Current Opinion System

YouTube · Post by **Kionon** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:12 pm

The current opinion system needs an overhaul. This has been brought up before, I but I believe it should be brought up again. So far, there are two main issues I see with the opinion system that are not adequately dealt with: giving opinions for videos obtained off the org but listed on the org, and giving opinions when an offsite link is downloaded rather than a local link when the local link is available.

There needs to be a system in place to allow for giving opinions to videos that you already have, either because you obtained them elsewhere, or as is currently the situation with me, you obtained many of them on the org years ago and would like to op them now, only to find out that the site is not aware of those downloads.

Now, I realize that the original intent here is to prevent people from merely claiming to have downloaded the video and give fake, or spam opinions. This is fine, and I am not against the intent. However, I believe the execution can be changed to better deal with the reality of massive AMV collections, many of which are shared from editor to editor by means of LANS or DVDs, etc. My solution is to make this a donation priviledge. Allow donators to go through a process where they affirm they do indeed own the video in question and that the opinion they are giving is valid. Although this will not actually prevent a fake or spam opinion any more than the current system will, it will likely be that only serious users, with less need to fake or spam, will have access to leaving opinions for said videos.

The second issue, that of being forced to download from a local option in order to give an opinion seems rather contrary to the monetary goals of the site. The bandwidth, if available elsewhere, should be used first, since the editor is paying for that and not the org. Every time you download from local, bandwidth, and hence money, is spent. Shouldn't we be cutting down on bandwidth usage? Again, I offer a compromise. Same donation priviledge status allowing donators to offer opinions if either local or nonlocal links are chosen.

What say you?

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:51 pm

I'd agree with this as long as donators who are later caught giving spam ops have their privileges stripped immediately and are no longer able to leave opinions for any videos. If we go to a lot of trouble to allow them a chance to review, we should have serious consequences for those who abuse the chance. No warnings, just an immediate change to 'default' status and no right to ever leave ops again.

As far as I know, there's nothing to stop a person from using one credit card to make twenty one-dollar donation accounts for spamming purposes. The worst offenders are the ones making a few dozen accounts to review their own videos. If they're willing to go to that much trouble, donating a few cents for each account wouldn't be a big deal.

YouTube · Post by **Kionon** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:46 pm

Arigatomina wrote:I'd agree with this as long as donators who are later caught giving spam ops have their privileges stripped immediately and are no longer able to leave opinions for any videos. If we go to a lot of trouble to allow them a chance to review, we should have serious consequences for those who abuse the chance. No warnings, just an immediate change to 'default' status and no right to ever leave ops again.

We'd have to be careful with that. Many of the current creme de la creme editors, as well as those of us that have just been here a really long time, have fake or spam opinions up for various comedic purposes, mostly with each other. We would have to have a way of determining what constitutes inappropriate posting. Look at Godix who will make the scores appropriate, but then will just rant in the opinion space about whatever. It's not spam or fake per se, since he warns people ahead of time, but... well you get my point.

As far as I know, there's nothing to stop a person from using one credit card to make twenty one-dollar donation accounts for spamming purposes. The worst offenders are the ones making a few dozen accounts to review their own videos. If they're willing to go to that much trouble, donating a few cents for each account wouldn't be a big deal.

Uh, I donated $12, and I plan to donate more later. I didn't see an option for donating less than that. People really make fake accounts to review their own videos? Losers. A video cannot become popular on opinions alone. What do they think, that we'll be fooled by a 10.00 score on a 5.00 video? Gimme a break.

Another thing I actively dislike is that I have dead opinions I can't delete. Example, I have an opinion from a guy where he left all fives and the commentary was "I can't download the video." That is not an opinion, and it's killing my scores. How do I get rid of it?

Tsunami Jones · Post by **Tsunami Jones** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:51 pm

Kionon wrote:I have an opinion from a guy where he left all fives and the commentary was "I can't download the video." That is not an opinion, and it's killing my scores. How do I get rid of it?

Drop a post in the mod box or email us with his user name or the video that it's on and we can delete it.

YouTube · Post by **Kionon** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:01 am

Tsunami Jones wrote: Drop a post in the mod box or email us with his user name or the video that it's on and we can delete it.

Drop boxed. Thanks.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:50 pm

Kionon wrote:We'd have to be careful with that. Many of the current creme de la creme editors, as well as those of us that have just been here a really long time, have fake or spam opinions up for various comedic purposes, mostly with each other.

I noticed that back when dbzdoomrider was top of the usefulness list. Just because we like the members doesn't mean the spam ops aren't spam, or that it's 'okay' as long as it's done for comedic purposes between friends. Abuse of the review system - especially by those members we respect - is still abuse. If they're worried about losing their donation privileges, they can just stop abusing the system. The old reviews haven't been reported, so they probably never will be reported - especially if they gave the ops to friends. I'm all for something to make people I respect stop acting childishly unworthy of that respect.

The review system is abused and trashed enough without people who know better adding to the problem. If members want to rant to each other, we have a PM ability for that. Reviews are for reviews, donator and respected member or not.

Flint the Dwarf · Post by **Flint the Dwarf** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:01 pm

Down with the review system entirely! IT'S REVOLUTION!

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:00 am

Was this review valid and helpful to you as a reader?

[ ] No
[ ] Yes

Reviews with a "yes" gain the reviewer an extra inch in penis size.

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:36 am

Lyrs wrote:Was this review valid and helpful to you as a reader?

[ ] No
[ ] Yes

Reviews with a "yes" gain the reviewer an extra inch in penis size.

I don't think this helps the females...

Keeper of Hellfire · Post by **Keeper of Hellfire** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:23 am

As long as the op's are used (or should I say abused) as ranking system too and not for reviewing only, you'll have always a strong incentive to abuse it. To reduce this abuse is a race of arms which will bring more and more restrictions. In the end it will cripple the op system to uselessness, and so you reach the opposite of that what was originally intended with the restrictions.