty clear to me that because of a few who take sick pleasure in trolling other authors that this solution should be considered.
Sorry if I'm out of the loop on this one, but is this an ongoing problem?
Point 1. To me it will cause more harm then good. How do you handle authors PMing or in-game mailing reviewer and giving them heck? Does it change the rating? NO. All it does is to provide another way to grief someone. You give me a HAMSTER review, I am going to PM you and give you a piece of my mind and look for all of your quests and give them the same review be they good or bad.
Point 2. I can go along with this. But it really serves little purpose.
Point 3. Bad idea. At least the way I read it. Define "Typical". Example... A reviewer has reviewed 50 quests. 15 5*, 10 4*, 5 3*, 15 2*, and 5 1*. What if anything is adjusted? Is there a minimum of ratings before this adjustment kicks in?
In other words are you telling me that if for some reason I hit on a string of quests that I love and think that they are great, the authors will be downgraded because I liked the quests? And will this affect the previous quests I have rated? Or just from some mystical point forward? And will those doing the rating be aware of this system? Or will it be hidden like they way the adjusted rating is now?
Too many unanswered questions.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Here is an idea. It is a bit controversial, but it might solve a lot of issues.
If you have published a quest, you can no longer review other authors works.
It is pretty clear to me that because of a few who take sick pleasure in trolling other authors that this solution should be considered.
Well that's just stupid.
The feedback and reviews I find most useful are those from my fellow Authors, they know the pitfalls, the problems, the limitations and the work-arounds of the system I am using.
Why on earth would anyone want to ban the very best people for reviewing things from actually doing so?
Here is an idea. It is a bit controversial, but it might solve a lot of issues.
If you have published a quest, you can no longer review other authors works.
It is pretty clear to me that because of a few who take sick pleasure in trolling other authors that this solution should be considered.
I have mixed feelings about this suggestion. While it seems like a good idea, authors would just resort to using alts to review each other, and most likely those alts would usually be used to down-vote, except in some cases where the authors are using alts to trade reviews, which would ultimately happen because we'd have no other way to get plays. In order for this idea to work, there would have to be a system put in place that let us advertise our quests to regular players. And the devs seem totally against the idea of Foundry quests being seen by regular players. They act like they only want Foundry authors playing Foundry quests, I swear. If you don't believe me, mention your quest in any thread in General Discussion.
Also, not all Foundry authors troll each other. When I get a troll review from another author, it's always from someone with a quest near the bottom of the list, with less than a dozen plays, and full of encounters like "Wolf Wolf", "Bear Bear", and NPC's with numbers in their names like "Horse 8" and "Peasant 6".. Seriously, the last guy I got upset over my Review Trade with down-voted me when he had such a HAMSTER-poor map with a totally inconsistent story, and characters with names ripped right out of a bad movie I refused to watch.
Anyways, my point is... Most successful authors aren't so insecure that they have to down-vote everyone else. I've gotten five stars from mrthebozer, dzogen, and zovya, three of the best of the best of the best authors ever. Redneckronin didn't feel my quest deserved the highest rating, but instead of down-voting me, he PMed me and very politely offered feedback to help me improve, which was very kind and sensitive of him. These authors certainly don't reward five stars to any quest, but they are far more generous with those stars than the "loser" authors from what I've observed..
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Point 1. To me it will cause more harm then good. How do you handle authors PMing or in-game mailing reviewer and giving them heck?
Well, this has already happened. And if an author is abusing it they can be reported for harassment.
It doesn't change the rating, but it does prevent people from hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. When people's account names are always visible they will be more likely to leave an honest review, good or bad. When they're anonymous they are more likely to trash the author or write a review off the cuff.
Point 2. I can go along with this. But it really serves little purpose.
It hold people accountable for their reviews. If someone is trolling reviews we have a record of that instead of trying to track down all of the quests we played (which we can't really do as users).
Point 3. Bad idea. At least the way I read it. Define "Typical". Example... A reviewer has reviewed 50 quests. 15 5*, 10 4*, 5 3*, 15 2*, and 5 1*. What if anything is adjusted? Is there a minimum of ratings before this adjustment kicks in?
(...)
Too many unanswered questions.
Then I can answer them And note that if something like this existed, Cryptic could easily tweak their algorithms, cut off points, etc.
So here's an example...
Reviewer "Bob", author "Joe".
Bob left 10 ratings for one star, 5 ratings for two stars, and 1 rating for three stars. We can tell from this review history that either Bob has very high standards, played the wrong quests, or is really low-balling his ratings. Whatever the reason, he's a drag on the Foundry catalog for every quest he rates. His average rating value of all his star ratings is 1.25.
From that Bob used one of his one star ratings for Joe's quest. Joe's quest already had an average star rating of 4.9 (9 ratings at five stars, 1 rating at four stars). Now with Bob's new one star rating, that average would have dropped to 4.2 (rounded up). That's quite a drop for just one bad rating out of 12 from a user who rates everything low.
Let's say Cryptic decides to set lower and upper limits on when a user's rating will be adjusted. Let's make it a high of 4.5 and a low of 1.5. So that's half a star between the best and worst possibilities. If someone rating a lot of quests, that means their average would have to be really high or really low to be adjusted by the servers.
Since Bob's 1.25 average is below out cutoff the algorithm can be applied. Instead of writing a formula, just picture 1.25 being the new 3, so any rating above or below that 1.25 would be added or subtracted from 3. That would make the adjusted new rating 2.75. So this would average the user's ratings and then average it with the middle star value of 3 to smooth out extremes. It still keeps the spirit of their rating but adjusts it to be more middle of the road. The new average is 2.125.
With this idea of this averaging, Bob's rating of one star for Joe's quest would instead by 2.125. This better represents what Bob thought of Joe's quest compared to all of the other quests Bob reviewed. Now instead of that 4.2 average in the old system we'd be at a 4.3 in the new system. Joe's quest would be a weighted review of 2.75 for average calculations but the original review of 1 is still there.
With a system like this in place the rating system could be tweaked whenever desired by Cryptic to calculate averages without affecting the individual reviews.
2. Example... A reviewer has reviewed 50 quests. 15x5*, 10x4*, 5x3*, 15x2*, and 5x1*.
2a. What if anything is adjusted?
2b. Is there a minimum number of ratings before this adjustment kicks in?
3. In other words are you telling me that if for some reason I hit on a string of quests that I love and think that they are great, the authors will be downgraded because I liked the quests?
4. Will this affect the previous quests I have rated?
5. Or just from some mystical point forward?
6. Will those doing the rating be aware of this system?
7. Or will it be hidden like they way the adjusted rating is now?
8. Does your system use the total number of reviews you have given?
9. Or do you have a cut off? Like the last 10 or 20 or Etc...
Please answer these questions.
Now instead of using your numbers for "Bob"... Insert mine as listed in (2.) above. What changes if anything?
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
The feedback and reviews I find most useful are those from my fellow Authors, they know the pitfalls, the problems, the limitations and the work-arounds of the system I am using.
Why on earth would anyone want to ban the very best people for reviewing things from actually doing so?
All The Best
I said it was a controversial idea, but it isn't a stupid idea and I will tell you why.
First, authors can still run the quest and provide you feedback here on the forums. In that feedback they can be as brutally honest with you as they want to be without risking reprisal.
Second, you have assurance to know that their bad critique on the forum has no underlying motive whatsoever. Your in game review score will not be negatively or positively effected by their opinion. Their critique will be unquestionably genuine. 95% of the people playing your quest will never read it.
Third, and most importantly, the only people that will be reviewing your quest in game are regular players. So your review will more accurately represent what the players of the game think of your quest.
You don't have to like the idea, but it is hardly a stupid idea.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
The Foundry forum is as much for players as it is authors. Engage with us! (Here or on other sub-forums).
We're not allowed to do it on other sub-forums. We can post in them, and hope people click our sig, but we can't just outright make a post saying, "HEY YOU GUYS! PLAY MY QUEST!" Anyway, I'm glad some regular players such as yourself check this board, and are willing to try our content.
We're not allowed to do it on other sub-forums. We can post in them, and hope people click our sig, but we can't just outright make a post saying, "HEY YOU GUYS! PLAY MY QUEST!" Anyway, I'm glad some regular players such as yourself check this board, and are willing to try our content.
Yeah I understand that, but sigs are eye-catching...you should get the into the General Forums more, let people get to know you/your views. (ETA) Rather than just a name on a job board.
Yeah I understand that, but sigs are eye-catching...you should get the into the General Forums more, let people get to know you/your views. (ETA) Rather than just a name on a job board.
You're right, I'll try to find something worth posting about in the other sub-forums sometime.
Maybe Cryptic should normalize the ratings of individual reviewers, instead of "adjusting" the ratings of the individual quests.
There are many ways they could do this, essentially forcing all reviews into the same frame of reference. Basically, if someone is a griefer who gives only 1s, then their rating would have an extremely low Confidence Ratio (or whatever they wish to call it). This would work similarly for someone who gives all 5s. Reviewers with low confidence scores would have a much lower impact on adjusted ratings.
Campaign - Trail of the Imaskarcana (NWS-DMFG77QOF)
Maybe Cryptic should normalize the ratings of individual reviewers, instead of "adjusting" the ratings of the individual quests.
There are many ways they could do this, essentially forcing all reviews into the same frame of reference. Basically, if someone is a griefer who gives only 1s, then their rating would have an extremely low Confidence Ratio (or whatever they wish to call it). This would work similarly for someone who gives all 5s. Reviewers with low confidence scores would have a much lower impact on adjusted ratings.
Or we could just do away with adjusted ratings, and let quests shuffle around more as their average rating changes, instead of letting the same few people who have ten thousand youtube subscribers sit on top of the list all the time.
Meh, ignore my emo rambling. I'm just mad that my first fairly successful quest was taken down so soon, and the exploit map I've been trying to get taken down is still up.
An admittedly unfounded belief of mine is that some of the people crying loudest about authors giving one star reviews have at one time or another one starred other authors in secret.
The review system is actually a lot more stable & better than people give it credit for and I feel it would add too much instability to add in these wierd artificial constraints like "hey dude, sorry your 5 is actually a 3," or "you're a member of this or that group, you can't vote."
Your adjusted rating like playing poker. If you are dealt kings, and your opponent has ace jack, you are likely to win 70.82% of the time. But that means 28.77% of the time, you will lose. You could have a freak streak of bad luck and lose 5 in a row, but over time it will even out to where it should be.
If your quest is kings, you could get 10 one stars in a row, but over time, as long as it keeps getting plays, it will even out.
All of my quests have not seen variance by more than .01 in over a month even though they get thousands of plays each day. If the system didn't do a good job they should be bouncing around a lot. As it stands, the current system aggregates the fans, trolls, and others into one giant mish mash of judging that gives your quest a rather objective sense of what the community likes.
Comments
The system also allows you to leave your name with your review, but most of the people who left bad ratings on my quest didn't bother to leave their name.
Wouldn't it be an interesting day if all of those bad reviews suddenly had the names of the players who left them there.
I think the forum moderators would be extremely busy on that day.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
If there was more active moderation I'd be all for keeping it all visible, so that reprisal campaigns can be stomped out. Mmph.
It's complicated.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
[Peggy Hill voice] Mhmm, mhmm... or... we could just remove the negative effect of the reviews so there is no incentive to do it anonymously?
If their 0 rating doesn't have any effect on the quest, the only way they could be negative is to leave a derogatory comment. Which, derogatory comments are usually more insulting to reviewer than the author.
Nothing we do, ever, will get rid of the trolls altogether. They'll always be there in one way or another. I'm just looking for a way to take away their power.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Can I get one clarification... I think we went over this before, but I think it is important to note for others to see.
You state "we could just remove the negative affect of the reviews" and "If their zero rating doesn't have any affect on the quest". What you are talking about is how a quest is listed on the various pages you propose. That is it. Low ratings will always have some sort of negative affect on quests.
And lets be honest here in two aspects. 1. We will never take away the power of a troll. We may limit in some way, but we will never take it away. and 2. You are talking about have only one rate per account. Right? Not per IP.
Narayan
The complaints from authors are usually "the negative reviews lower my rating," not "so-and-so didn't like my quest." It's not a Utopian system where everything is butterflies and wild flowers and free icecream cones, but it's an improvement over the negativity we have now.
This is Cryptic's system, not my idea. One account = one review. People make alt accounts and give multiple reviews that way. There is nothing i can do about that.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Got that. But aren't they talking about the adjusted rating? Which you want to get rid of. Right?
I just wanted to make sure you want to keep it that way.
Narayan
Yes, that has been the purpose of this thread.
I'm sorry. I really appreciate the support and feedback i've gotten here. But, i've exhausted my enthusiasm. I hoped for multiple pages of ideas, support, and challenges to my proposals. But, instead there are multiple pages of me answering for Cryptic's current system, with very little input for the changes i proposed. So, i surrender, the trolls can keep their negative review practices, and everyone can go back to the negative whining revenge-laden threads that you're used to. Nothing more to see here.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
I totally support your idea. Know why? I'm tired of getting down-voted for BS I can't help like my sky backdrop being cut off below a certain altitude, guard AI not working well, people dying to easy difficulty minion encounters, or for using difficulty options that are more flexible than the norm. I'd really love to see a LIKE or +1 system like on Facebook or Google Chrome. With the current system it doesn't matter if you have 300 five star ratings once half a dozen trolls one star you. Sorry I don't have more useful feedback on how this system could be improved. I really doubt they'll ever change it. It would be nice though.
I think my new stance is that Foundry authors need to grow the eff up, because this CONSTANT whining whenever everyone doesn't fall over themselves to adulate their genius is really old.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
That said, I do propose an alternative idea (sorry if this was mentioned before):
1.) Force names on all reviews. No more anonymous reviews. Hold players accountable who abuse the review system. If I was to find a 1-star review on my quest, and the feedback was constructive and long, I might like to contact the author in a PM to find out if there was anything else I could improve since the review is limited in character length. Other authors might be a little more POed and PM a reviewer to chew him out. I wouldn't condone that, but this does force the issue: if you leave a bad review, you better have some reasons to back it up.
2.) Reviewer history. Reviewers should be clickable within the catalog to bring up a history of any one reviewer's past reviews. Since I assume all of the review and other catalog data is stored in a database somewhere on the servers, this shouldn't be hard to do. Then we can all see if someone reviews honestly or dishonestly (and it can go both ways). For example, I'll admit, I review quests dishonestly. I pretty much give everyone a 5 star review if they're either a member of the community of authors here or a guild member. Random people I don't know would be more honest star ratings. But I will always give critical, constructive feedback as well.
3.) Average rating adjustment based on reviewer history. What I mean by this is to adjust a quest's average rating according to the average ratings each review typically gives. For example: if a reviewer only gives 1 star ratings to all of the Foundry quests they've reviewed, then each of those quests would essentially get a calculated 3 star review. The individual ratings would still show 1 star, but the average rating will include 3 stars instead of 1 for this metric. In turn, if a reviewer only gives 5 star ratings to all of the Foundry quests they've reviewed, then the rating used for the average would be 3 stars instead of 5. This encourages more honest reviews, so that if you've given an average of 3 stars to the quests you've reviewed then your 1 and 5 star ratings will count as 1 and 5 stars towards the average ratings.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
I'm inclined to agree with Zahinder and after a night when yet another honest, constructive review was outlandishly slandered as "trollish" (by the author whose work was being critiqued :rolleyes:), I have decided to extend my range from 3-5 to the full 1-5.
Please tell me how you think it will "arrive at the same result"? If you adjust quest rating averages based upon individual reviewer's own averages, you'll see that it will promote more honest ratings and discourage users who only rate at one end of the scale.
The principle is done in everything from stock markets and trading to credit ratings to account management. It's just an average to affect another average instead of direct impact.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
If you have published a quest, you can no longer review other authors works.
It is pretty clear to me that because of a few who take sick pleasure in trolling other authors that this solution should be considered.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Cus if I always use 5* and you always 1* everything then together we already make 3*
@ovaltine74, I hope you're fixing Miss Gosse while you have your quest down.
Our individual ratings of 5 and 1 would still be there for everyone to see, but the average rating would be affected. However, in your hypothetical situation, why would you always rate every quest a 5? Surely you've rated quests lower before, correct? And if not, well, you're part of the problem just I'd be part of the problem too.
But if you're rating a lot of quests, chances are your ratings will vary. That in turn helps solve two problems: it encourages users to play and rate more Foundry quests, and it averages out those who abuse the rating system.
I really can't see a downside except it affects people who are abusing the system, which is what we want to address anyway.
