Suggestion--Rating Songs/Steps

[robertsona]

Now it's "hip" to hate bicycle break lol.

[GasesAreFluids]

law of large numbers guys

Over time the ratings would still converge to something reasonably accurate, even if people try to abuse the system. The effect of abuse would have little effect unless it is done really early on and raters take that skewing into their own consideration.

[Tasselfoot]

exactly rubix. plus you'll have abusers on both sides... people who rate things 0 for no reason, and others who rate things 5 for no reason.

in the end, assuming abuse is 1-sided to a negative rating, it still will be fairly uniform... which means that you're basically making it a smaller range, perhaps 0-3, instead of 0-5. so it'll skew the ratings all closer to each other, but there will be enough legit ratings that it shouldn't matter in the long run.

math and logic are our friends.

[Danman123]

You should also be able to change your vote on a song/step, of course, without voting again. After getting better at FFR, you may realize that the stepfile isn't as bad as you previously thought it was.

[IAAW]

Originally Posted by Danman123

You should also be able to change your vote on a song/step, of course, without voting again. After getting better at FFR, you may realize that the stepfile isn't as bad as you previously thought it was.

I'm not sure that would be too acceptable. However, I think that the addition of it would be 50/50.

By the way, I just noticed this thread. I think this is a very nice idea; like most other people have said, the possibilites for song/stepfile ranking is endless. It might be good that, if the rating is going to be 0/5, consider display the rating in stars, or anything of the sort.

Anyway, I shall support this 1000%.

[Tasselfoot]

i feel like stargroup is our token old angry guy who sits in a wheelchair in the corner, bitching at everything, being ignored by everyone.

[jimerax]

Difficulty will be an important factor of rating.

There will be newbs like "omg I can't pass this song, it's retarded. rating 0/5", or veterans like "This file is understepped and boring, rating 1/5".

and yea rating should be changeable.

[Solomine Gray]

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

i feel like stargroup is our token old angry guy who sits in a wheelchair in the corner, bitching at everything, being ignored by everyone.

Who?

And, I love this idea. Something about voicing your opinion and having it actually "heard" sits well with me.

EDIT: I also think it would be interesting to have another one of those "Show" boxes on people's profiles that allows you to see ratings they've given to songs. Just a thought.

[behanjc]

Make it so the rating thing is at the results screen and you have to pass it to rate. It will decrease pointless spamming from users and decrease the amount of people who rate ZOMG TOO HARD 0/5!

[IAAW]

Originally Posted by behanjc

Make it so the rating thing is at the results screen and you have to pass it to rate. It will decrease pointless spamming from users and decrease the amount of people who rate ZOMG TOO HARD 0/5!

I like that. That needs to be added to the song rating requirements.

[GasesAreFluids]

Originally Posted by jimerax

Difficulty will be an important factor of rating.

There will be newbs like "omg I can't pass this song, it's retarded. rating 0/5", or veterans like "This file is understepped and boring, rating 1/5".
and yea rating should be changeable.

No rating system is ever perfect, but you can get closer to perfection if you reduce ambiguity in your scales (ie. what is a 0 and what is a 5?). If it's just a purely opinionated, subjective rating then yes you may have that issue, but again, there is always a balancing effect.

If the pros blam the easy stuff and praise the hard stuff, the newcomers might blam the hard stuff and praise the easy stuff. But you must realize that there is always going to be error in the way you judge something under that sort of view, and these types of votes may not always occur across the board. Just because you're a pro doesn't mean a song is actually "understepped" because to others it may not be and you might just be someone who enjoys mashing away at 12-taps-a-second, and to a newcomer a song isn't "retarded" just because they can't pass it. Not all hard files are good and not all easy songs are bad, and likewise is true for the other side of the coin. The point of allowing an average rating is to remove sample error and to minimize these potential offsets as more and more votes come in. Even if someone has a totally lopsided voting scheme, the central limit theorem states that even if your own distributions are not normal, the cumulative distribution will be ever so normal as you increase the number of additions (and we'll have FAR more votes than is necessary for this to be reasonable without a doubt).

In other words, as you add more and more votes, error will slowly remove itself and things will converge to a reasonably accurate rating, even if you have a number of people who abuse the system. The proportion of abuse will be minimal -- consider how many people play every song every day. Then consider how many people would abuse the system over time. I could calculate a ballpark figure for you, but I assure you it is extremely small. I don't think difficulty will piss off enough people to abuse the system across the board and I don't think understepped songs will piss off enough people to abuse the system across the board either.


In other words, don't worry about it too much. There will be enough legit ratings to level things out.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

i feel like stargroup is our token old angry guy who sits in a wheelchair in the corner, bitching at everything, being ignored by everyone.

*old guy voice* That's cause in the old days we didn't have any of your fancy speed mods and playbacks and whatever you young'uns use these days, who knows what kinds of trouble you're causing on the site... *mumbles*

I bitch because I care. <3

Passing it doesn't count. I'm sure most noobs can pass nearly every song they wanted, which really doesn't solve anything.

Solution: Only users with certain age (say, >0.2 years) can vote, this way they'll be relatively familiar with the way things work and what constitues a good file or song. My best idea if we end up implementing this.

Originally Posted by Solomine Gray

Who?

NONBELIEVER SMITE SMITE SMITE

[xinpig]

SUPPORTED!

[GasesAreFluids]

I don't know a lot about the way newcomers play the game because I don't have access to the data to perform any statistical analysis, but I am sure there are plenty of people who come in and play very seldomly -- setting a 0.2 year mark might not really have a statistically significant effect.

What you could do is show the cumulative rating, and then if you click that rating, have it go to a page where it shows the breakdown of the votes by thresholds of average rank, for instance (or some other metric that is reasonably indicative of skill/time spent playing). For instance it might be like a table form of the following:

Average Rank 1-10: 5% gave 0, 15% gave 1, 15% gave 2, 25% gave 3, 25% gave 4, 35% gave 5
Average Rank 11-50: etc etc

That way you could sort of gauge a song depending on your own rank (or whatever metric you prefer)

[bluguerrilla]

Or instead of not letting them voted compile the data of both rating and (rank, subscription age, etc) onto nice charts.

I like charts. Pie, bar, whatever.

Data data data!

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Good opportunity to listen to some songs I haven't listened to in a while... but this means I have to play all the songs again to vote for all of them fairly...

[behanjc]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Passing it doesn't count. I'm sure most noobs can pass nearly every song they wanted, which really doesn't solve anything.

Lol you'd be surprised. And even if they CAN pass it, many ppl will just abuse the system by failing automatically on every song and rating it 0 for the heck of it. They should have to put in the time to play the entire song before making a rating on it. So this will decrease the amount of idiots rating files 0 and for the "few" noobs out there who would rate a file 0 because they can't pass it. And think about it. You can't rate a song/steps properly if you haven't even played a portion of the file.

EDIT: And I'm not saying I FULLY agree with the idea (I see many people simply rating the song well because they like it even if the steps are terrible, and people who will rate all rock songs well and all other songs poorly, along with some other negative affects) but I'm trying to suggest things to make it the best it can be seeing as how it will most likely be implemented.

Also the >0.2 years sounds like a pretty good idea. If I'm getting what Rubix says it sounds quite interesting too.

[Tasselfoot]

guys. you're overthinking this, which i understand because you guys are the hardcore users... but go to any site, addictinggames or southparkzone or whatever... those are 2 large, completely different, examples. ratings are there, and they're going to be skewed... but the numbers themselves aren't usually that important... the RELATIVE ranking between them is more important.

although looking at southparkzone, i see that all the old episodes are rated lower than the new episodes. which i find an interesting study... i think i understand the logic in why that is, even though many of the older episodes are amazing.

once again, nothing will be perfect. but it's more of a nice novelty feature that basically every site has now-a-days.

[Linksbro]

you tell 'm tass

[GasesAreFluids]

I still think it wouldn't hurt to break down ratings by some other metric. It would be a very interesting and, in my opinion, useful feature.