And you're welcome for future ratings. 

So I'm going to start playing maps 'worthy' of demos and eventually upload them to youtube. My current list is at http://quake.eugenics-research.org/demolist , anyone see anything good missing (some new releases probably aren't on the list, need to update it). 

I've been wanting to find some of mine, but forget the numbers. Plus, I wouldn't mind having my name on something besides "scraps".

I'd be willing to do it, slowly, for all of the SM packs. I could also just add it in the "tags" section, I suppose. Not sure if you guys would be into that. 

This:

http://www.quaddicted.com/reviews/cjhsp1.html 

Easiest way to have your name in the list is to create and release a proper map!

That scraps pack isn't even supposed to appear there. Author names can only be added by Spirit and me, all manually. Spirit said he'd prefer the names, while I like "various authors" better. You can still find your speedmaps by using an external search engine with site:quaddicted.com/reviews. 

I would like to see the individual mappers listed for speedmaps, too. That way, I might even show up in regular search results :-)

Of course, I could just release a speedmap pack of only my stuff too... 

for example there are seven to ten various mappers participated to say hm... xxx17 , 

Not sure what you mean, spy?

I added the authors as requested (I always wanted it that way myself as negke said), was a simply job since negke (I guess) added the mappers to the descriptions over time. Drew has become an editor anyways, so you can now bribe him to change ratings for you.

I did not change neg!ke to negke <3

Next I should add the maps as possible "startmaps" in the Injector. Then we could add the sm packs to it.


PS: Quaddicted has a forum too, chif. 

the title, was actually quoted, 

Sorry, still not getting it. 

Thanks, Spirit! 

it doesn't matter who did which map in that complex sm maps, 'various' its just fine ,

sorry for embarrassing you 

Shouldn't the entries be called "Speedmapping pack #" anyway`? 

I have no idea, tell me if I should change it. 

I always called them Speedmap Packs, and Starbuck called them Speedmapping Packs, when we ran them. 

Then they will stay speedmapping packs because Starbucks is not a dick. 

By accident I typed org instead of net and got this:-

http://celephais.org

I had to exit before I went mad so have no idea where it goes.

I bet someone here knows what this is all about. 

 

stars are weird. if 3 is "average", why doesn't one use a -2 -1 0 1 2 scale? weird how that is unusual.

at least that is how I use a 3 myself. the same as our textual "average".

what math could one use to get numbers back to those ratings? or would this rather call for a "the majority of people gave this a 'nice' rating"? I know planetphillip does do something like that. his setup is much more complex than what I am after though. I guess the bayesian average, then rounding to the next number and mapping back to the crap/poor/average/nice/excellent might work.

i'll try to replace the hearts with buttons one can press. I mean I will try to find someone how knows javascript...

oh the wonders of procrastination! 

 

I kind of assumed with my reviews, if its 10/20 is neutrally worth playing. less than 10 not worth it. I think 2 is actually a good average, except that players tend to rate the good ones, which tend to be 4 or more. Barrrgh it's all skewery. 

The amount of stars that defines above or below average is defined by the audience.

In this case there's no money involved, so the results will be honest, as opposed to pro reviews which have a scale of 1-10 but use 4/5 as terrible and 6-7 as average.

Having values adjust dependent on how a user has rated in the past can't work, because people's opinions change over time, same as a group is made up of individuals. 

Rating systems only make sense if there are guidelines of what they are highly visible on the web page/site and the ratings are controlled/submitted by a small collection of respected individuals. 

ijed: I would love to visit your planet! :/

both for the honest people and the professional reviews.

why would 6/7 be average for you? mathematically it would be at 5.5 for a 1-10.
---

this about the user ratings, not the "official" rating from quaddicted. I will never make the range wider than 1-5. I like 1-5, it works well and is granular enough to allow honest and helpful ratings without becoming esoteric 76.2/100.