Sorry if I'm out of the loop on this one, but is this an ongoing problem?
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Point 1. To me it will cause more harm then good. How do you handle authors PMing or in-game mailing reviewer and giving them heck? Does it change the rating? NO. All it does is to provide another way to grief someone. You give me a HAMSTER review, I am going to PM you and give you a piece of my mind and look for all of your quests and give them the same review be they good or bad.
Point 2. I can go along with this. But it really serves little purpose.
Point 3. Bad idea. At least the way I read it. Define "Typical". Example... A reviewer has reviewed 50 quests. 15 5*, 10 4*, 5 3*, 15 2*, and 5 1*. What if anything is adjusted? Is there a minimum of ratings before this adjustment kicks in?
In other words are you telling me that if for some reason I hit on a string of quests that I love and think that they are great, the authors will be downgraded because I liked the quests? And will this affect the previous quests I have rated? Or just from some mystical point forward? And will those doing the rating be aware of this system? Or will it be hidden like they way the adjusted rating is now?
Too many unanswered questions.
Narayan
Well that's just stupid.
The feedback and reviews I find most useful are those from my fellow Authors, they know the pitfalls, the problems, the limitations and the work-arounds of the system I am using.
Why on earth would anyone want to ban the very best people for reviewing things from actually doing so?
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
I have mixed feelings about this suggestion. While it seems like a good idea, authors would just resort to using alts to review each other, and most likely those alts would usually be used to down-vote, except in some cases where the authors are using alts to trade reviews, which would ultimately happen because we'd have no other way to get plays. In order for this idea to work, there would have to be a system put in place that let us advertise our quests to regular players. And the devs seem totally against the idea of Foundry quests being seen by regular players. They act like they only want Foundry authors playing Foundry quests, I swear. If you don't believe me, mention your quest in any thread in General Discussion.
Also, not all Foundry authors troll each other. When I get a troll review from another author, it's always from someone with a quest near the bottom of the list, with less than a dozen plays, and full of encounters like "Wolf Wolf", "Bear Bear", and NPC's with numbers in their names like "Horse 8" and "Peasant 6".. Seriously, the last guy I got upset over my Review Trade with down-voted me when he had such a HAMSTER-poor map with a totally inconsistent story, and characters with names ripped right out of a bad movie I refused to watch.
Anyways, my point is... Most successful authors aren't so insecure that they have to down-vote everyone else. I've gotten five stars from mrthebozer, dzogen, and zovya, three of the best of the best of the best authors ever. Redneckronin didn't feel my quest deserved the highest rating, but instead of down-voting me, he PMed me and very politely offered feedback to help me improve, which was very kind and sensitive of him. These authors certainly don't reward five stars to any quest, but they are far more generous with those stars than the "loser" authors from what I've observed..
Well, this has already happened. And if an author is abusing it they can be reported for harassment.
It doesn't change the rating, but it does prevent people from hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. When people's account names are always visible they will be more likely to leave an honest review, good or bad. When they're anonymous they are more likely to trash the author or write a review off the cuff.
It hold people accountable for their reviews. If someone is trolling reviews we have a record of that instead of trying to track down all of the quests we played (which we can't really do as users).
Then I can answer them
So here's an example...
Reviewer "Bob", author "Joe".
Bob left 10 ratings for one star, 5 ratings for two stars, and 1 rating for three stars. We can tell from this review history that either Bob has very high standards, played the wrong quests, or is really low-balling his ratings. Whatever the reason, he's a drag on the Foundry catalog for every quest he rates. His average rating value of all his star ratings is 1.25.
From that Bob used one of his one star ratings for Joe's quest. Joe's quest already had an average star rating of 4.9 (9 ratings at five stars, 1 rating at four stars). Now with Bob's new one star rating, that average would have dropped to 4.2 (rounded up). That's quite a drop for just one bad rating out of 12 from a user who rates everything low.
Let's say Cryptic decides to set lower and upper limits on when a user's rating will be adjusted. Let's make it a high of 4.5 and a low of 1.5. So that's half a star between the best and worst possibilities. If someone rating a lot of quests, that means their average would have to be really high or really low to be adjusted by the servers.
Since Bob's 1.25 average is below out cutoff the algorithm can be applied. Instead of writing a formula, just picture 1.25 being the new 3, so any rating above or below that 1.25 would be added or subtracted from 3. That would make the adjusted new rating 2.75. So this would average the user's ratings and then average it with the middle star value of 3 to smooth out extremes. It still keeps the spirit of their rating but adjusts it to be more middle of the road. The new average is 2.125.
With this idea of this averaging, Bob's rating of one star for Joe's quest would instead by 2.125. This better represents what Bob thought of Joe's quest compared to all of the other quests Bob reviewed. Now instead of that 4.2 average in the old system we'd be at a 4.3 in the new system. Joe's quest would be a weighted review of 2.75 for average calculations but the original review of 1 is still there.
With a system like this in place the rating system could be tweaked whenever desired by Cryptic to calculate averages without affecting the individual reviews.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Let's try it this way...
1. Define "Typical".
2. Example... A reviewer has reviewed 50 quests. 15x5*, 10x4*, 5x3*, 15x2*, and 5x1*.
2a. What if anything is adjusted?
2b. Is there a minimum number of ratings before this adjustment kicks in?
3. In other words are you telling me that if for some reason I hit on a string of quests that I love and think that they are great, the authors will be downgraded because I liked the quests?
4. Will this affect the previous quests I have rated?
5. Or just from some mystical point forward?
6. Will those doing the rating be aware of this system?
7. Or will it be hidden like they way the adjusted rating is now?
8. Does your system use the total number of reviews you have given?
9. Or do you have a cut off? Like the last 10 or 20 or Etc...
Please answer these questions.
Now instead of using your numbers for "Bob"... Insert mine as listed in (2.) above. What changes if anything?
Narayan
Huh?
The Foundry forum is as much for players as it is authors. Engage with us! (Here or on other sub-forums).
I said it was a controversial idea, but it isn't a stupid idea and I will tell you why.
First, authors can still run the quest and provide you feedback here on the forums. In that feedback they can be as brutally honest with you as they want to be without risking reprisal.
Second, you have assurance to know that their bad critique on the forum has no underlying motive whatsoever. Your in game review score will not be negatively or positively effected by their opinion. Their critique will be unquestionably genuine. 95% of the people playing your quest will never read it.
Third, and most importantly, the only people that will be reviewing your quest in game are regular players. So your review will more accurately represent what the players of the game think of your quest.
You don't have to like the idea, but it is hardly a stupid idea.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
We're not allowed to do it on other sub-forums. We can post in them, and hope people click our sig, but we can't just outright make a post saying, "HEY YOU GUYS! PLAY MY QUEST!" Anyway, I'm glad some regular players such as yourself check this board, and are willing to try our content.
Yeah I understand that, but sigs are eye-catching...you should get the into the General Forums more, let people get to know you/your views. (ETA) Rather than just a name on a job board.
You're right, I'll try to find something worth posting about in the other sub-forums sometime.
There are many ways they could do this, essentially forcing all reviews into the same frame of reference. Basically, if someone is a griefer who gives only 1s, then their rating would have an extremely low Confidence Ratio (or whatever they wish to call it). This would work similarly for someone who gives all 5s. Reviewers with low confidence scores would have a much lower impact on adjusted ratings.
Or we could just do away with adjusted ratings, and let quests shuffle around more as their average rating changes, instead of letting the same few people who have ten thousand youtube subscribers sit on top of the list all the time.
The review system is actually a lot more stable & better than people give it credit for and I feel it would add too much instability to add in these wierd artificial constraints like "hey dude, sorry your 5 is actually a 3," or "you're a member of this or that group, you can't vote."
Your adjusted rating like playing poker. If you are dealt kings, and your opponent has ace jack, you are likely to win 70.82% of the time. But that means 28.77% of the time, you will lose. You could have a freak streak of bad luck and lose 5 in a row, but over time it will even out to where it should be.
If your quest is kings, you could get 10 one stars in a row, but over time, as long as it keeps getting plays, it will even out.
All of my quests have not seen variance by more than .01 in over a month even though they get thousands of plays each day. If the system didn't do a good job they should be bouncing around a lot. As it stands, the current system aggregates the fans, trolls, and others into one giant mish mash of judging that gives your quest a rather objective sense of what the community likes.
Bill's Tavern | The 27th Level | Secret Agent 34