Some people just hate things regardless of logic, common sense or if 99% other people on the planet like them! Down voting something because you feel the rating should be lower is a spiteful thing to do. The best thing anyone can do is post why they think something is wrong to them.

spirit, the lvl site is ok, but yes it can be difficult to workout where things are sometimes. Here is a perfect example of what I mean, someone reviewing maps, has something useful to say about them and offers good feedback. Over the years I have come to respect the views of this user and when I see a comment/vote by them I take notice.

http://www.lvlworld.com/#p=member&l=1059

One thing I really like about this system is that user accounts are linked to what they vote so you know if they are being honest or just an idiot. I like the accountability of this because it makes people think twice about down voting and vote rigging. 

http://xkcd.com/1098/ 

http://goatkcd.com/1098/sfw 

I rated every single map not made by me to be a 4 or lower, and rated my own 5.

GLHF everyone else. 

that map was pretty good too 

...and maybe a few others...


...and I likely got bored before rating all of them... 

The reason I asked is because there seems to be a conflict between the editor's rating system and the way users interpret their own ratings.

There was a particular user who rated maps in this typical undifferentiated "all or nothing" fashion that's so common all over the internet. It was especially annoying, because he downrated maps when he was just too dumb to run and play them correctly, if there was a heapsize error, for instance, or he got lost, killed by a trap, blocked by an awkward clip brush. And at least one point rigging, too.

Though it also made me wonder about the systems. I never really thought about it and just assumed people would more or less base their ratings o similar criteria like we do, which tries to go beyond personal preference to a certain degree. But then, it suddenly seemed more likely that they interpret the user rating more like "How much did you enjoy this map?" - "Very much" (5)... "Not at all" (1), which could well result in low ratings even for 'good' maps. Hence my question without further information.

Of course, we know that the editor's rating is a questionable thing. The idea behind is to give people a rough indication of the overall quality of a release, so that they won't have to take their chances and end up with only the worst maps. Ideally, the whole system would be entirely made up of user rating like on DW, but the problem is that each map would need to have a minimum number of ratings, ten or so, for it to work (to become somewhat credible and counter individual troll votes). It's no problem on DW because of its age and the fairly high number of users. However, I doubt it would be easy to establish for Quake, considering how few people are willing to participate. Even on Func, it seems many of the regulars can't even be bothered to leave some quick feedback on a map they've just played, so it's even less likely to work on an external site.

How would it influence your ratings if the system wasn't about numbers (of hearts or stars), but corresponded to our text ratings ("poor", "average", "nice")?

Also, I believe it's about time the Quake Injector gets updated with features like rating and commenting (account-baded), maybe even something to emphasize the desirablity to rate after playing (pop-up, red outline, or the like). 

Perhaps you could set up some guidelines first. For example use a 1-100 point system with say 1-20 points for texturing and lighting, 1-20 points for the layout and clipping, 1-20 points for item and enemy balance, 1-20 points for game play and pacing and 1-20 points for enjoyability (or some mixture thereof with less weight given to some aspects and more weight given to others). Then you can divide and average the final number to the range that you prefer (1-5 or 1-10).

That way you might be able to get some feel for where the overall opinions (good and bad) come from and where a particular level failed to meet others likes and dislikes. 

I think that would be way too complex. even with limiting each to a reasonable 5 scale it would be even harder to get people to rate.

the user ratings are meant for random Mr Smith. 

metacritic weights different reviewers based on how reliable they are, i think... (reliability = closeness to norm, i think?)

Also, Some review aggregators will ignore the outliers... so a bunch of 4s & 5s with a single 1, the 1 would be ignored.

Both of these require enough raw data to even have outliers and norms, of course. 

sock: Those things exist at Quaddicted (comments, ratings and tags history of users) but they are not linked and only available for registered users. https://www.quaddicted.com/reviews/user.php?username=Spirit

I think I should probably through my privacy concerns away and link them from comment pages.

I really like the idea of user-created lists/selections so I wrote some thoughts on implementation: https://www.quaddicted.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=84 

it would even be relatively easy to measure how long players spend with a map. But at least until oct, i have zero time to spend on it. It would really be awesome if someone could take over. I'm here to answer questions. 

nah, that would need to be in-engine. you could not know about level changes, pauses etc from measuring the time quake was running from the outside.

full offline support and comments and ratings (and tags) would be my favourite issues. 

http://www.rasmushungnes.com/pleasegenitalia.php NWS (tame nudity) 

http://www.blackmesasource.com/

Mark teh calendars! 

what is it> 

Seriously? 

Ah the DNF of mods is still around eh :) 

yes. I went to the page but they dont have any screenies or info, well none that I could find. 

http://www.blackmesasource.com/404.php

Every time you refresh the 404 page it gives you a different picture, mostly just jokes, including the 'goatse grub'.

Random 

i think it's the thing with the original hl maps for hl2? 

It is Half-Life remade in the source engine. Appears to be very high quality from the trailers and screenshots they have put out over the years.

As others already mentioned, it is the DNF of game mods, they originally posted a release date back in 2009 (heh) but after that came and went the team went quiet and the jokes started pouring in :)

Anyway, it looks very nice. I'll probably do a video series on it for the you of tubes. 

http://www.blackmesasource.com/soundtrack.html

Listened to a few tracks, pretty good stuff actually. 

Please post a 10 second video review of Black Mesa Source saying "This thing plays like a game from 1998 - thumbs down" thanks bye. 

will definitely check it out.