I have noticed a definite trend of late.

snarkpit more/less has two rating systems, personal ratings and mapping ones..

i think we should set a standard for which is which, and stick to it somehow.. course i realize, no ones gonna know for sure who voted what, but still the honor system should prevail eventually.

the reason i post this is, we have members who have joined quite recently, good people all i am sure, but so far, have contributed nothing substantial to the site, yet they have personal ratings rivaling our best..

people, if john doe has a supreme map rate it so, but that doesn't make him a 5/5 member of the pit for gods sake :/

use your noggins people, the rating system is just a token item if you don't use it properly, or fail respect it enuff to not use it at all..

eventually, if the system fails to give an accurate account often enuff, it may be removed.. many sites have stopped posting any sort of a rating system cause members mis-used it.. i would hate to see this occur here..

/ 2 cents

TBH the main problem is people don't use rating systems, I know I don't use them religiously - as they are effectively rendered redundant by lack of user participation in such schemes. A good idea, but people are too busy doing their own thing to take the extra 5 seconds to acknowledge input and contribution to a site.

As you say, /2 cents :wink:

but yes - I agree, if you rate people, rate them based on their contribution and interaction levels to the site, not how good a mapper they are. That's what you rate their maps for :wink:

Ooops, I was actually of the understanding it was meant to show that user's overall mapping skill, so I've been using it wrong for a long time now :sad: Sorry guys, I'll make some changes where I see a big difference in what they should be rated in light of this info!

Reno is right, it's meant to be what you think of that person as a mapper. And yes so some people might 'abuse' it, but who really cares, you'll probably end up with a rating averaging/reflecting on it anyway. Orph I don't really understand what you're going on about, perhaps a few examples..?

ReNo said:
Ooops, I was actually of the understanding it was meant to show that user's overall mapping skill, so I've been using it wrong for a long time now :sad: Sorry guys, I'll make some changes where I see a big difference in what they should be rated in light of this info!

truly??

sighs

i was afraid of this, cause in actuality, its not documented any place i know of..

think of it though, we have mappers, and members, and members who are not mappers..

BUT in order to qualify you MUST have at least one map in your profile to be eligible.. this motivates our people and site as a whole to be a mapping community overall.

at least, that was my take.. if you opted to not be rated, all you needed do was not upload anything.

Leperous said:
Reno is right, it's meant to be what you think of that person as a mapper. And yes so some people might 'abuse' it, but who really cares, you'll probably end up with a rating averaging/reflecting on it anyway. Orph I don't really understand what you're going on about, perhaps a few examples..?

uhh, why, it would bring new people to center stage, and perhaps embaress them..

its there with a bit of looking though..

still if you combine what you wrote, with what i typed above this you may see clearly what i was thinking.

I personally rate people as a combination of skill, and contribution - but that's just me.

Like you say, there will be "anomalous" results as it were, but I think generally it works as a good indicator of a person in general.

Meh, shrugs :smile:

You can rate people how you want, I don't see it being abused really. Abuse is averaged out by statistics if people know what they're doing in general.

Leperous said:
You can rate people how you want, I don't see it being abused really. Abuse is averaged out by statistics if people know what they're doing in general.

true, but why have two systems that do one thing?

someone may be our worse mapper, but be a pillar, and vice versa.

my point is not to cause grief, but to seperate the two distinctions..

afterall, you have two options to NOT be rated in both cases..

don't upload maps.. you cannot be rated on either case..

actually there is a third, but its cheating, cause you can be an asshole, and block everyone from seeing how you are rated.. this in actuality proves my point.. the personal rating system can be blocked from others view.. that makes it personal.. not mapping.

Some people just don't like being rated? I don't mind, but I can see their point if they do - labelling and categorising people is a very cold way of understanding people in some peoples eyes.

Either that, or they just don't want a rating :razz:

Gwil said:
Some people just don't like being rated? I don't mind, but I can see their point if they do - labelling and categorising people is a very cold way of understanding people in some peoples eyes.

Either that, or they just don't want a rating :razz:

all true, except on those rare instances when the user truly is an asshole, but blocks the possibility of everyone seeing his stats..

bottomline, the mapping ratings, and the personal ones could be the same score, but hardly a requirement.. i do not score people so, and doubt many do.. reno is a 5/5 so is lep and you gwil.. but none of you have all 5/5 maps.. you score 5/5 on your contribution to snarkpit, and would be a 5/5 even if you never released a thing IMO..

the two systems must be separate to have any value to this site.

For me, its kinda like Gwil - a bit of both. For instance, Andrew, although in the past he has contributed lots to the site, has recently not done much around here. This is entirely understandable - he is clearly a busy man. However, I still have rated him a 5, as I think he is a truly excellent mapper, and whether he writes tutorials actively or not isn't going to change that opinion.

Now, to take another example, think of Doc Brasso. While he isn't currently around much, in the past he was a very contributing member to the site. Despite his only recent introduction to HL level design, he quickly became pretty adept - enough to probably rate him a 3/5 in my opinion. However, I rated him 4/5, as this took into account his contribution to the site as well as his mapping skill.

I hope neither of these people have taken any offence at giving examples - I certainly wouldn't say either of these are derogatory in any way!

There aren't two systems, there is one, which you're meant to rate people based on their mapper ability, but I can't question every single rating so it's up to you how you rate them. I don't see how this causes any kind of a problem tbh.

I don't see why anybody cares what their rating is tbh. :smile:

Leperous said:
There aren't two systems, there is one, which you're meant to rate people based on their mapper ability, but I can't question every single rating so it's up to you how you rate them. I don't see how this causes any kind of a problem tbh.

stares uncomprehendingly

[edit] dammit, without actually embarrassing people i cannot call your bluff lep..

we have members, with one map, unfinished, never released, yet scored in the high 4's

sure you cannot police scores, but you cannot say we have ONLY one system, when EVERYONE is treating it as two..

as i said, i don't want to cause grief, just set a standard that everyone can use accurately..

we do NOT have one system, and if we actually do, its not being used as such.

the reason you fail to see it as a problem, is perpetuating the issue, and eventually will become a problem..

[edit 2] read every post in this thread, most treat it as two systems, all save you..

doesn't make you wrong, but it makes you appear so..

the system was set up by you, its up to everyone to work out the bugs.. this is a bug.. treat it as such..

it will become a problem eventually

Ok so let people rate people as well on their contribution, what do I, or anyone else, care? Point out one person that is rated highly who has not made any decent maps and doesn't contribute anything to this site, and also tell me how it could one day be a problem? People generally don't run around giving 5's to everyone!

wets self laughing

whispers vash does..

ok.. fair enuff.. i posted my concerns.. most reflected my view.. you run the site.

end of story.

Heh well don't worry, it's not like I hate this place and will let it fall apart :razz:

<!-- ZoneLabs Popup Blocking Insertion -->whilst lep and orph walk of /me runs around picking up lots of 2 cents

whilst lep and orph walk of /me runs around picking up lots of 2 cents

lol, shouldn't you be starting another poll or something ? :smile:

/2 euros

Some images in this post have been automatically down-sized, click on them to view the full sized versions:

bumps

well i spent about an hour adjusting scores today.. the good news, no one went down, so if you notice a difference in your score, twas prolly me..

the bad news, many already had 5's so i couldn't help those

the really bad news, i could not find 56 people to score a 5 to, so i could not displace vash as top dog in the nicest user category, tis sad, there just are not 56 people here that damned good :/



consider, only the right bar.. thats how many people i have scored here at the pit.. that far right, signifies 5/5 .. i have score perhaps 50 people that high.. now compare it to the yellow (the 3/5)

not many people left i bet.. i imagine i can get those by next week

Whoa, you don't give you many 4's do you orph? :smile: Bit odd you give out so many 3's and so many 5's, but so few of the one in between. I'm the opposite - 4 is my most common, with 3 being pretty common and 5 being quite a hard to get grade. I can only think of about four people I've rated a 5 off the top of my head - as the top grade I feel it should be given out only to those with a decent amount of evidence of their extraordinary ability :smile:

reminds Duncan:

i use the rating system incorrectly (according to lep)

i see it as a personal rating, and as such 3 is middle (neutral) ground..

you join the pit, you are nothing, to no one, a "3"

now you do well, you go up, you do poorly, you go down..

i realize, that if everyone doesn't use the system this way, it tends to skew, but.. i just cannot accept leps definition of how the system works.. it just makes more sense my way.. but as i said, if i am the only one...

in the end though, what i give you is based mostly on how i feel you have benefited the pit as a whole, and all one need do is ask me how i scored them and i will tell them.. i am not ashamed, and actually proud of it..

i walk to the beat of a different drummer :smile:

I have also noticed a trend, most new map posts are maps that are either conceptual ideas, or maps that wont even get done.

Thats because more of us are mucking around with hammer for fun and practice than for the creation of full maps. Since nobody plays them anymore (basically), whether a map turns into something complete or nothing more than a "scene" makes little difference to me, and I think there are others who are much the same. Of course, if a map has good gameplay potential, I'll probably complete it, but if its nothing more than a pretty picture, why bother "completing" it?

omegaslayer4777 said:
I have also noticed a trend, most new map posts are maps that are either conceptual ideas, or maps that wont even get done.

Chances are, 1 out of every 10 maps actually gets finished. I have quite possibly a few dozens worth of RMF concepts that I'll never actually finish; but hey, they were good for practice, right? :smile:

Nope :razz:

Mr.Ben said:
Nope :razz:

No one asked you! Go work on the silos! :razz: