SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Any chance of a more robust review system?

Started by C.W.Richeson, February 28, 2007, 02:57:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Mcrow

#15
March 01, 2007, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: All ChemicalI am repeating myself from another thread but I personally like robust rating systems. The body of the review breaks down why the critic came to his conclusions while informing of the product. If a person thinks said products sucks and then backs it, I won't fault them. Likewise if a reviewer is showering a product with praise with no critical explanation, I assume bias on the critic's end.

And why a robust rating scale? 2 reasons:

1. A "3 out of 5" could mean anything from a 41% approval to a 60% approval. A good 3/5 is above average and a bad 3/5 is below average. That's quite a difference of a critique for the same rating.

2. A game could be weak in certain areas yet absolutely shine in other areas. Joe Q Consumer might not care for art direction and fiction but wants tight rules with little need to houserule. Jane Q Consumer is only interested in an indepth and cohesive setting and could forgive weak mechanics(She likes to house rule). A reviewer can break this down with a robust and multiple rating scale. A single review scale would not immediately point this out.

Our current system is 1 to 10 ratings. However they are optional and some people don't use them. I like ratings myself, but I don't need them as long as the review is good.

All Chemical

#16
March 02, 2007, 12:03:48 AM
Quote from: McrowOur current system is 1 to 10 ratings. However they are optional and some people don't use them. I like ratings myself, but I don't need them as long as the review is good.

Well an overall rating is for ease to navigate multiple review listing. And sorry for the confusion, I was referrencing rpg.net review system. I like the 1-10 system as a more accurate scale.
 
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions