I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

This forum is for help with this web site. Please read the FAQ and then search this forum before asking questions here; most likely the question you are about to ask has already been answered.

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby 8bit_samurai » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:58 am

Kionon wrote:Now, I realise there may be logistical reasons for limiting downloads, but in that case, why not just give me a button that says "no comment?" I'd rather click that ten times on my page than give everyone threes just to get it out of the way.


Instead of complicating things and adding another button, why don't you (continue to) use this?

star rating wrote:1 = Does not exist
2 = Does not exist
3 = No comment
4 = Liked it
5 = Loved it

And not leave a comment? It's basically the same thing :|

For the most part I don't really mind having to go through each video and rate them individually, unless I dled a batch of videos that didn't really meet my expectations. But hey, at least I didn't have to wait 5 minutes for a download link and at least the Org is dTa friendly. I mean, you could probably suggest a rate all option like how it has a submit all button. Sure, it is another button, but at least you wouldn't have to click it ten times.

Kionon wrote:Every highly rated AMV, with the exception of anything done by Koop, that I have seen come up has been something I do not want to watch. So I am not sure how you argue the system generates useful results or isn't total crap. My experience has been the opposite. If I want to know what the good amvs are, I just have to ask. I rarely ever use search function at all, and mostly only get new videos via the announcement forum or because of contests because I cannot trust star ratings as they now stand.


It may not work for you, but it works good enough for me, though it may be because my expectations are different, if not lower (or both). I do search every now and then, and when I do I usually order it by stars if it's more than three pages. Most of the time it's not, but that's probably because of the source (songs, mostly nowadays) I'm searching for. The video results may not turn out how I expected, but still having results usually amuses me.
Under Construction
User avatar
8bit_samurai
Hmm...
 
Joined: 17 May 2006
Location: Alaska

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Athena » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:13 am

8bit_samurai wrote:Instead of complicating things and adding another button, why don't you (continue to) use this?


Are we certain everyone accepts 3 as being devoid of commentary? I don't want the editor to think I gave them a 3/5 when I actually gave them an N/A.

Your idea for a submit all button is intriguing but doesn't solve the above issue. Three out of five a score, if I feel that I don't to give a video any score at all what am I supposed to do? Choose a three and then take the time for every video I don't want to score to leave a QC that says "3 = No Comment"? Would the editor even understand the message?
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby godix » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:45 pm

I actually agree with kio although he does seem to have a rather huge bug up his ass about it. It isn't worth nearly the argument value he's putting into it. Especially considering the guy who would code the change just said no. The star rating is, at best, trivial and unimportant. At times it's a major pain in the ass. As an example, if you want to download all the VCA videos then every 10 downloads you gotta stop, give totally bullshit stars to videos you haven't watched yet, then continue on. Since there's a couple hundred videos in the VCA that means you'll have to interrupt downloading about 20 times to do this. That's a kinda specialized case I know, but it serves as an example of how the current system is really annoying when you're doing a mass download spree for some reason or another.

Where Kio actually has a much stronger point I agree with is Phade. The history of the org, from an outsiders perspective, is that of a disfunctional family. Phade was the orgs papa and everyone loved him. He was good, kind, and all the other things idealized fathers are. But one day he died and the remaining admins had to soldier on without him. Then AD became the rebound stepfather, he tried to do it but in the end he couldn't deal with it. So one day he just walked out the door without telling anyone and no one ever saw him again. For the next few years everyone tried to pretend daddy was still around and before anything got done they'd go 'What would dear old papa do?' and so on. However there comes a point where you have to accept the guy is gone. He is dead to the org. Move on with your life. Earlier this year it appeared like Jasper, Corran, and Doki had finally accepted the loss and started moving on. We got new features, more public interaction with the admins, and in general a feeling that the org was finally moving out from under the Phade's shadow. Don't step back in a moment of weakness. Phade is gone. Grieve and accept the loss and move on with life. There are new exciting opportunities in the orgs life, but we can't experience them if we're still mourning for a guy who's been gone for seven or eight years now. Don't end up that bitter 80 year old woman who never got over her husbands death when she was 35.

From actually talking to admins and mods, I know reality is more complicated than what I just wrote. Phade's still there in the background. But come on, the vast majority of the orgs userbase at this point doesn't even remember a time when Phade was the active head admin. For example, I did not become active on the org until the AD era, and I've been around long enough I'm probably considered one of the old fucks of the org. Offhand I don't think Scintilla, niotex, jaddzia, otohiko, or a whole lot of other names well known and considered the oldsters among the org these days. We've gone through at least one generation of users since then, perhaps two. The users view him the same way we view George Washington, yeah he started everything and he was good and all that, but it was all in the past and things have changed. Phade said he didn't want to run the org anymore, and no blame to him for that. Real life is more important than a web forum. But still, if he decided to not run the org anymore then isn't it years past the point where everyone quit running to him to get permission to do shit? Fuck it, either he's head admin or not. The current admins themselves say he is not, his name isn't listed here. His opinion should have no more weight these days than mine or anyone else's does.
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Corran » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:44 pm

Kionon wrote:Either he runs the site or he doesn't. He's never around, but he seems to hog tie you guys in a number of ways.


If it deals with functionality he's designed I generally contact him before changing it. He's never explicitly required me to do this and I'm not sure how often the other programmers do. I do it primarily out of courtesy. He has done a lot for the org over the years, continues to handle finances, and is the legal point of contact, so I have a great deal of respect for him. I probably could have made the change I was talking about without him noticing, and he probably wouldn't have cared enough to revert my changes. However, if I can not change his mind on something after an honest debate, I will not override him and do it anyways.

Kionon wrote:If all this is a simple logistical point "the system won't allow it, I can't program that" then it's fine. Just say so. I understand technical limitations, and I have no real knowledge of programming, so if you say a null result can't be integrated, or can't be without great difficulty, then I get that.
Logistics are a major issue. Related database queries, the three different implementations of the rating interface, and the code that validates and updates star ratings would need to be changed. From here it gets tricky. The existing star related code spread throughout the site may or may not need updating. The only way to know for sure is thorough testing.

So it is more like "the system might allow it, I can program that, but the cost/benefit ratio does not appeal to me so I'm not going to program that even if Phade was cool with it."

Kionon wrote:
Corran wrote:I'm not getting paid so... :down:

...Totally not the point.

Maybe not your point in your reply specifically to Zarxrax, but my point is that the programmers will program what we choose to and that we are under no obligation to program X feature. This entire thread I've felt like you've approached the issue like "The system is stupid, change it, now." and "I'm right, you're wrong."
Otohiko gave a response that I completely agree with, in which he compared star ratings to a weather vane rather than some kind of precision instrument, but you dismiss it with "Does it? Does it, really? I think not." and then go on about how the system causes inaccurate ratings despite that being an inherently implied side effect in Otohiko's post.

I try posting to let you know that there are people that give star ratings as intended because the system is compulsory and you dismiss my point simply based on loosely related word choice.

It is frustrating and makes me and others less likely to help you.

Kionon wrote:Are we certain everyone accepts 3 as being devoid of commentary? I don't want the editor to think I gave them a 3/5 when I actually gave them an N/A.
How the editor interprets the number will vary from person to person. I personally recommend using a 3 because I view 3 as being indifferent.

Godix wrote:As an example, if you want to download all the VCA videos then every 10 downloads you gotta stop, give totally bullshit stars to videos you haven't watched yet, then continue on. Since there's a couple hundred videos in the VCA that means you'll have to interrupt downloading about 20 times to do this.

In future VCAs, non-donators will have streaming access to the semi-finalists. In this case, they could rate the videos as they watch them.
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby mirkosp » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:51 pm

Corran wrote:
Godix wrote:As an example, if you want to download all the VCA videos then every 10 downloads you gotta stop, give totally bullshit stars to videos you haven't watched yet, then continue on. Since there's a couple hundred videos in the VCA that means you'll have to interrupt downloading about 20 times to do this.

In future VCAs, non-donators will have streaming access to the semi-finalists. In this case, they could rate the videos as they watch them.

Streaming queue? Now this sounds like a plan. :P
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:02 pm

mirkosp wrote:
Corran wrote:
Godix wrote:As an example, if you want to download all the VCA videos then every 10 downloads you gotta stop, give totally bullshit stars to videos you haven't watched yet, then continue on. Since there's a couple hundred videos in the VCA that means you'll have to interrupt downloading about 20 times to do this.

In future VCAs, non-donators will have streaming access to the semi-finalists. In this case, they could rate the videos as they watch them.

Streaming queue? Now this sounds like a plan. :P

Streaming quality (and, y'know, not being able to save them) for VCA voting... that's a bad idea - a temporary lift of the "you have too many unstarred videos" flag would be a hell of a lot more useful.
Another Anime Convention AMV Contest Coordinator 2008-2014 & Head of the AAC Fan-works Theater - follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/AACFanTheater
:sorcerer: :sorcerer: |RD: "Oh, Action!" (side-by-side) | |
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Corran » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:29 pm

mirkosp wrote:Streaming queue?

Not really a queue. >_>
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby 8bit_samurai » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:25 pm

I haven't read godix's or Corran's post yet. I was going to reply this morning but I didn't have enough time.

Kionon wrote:Are we certain everyone accepts 3 as being devoid of commentary? I don't want the editor to think I gave them a 3/5 when I actually gave them an N/A.

Your idea for a submit all button is intriguing but doesn't solve the above issue. Three out of five a score, if I feel that I don't to give a video any score at all what am I supposed to do? Choose a three and then take the time for every video I don't want to score to leave a QC that says "3 = No Comment"? Would the editor even understand the message?


It seemed to me it was something that you were already using. I can kinda see why you don’t want to score a video; however, I think I've gotten too used of the system that I almost want to call you lazy or untrue to yourself when it comes to rating a video. But you seem like the type who’d give an OP if you feel a video does truly need a rating.

I can imagine a “Zero Star” when it comes to star rating. A “Star” that does not affect the star score where the viewer thinks the video isn’t interesting enough to give a good or bad scoring. It would leave the star rating system to those who actually give a damn about it for the most part, but I don’t think there are enough of us to keep those who are too “lenient” with the system in check. It would make genuinely good videos harder to find amongst the subjectively crappy and overrated videos. Those who give 3s instead of 1s or 2s may not think they’re making a big difference, but if there are enough of those people, then yeah, you kinda do. Not much, but to me, a 3.61 makes a big difference than a 3.85. I would not think twice about 3.85 video, but I would have to think twice about the 3.61 video if whether or not the source is worth it. It may work as a Donator’s option, considering the small number of donators (I’d imagine) compared to the total number of active members who download videos everyday. And considering donators donate, they’d might be more mature about it. I dunno. Just a thought.
Under Construction
User avatar
8bit_samurai
Hmm...
 
Joined: 17 May 2006
Location: Alaska

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Athena » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:56 pm

My response tone is neutral, polite, and conciliatory in the following post. The internet makes this difficult, so I am specifying this upfront.

Corran wrote:Logistics are a major issue. Related database queries, the three different implementations of the rating interface, and the code that validates and updates star ratings would need to be changed. From here it gets tricky. The existing star related code spread throughout the site may or may not need updating. The only way to know for sure is thorough testing. So it is more like "the system might allow it, I can program that, but the cost/benefit ratio does not appeal to me so I'm not going to program that even if Phade was cool with it."


So you think that the logisitics are a major obstacle. I get that, and I respect it. If you think that it is really too difficult, then as stated, I understand.

Maybe not your point in your reply specifically to Zarxrax, but my point is that the programmers will program what we choose to and that we are under no obligation to program X feature. This entire thread I've felt like you've approached the issue like "The system is stupid, change it, now." and "I'm right, you're wrong."


It is hard to demand the system be changed now when I don't have the power to do it. As for thinking the system is stupid, I do. As for thinking I am right that the system is stupid, I do. I do approach the issue that way. Why make a suggestion I don't back fully to the hilt? There are few issues I care about when it comes to the the site as I do this one. I'm going to make sure my feelings on the matter are crystal clear.

And I do as much for the site as I can. If allowed to, I would do more. I have offered on several occasions. I've offered to serve as a mod. I've offered to donate specific amounts if asked for them, as opposed to just my standard $12 a year. I've written stickies, agitated for the mac forum (and thanks guys, you do rock, we got it) and did up the tutorials. I continue to do research in areas I personally don't even use. All because I take my promise seriously. If you need help, I'll step up.

Otohiko gave a response that I completely agree with, in which he compared star ratings to a weather vane rather than some kind of precision instrument, but you dismiss it with "Does it? Does it, really? I think not." and then go on about how the system causes inaccurate ratings despite that being an inherently implied side effect in Otohiko's post.


Actually, I flat out missed the implication. Rather, I thought Oto had explicitly said they were some kind of precision instrument. If I missed that and responded incorrectly, I apologise.

I try posting to let you know that there are people that give star ratings as intended because the system is compulsory and you dismiss my point simply based on loosely related word choice.


Word choice is very, very important when we lack tone and body language. You said you didn't think hard about it, you went with your instinct. I said that I did not know one person who sat down, and really thought about the star rating they were giving. By your own admission, you don't do that. You go with your gut, immediately. This is not, as I understand it, semantic quibbling. I am looking for a person who puts some deep thought into choosing a star rating, and takes time to do so, and so far, I don't think I have met anyone who does. I am not saying your gut is less valuable, I am just saying it is immediate.

It is frustrating and makes me and others less likely to help you.


See above. I am not in any way attacking you, or belittling you, are ignoring the great work you've so far done. And as stated twice now, if this is a technical issue you just don't feel is worth the trouble, so be it. When I choose a position, and post about it, then I defend it to the hilt. Most things that the site does that I disagree with are just not worth that kind of devotion. I think this is. So I choose my battles. Don't take anything I say as personal, or as impugning the great work done elsewhere. I just truly believe the system, as a compulsory one, is broken, if not outright misguided. You may disagree, and you have the right to ignore my suggestions, but please don't take offense at my attempt to make the site better within my ability to do so.

How the editor interprets the number will vary from person to person. I personally recommend using a 3 because I view 3 as being indifferent.


So do I. I just worry that it will be misinterpreted, thus I thought a clarification in the system might be nice.

Corran, I suggest because I care. I respond because I care. If I come off as being very strong handed through the bluntness of my word choice, take it only as I really, really believe in the goal I am arguing for. Nothing personal in it; just business.

Serious Business. |:
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby mirkosp » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:24 pm

Kio... how about you just type in the QC "I'm rating this 3 out 5 because I don't feel like expressing my opinion and consider it to be an indifferent rating"?
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Athena » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:19 pm

mirkosp wrote:Kio... how about you just type in the QC "I'm rating this 3 out 5 because I don't feel like expressing my opinion and consider it to be an indifferent rating"?


I mentioned this above. I could. But it makes a slow process even slower. I'm not really opposed to it as a personal solution, but it obviously isn't a global solution.
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Panky » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:20 am

I thought the same way a few times, and I don't download too many AMV's that often. I usually had some problems delivering stars rating because I would forget which video it was (probably deleted some time ago) or maybe I really couldn't get to see again the video in that specific moment; I have to give a 3 stars to keep on downloading, though. It feels misleading when the main purpose of the system itself is to give a general and somehow accurate opinion about a video.
About implementing it, I don't really know too much about it, I guess it could be a little big of a deal checking compatibility with the system as it is right now. Maybe adding 0 (or nothing) to the sum of star ratings given and not adding 1 to the # of people that rated could do the job, but again, I can't be sure how it works out behind the curtains.
User avatar
Panky
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Location: some place called Kokomo...
Status: dozing...

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby mirkosp » Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:13 am

Kionon wrote:
mirkosp wrote:Kio... how about you just type in the QC "I'm rating this 3 out 5 because I don't feel like expressing my opinion and consider it to be an indifferent rating"?


I mentioned this above. I could. But it makes a slow process even slower. I'm not really opposed to it as a personal solution, but it obviously isn't a global solution.


So like... how about instead of giving the donators the ability to not star rate, giving them a check to automatically give 3+the comment above? Stars would still be given as wished by some, and others that complain about the system won't have to go through the hassle. That should be a nice compromise.
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby Athena » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:05 am

mirkosp wrote:So like... how about instead of giving the donators the ability to not star rate, giving them a check to automatically give 3+the comment above? Stars would still be given as wished by some, and others that complain about the system won't have to go through the hassle. That should be a nice compromise.


I would agree to that. However, can Corran, or would Corran be willing to, code that?
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: I think we need a "no star/comment at this time" rating

Postby JaddziaDax » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:04 pm

I used to put thought into star ratings, then I started feeling that there was no point..
User avatar
JaddziaDax
Crazy Cat Lady!
 
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Location: somewhere i think O.o
Status: I has a TRU Arceus

Previous

Return to Site Help & Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests