Is it just me...

photoneater
photoneater
edited December 2007 in General Discussion

Comments

  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    ... or has the negative voting been really wild today? Seriously, The Crusade went from like 3.9 to 3.6 in no time at all, and everything on the top page has been creeping lower and lower over the course of the day. There is absolutely no way so many games are meriting so many 1s, and the fact that they are all happening over the course of the day makes it seem more than a little suspicious.
  • DarthKrzysztof
    DarthKrzysztof
    Posts: 132
    I was noticing that as well.

    No, I'm not doing it. :P
  • RobJustice
    RobJustice
    Posts: 178
    Yeah, there needs to be a serious re-vamp of the rating system here. As it leads clearly to "John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad Theory":http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    Well, Micah and Ryan do have a new ratings system in the works, but as we all know, it takes a little time to get new features implemented.
    Still, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed. It seems really aggressive today, and it's just very uncool.
  • geekevolved
    geekevolved
    Posts: 75
    Yea, its really uncool. Thank Pelor that the slate is clean when they revamp the system :D I hope nobody tries SEO tactics on this site either.... too many social sites are getting hit with that epidemic =/
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar- SEO tactics?
  • viz
    viz
    Posts: 19
    I have also noticed this. I just shake my head and wonder how some people can take pleasure from being asses. I won't rate a campaign unless I think it deserves a good rating.
  • geekevolved
    geekevolved
    Posts: 75
    Well, people will try and get their websites listed on Google or other search engines by linking to popular sites and to get their stuff seen the most they will often bury (digg term) or making the competing posts less popular, ensuring their stuff is truly seen the most. (So that their website can make loads of money) (basically the more reputable sites you have your link on, the more likely your website is going to show up at the top of a google search for the relevant terms and the more time those links on the reputable sites are clicked, the more legit that listing becomes)
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    So, I take it SEO is an acronym for something like Search Engine something?

    It does sound like a particularly ugly trend. However, I think that if the user base here can come together and set a higher standard on such behaviors, the community can effectively discourage antics like that- or at least, I think we will be able to once we see some revisions to the rating system.
  • outrider
    outrider
    Posts: 46
    I agree that the rating thing is really fubar. The major kiss of death is to be the campaign of the month (COM). Everybody who has been it has been hammered for no particular reason. Jennifer has been there twice and has dropped about 3/10 of a point by doing so. Mine was also dropped after being the COM as well as Varis and the others.

    Even with the revised rating I still think we will see some of this, just because the internet is anyomous and you can be rude. If I understand what the revised system is to be. I could still rate your campaign a 1 and make the statement "your campaign sucks" and this would still count against you although you would know who I am online.

    I think the favorites thing is a better way to go in the long run. I pretty much know who is at least checking out my campaign and at least they have some respect for it.
  • viz
    viz
    Posts: 19
    I would rather just get rid of the ratings. I don't think they add a positive to Obsidian Portal.
  • geekevolved
    geekevolved
    Posts: 75
    Photon: Search Engine Optimization.

    I agree with outrider that the favorites might be the better system for feedback and review. The ratings just seem to bring too much negative to the table.
  • RobJustice
    RobJustice
    Posts: 178
    Is there a way to track who has my campaign as one of their favorites? For example, There are three people listed as having my campaign listed as favorites, I know that one is me, one is my friend, but I have NO idea who the third person is. Is there a way for me to find out?
  • outrider
    outrider
    Posts: 46
    No particular way in checking it out. I happened to know which of my guys is listing it and happened to luck out on others when I listed my favorites. I think that down the line we are supposed to know who they are.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. I agree that the rating thing is really fubar. The major kiss of death is to be the campaign of the month (COM). Everybody who has been it has been hammered for no particular reason. Jennifer has been there twice and has dropped about 3/10 of a point by doing so. Mine was also dropped after being the COM as well as Varis and the others.

    Oh, I know. And on the other end of the spectrum, once you go off the front page, you suddenly stop losing points until you rise back to the top. For example, my campaign Accretion Gospel consistently gained 1s the longer it remained in the top 5, until it ultimately sunk off the top entirely. Since doing so, it hasn't received any votes at all, despite recent updates that have put it to the top- which says to me that when negative votes are given, they are given only when someone grabs a spot in the top 5 or as the feature campaign. I don't think anyone is saying (myself especially) that their campaigns should NEVER receive negative votes- obviously, if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it. However, the fact is, the campaigns that seem to get the MOST negative votes are also the ones that get the most positive votes, which doesn't make much sense at all. Currently, the highest rated campaigns run from 3.8 to 3.5 average. 3 point FIVE. That's crazy- there is no way the most well received campaigns on this site are only a bit above average.

    It almost reminds me of Hot or Not. Anyone remember that? I always remember seeing these people who were frankly gorgeous who would have like, a rating of 6.2 out of 10, and they would be in the upper echelon of users on the site.

    bq. Even with the revised rating I still think we will see some of this, just because the internet is anyomous and you can be rude. If I understand what the revised system is to be. I could still rate your campaign a 1 and make the statement “your campaign sucks” and this would still count against you although you would know who I am online.

    From what I understand, it won't work this way. GMs can moderate the comments, and as a community we will be trying to heavily discourage negative commenting. Also, from what I understand, the new rating system will work differently, so it won't be as much of an issue. All in all, once things change, we CAN stop nasty little jabs like this by refusing to put up with them- which will be much easier once everything is out in the open, I think.

    bq. Photon: Search Engine Optimization. I agree with outrider that the favorites might be the better system for feedback and review. The ratings just seem to bring too much negative to the table.

    Thanks. Also, I happen to feel this way, as well, and have for a while.

    bq. Is there a way to track who has my campaign as one of their favorites? For example, There are three people listed as having my campaign listed as favorites, I know that one is me, one is my friend, but I have NO idea who the third person is. Is there a way for me to find out?

    I don't believe there is. I have to admit, the curiosity strikes me as well, but at the same time, I'm almost more flattered to think a random stranger likes my campaign rather than knowing and finding out it is just someone on the site I've been friendly towards, or one of my players.
  • RobJustice
    RobJustice
    Posts: 178
    bq. I don’t believe there is. I have to admit, the curiosity strikes me as well, but at the same time, I’m almost more flattered to think a random stranger likes my campaign rather than knowing and finding out it is just someone on the site I’ve been friendly towards, or one of my players.

    I suppose its flattering, but really if someone is watching and listing my campaign as a favorite, thats the person i want to talk to. I want feedback from the people who are interested in what I'm doing and I want the suggestions or general comments from them. I know I'll get that from my players but a big attraction to this site, for myself at least, is the community input as well. Getting the thoughts and ideas from the people that don't sit at my table every week.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    Well, once again- if they implement a comment system like they have been talking about, you'll have that opportunity, and not just from those who have favorited your campaign.
  • Micah
    Micah
    Posts: 894
    When my campaign (Kensing) is back on top, you know something's wrong...

    We hear you and we're working on it!
  • Jennifer
    Jennifer
    Posts: 74
    The only time I *ever* hand out votes below 3 is when someone rates their campaign a 5.0 when it doesn't have anything posted on it, or the only post is: here's backstory, this campaign will start in 2 weeks. I don't care whether I'm in the top 5 or top 50 or whatever, I know the quality of the content I add, and I really like some of the stuff I've seen around here, too.
  • ryan
    ryan
    Posts: 126
    Okay, I hear you all.. I'm currently working on showing who rated what... Since we normally do updates on Sundays, plan on seeing this new feature pushed out on Sunday night. I don't know if the rating normalization will be there quite yet though.. Eventually kind of the idea is to say, hey you like this campaign, well all of your friends like this one and we think you will too!

    Thanks for all your input!
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    Will the current ratings be reset, or will they remain- just with a public display of who made what vote and what that vote was?
  • kresnik_alchemist
    kresnik_alchemist
    Posts: 13
    I think one of the easiest ways to deal with the constant downvoting is to do away with the top 5, my campaign has been there for the last 2 days and everytime I would check it, it would keep dropping down, someone has finally voted me low enough to drop off. It all boils down to the people who are lower and are voting down the better campaigns just to have theirs in that list. Pretty sad people, pretty sad.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. It all boils down to the people who are lower and are voting down the better campaigns just to have theirs in that list. Pretty sad people, pretty sad.

    I don't even think it is that, entirely. I mean, yes, it would be a bit glib to say jealousy and competing for the golden ring that is the Top 5 isn't a factor, but I don't feel it is a case of higher quality games being targeted by the players/GMs of "lower" quality games. The top 5 isn't really an accurate display of what campaigns are "better", it just shows who has the highest average. Someone with a brand new campaign can come in, vote 5, and have a better average than a campaign with 30+ votes that has an average 3.9

    Objectively, the person with the lower average has a "better" campaign, if by "better" we mean that the campaign is more well liked. I personally don't like using terms like "better", since a campaign is a matter of taste in the first place. One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't ever seem like someone who is lower on the list is voting down everyone else to earn a spot on the top 5- if that were the case, the same one or two people would consistently be floating back to the top, rather than the mix of 20 or so campaigns that do so currently (I mean, look at the current top 5- the campaign belong to Jason, Viz, Micah, outrider, and Jennifer- all members of this community who have shown they are friendly, interested in making the place better, and not interested in winning any popularity contests with their own campaigns. However, their averages are really not very good, and are loaded with plenty of undeserved 1s just the same). Furthermore, once a campaign is voted down and sinks low enough, it rarely if ever rises to the top again, unless the overall average goes so low that it comes up by default. Usually, what happens is a new or relatively untouched campaign will get a few high votes and rise to the top rank based on average, until it inevitably draws fire and gets voted to the floor. Once that happens, the older campaigns with more votes tend to come back up again, until another new campaign comes in and receives a well meaning high vote from a friend, passerby, or player.

    No, to me it just seems like any time a campaign gains some sort of acknowledgment, be it in the form of being featured or gaining a spot in the top, it attracts negative attention from people who distribute low votes just because creative people tend to be greedy for attention- and when other people get that attention, they start to become resentful. I'll admit to it- I have felt that way many times before in environments in which I have been sharing things I have worked on alongside other creative individuals- when you work long and hard on something like that, you want to be acknowledged for it, and if someone else is getting that acknowledgment in lieu of you, it can be frustrating. It's a bit of a childish feeling, but it isn't altogether unrealistic to feel that way. However, that being said, it doesn't make it okay to be negative and tear other people down- especially not here, where the whole idea is to create an environment that offers feedback and constructive criticism. I think, all in all, it has less to do with a deliberate, manipulative attempt to drag any one campaign to the top in as much as it is an occurrence of people throwing around a lot of negative votes to be nasty because they are feeling uninhibited and don't like it when other campaigns get the "limelight" for a moment or two.

    And that is a little bit sad, that's true. It's also something humans do.
  • kresnik_alchemist
    kresnik_alchemist
    Posts: 13
    I think that my word choice may not have been the best after I read your post. Lets say that there are some campaigns that are much more thought out than others. But moving on.

    I was gladly surprised to see the viewable user rating already implemented and hope that there will soon be a place to leave comments.

    Also, thanks Photoneater for your gracious vote, I know my campaign doesn't have a lot of content to look at yet to accurately decide whether or not it deserves a high or low rating.

    On that note, my wife brought up an idea to amend a vote you have given, most times you might give someone a low vote because of lack of content if its a new campaign, but later on you see that there is some quality things going on and they no longer deserve the rating that you had given them.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. Lets say that there are some campaigns that are much more thought out than others. But moving on.

    This is very true.

    bq. I was gladly surprised to see the viewable user rating already implemented and hope that there will soon be a place to leave comments.

    I know, I am really looking forward to a comment system. I tend to vote high, anyway, using the voting function as more of a "kudos" than as a real evaluation of content, but even if I didn't, five degrees of quality doesn't really do it for me.

    bq. Also, thanks Photoneater for your gracious vote, I know my campaign doesn’t have a lot of content to look at yet to accurately decide whether or not it deserves a high or low rating.

    I don't always vote on content. Like I have said in other places, what impresses me the most is originality- even if the campaign is just a rehash of an old module, if it is done in a way that feels imaginative and tailored to the GM and players, that earns points with me.

    bq. On that note, my wife brought up an idea to amend a vote you have given, most times you might give someone a low vote because of lack of content if its a new campaign, but later on you see that there is some quality things going on and they no longer deserve the rating that you had given them.

    You can amend a vote once it is given. I don't know that it happens very often- evidence suggests otherwise, in my experience- but it does happen. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, a campaign that gets low votes doesn't merit a second look from the person who did the voting, which means even if it becomes a truly amazing chronicle of the game, it may always bear that negative mark from earlier on. I try to just avoid voting for a campaign negatively based on content, personally.
  • MythicParty
    MythicParty
    Posts: 78
    bq. Jennifer The only time I ever hand out votes below 3 is when someone rates their campaign

    Not sure the sense behind people rating their own campaign in a ranking system. At the same time, the only people truly able to judge a campaign are the ones who are playing in it.
  • AidanDark
    AidanDark
    Posts: 56
    Just wanted to bop in and say yea I logged on in the morning of the 21st or 22nd to find that my rating had dropped 4points in a day. I'm glad the new voting system is in.
  • IceBob
    IceBob
    Posts: 98
    I rate my own campaign, not for the content I add, but for the actions and content created by my players. As the GM, I tell less than half the story - all I do is create a world that the player characters must react to. Their reactions are the real story.
  • DarthKrzysztof
    DarthKrzysztof
    Posts: 132
    bq. I rate my own campaign, not for the content I add, but for the actions and content created by my players. As the GM, I tell less than half the story – all I do is create a world that the player characters must react to. Their reactions are the real story.

    Perfectly true! Plus, in my campaign, Jennifer does _all_ the session writeups, plus most of the interludes, and she also conceived some of our NPCs, even going so far as to stat some of them out. Both of our campaigns are pretty collaborative; if we're just patting each other on the back, it still seems better than patting your own back. :P
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. Perfectly true! Plus, in my campaign, Jennifer does all the session writeups, plus most of the interludes, and she also conceived some of our NPCs, even going so far as to stat some of them out. Both of our campaigns are pretty collaborative; if we’re just patting each other on the back, it still seems better than patting your own back. :P

    I envy the involvement of your group on the site. My group is always highly collaborative, but they tend to focus on their own things on OP, if they do that at all.

    Meanwhile, I'll chime in and say when I give out ratings to my own campaign, it's rating my experiences with the campaign and the contributions of the players. If I enjoy it and like DMing for it, then I rate it high. I've DMed campaigns that would have probably received a bad rating from me after all was said and done, but the thing is- games like that don't tend to be well chronicled, nor would I feel strongly compelled to devote free time to posting them here.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Have you checked out March's Campaign of the Month?

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions