Give Feedback
The story so far...
First of all let me address why this update was necessary. Since Oblivion's launch TESNexus has gathered a very strong following of both forum regulars, file database regulars and general users who like to upload and download from the site. These users have grown to understand how this site operates and how to conduct themselves properly within the Elder Scrolls community, which I personally believe is a unique community compared to other modding communities. The Elder Scrolls community is not only productive, but constructive and full of avid modders who are willing to share and extend their knowledge to other users. It has always been important to foster this virtue within the community and as such Nexus sites have always been advocates of the "constructive criticism" policy; that is if you have something to say you word it in such a way that it is constructive to the author of the work.
Unfortunately my views of "constructive criticism" no matter how much I tried to explain it to users often fell on deaf ears, especially to new users who had come from communities that didn't share the same views as myself or were new to modding communities in general and who couldn't be bothered to read the rules of the site. This problem was further compounded by the 1-to-10 rating system that really simply became the 1-or-10 rating system. Any number other than 10 was seen as a negative rating due to the way in which the top 100 was calculated. The underlying problem with the top list system was how you create a top list of downloads on a site that can accommodate the fact that not all files are going to be as popular as each other? The weighted system was the best system irrespective of its many flaws.
So in light of these problems it became apparent that a change was needed. Either the 1-to-10 rating system needed to be better enforced or a complete change was necessary. As far as further enforcement goes I don't care what anybody says; the moderation team at Nexus (Buddah, LHammonds, BBen and Slof) have done a brilliant job over the years and they've gone through various high-profile and not so high-profile banning runs that would take its toll on anyone. Rather than ask them to keep up or step-up their current efforts, as well as take on more moderation crew, I decided to rework the rating system to better fit in to my views of "constructive criticism". Many users of the site wanted a multi-tiered rating 1-to-10 rating system that would see users rate various aspects of a file, unfortunately the problem with this is that some users of the site have a problem with only one thing to rate, so to give them many different things to rate would seem counter productive!
So what's new
A rating system needs to be able to present people interested in downloading a particular file valuable feedback from the community on whether they think that file is actually worth downloading.
As mentioned the 1-to-10 system was always really the 1-or-10 system and as such the ratings were always very black or white, 1 or 0, you either liked it or you didn't like it. The new system follows but expands on the image share thumbs-up rating system that had a successful integration last year. But simply having a "I endorse this" feature on the site only presents one side of the picture, and a popular file might still have its issues. In the past the problem was that people didn't know how to be tactful in how they down-rated files; instead of providing that all important "constructive criticism" they simply lambasted the author of the file in question, never really addressing what the problem was and instead expressing themselves in such a way that it made the author feel like crap and then the ban-hammer swiftly came out. That's exactly what I didn't want.
In response to this the new system is a thumbs up, thumbs down system with a twist. The thumbs down system doesn't negatively rate a file; it doesn't affect the new top lists of the site and instead is used to explain to an author why exactly you haven't decided to endorse the file in question. What's more you can't leave a comment with your negative rating and instead you choose from a set list of reasons why you haven't endorsed the file. Why have I done this? Well, to address the issue of people not being able to play nice and to save the Nexus moderation team from sifting through countless people who haven't read the rules. It's the new "let me hold your hand through this process" system for those people who don't like to read before they rate.
With the new rating system comes a new top list system. To offset the popularity contest that is "whoever has the most endorsements wins" more features have been added to the list, along with a top 25 that shows the most rated files in the past two weeks, which provides a surprise; it might not be the files you think! Probably most asked for is the ability to generate lists based on adult and non-adult file preferences along with lists for files within individual categories. These features are now all available.
Now with added protection
Added to this are new security checks built in to the rating system. You can no longer rate a file without downloading it, and similarly you cannot rate a file within 3 hours of downloading it. This insures that users have at least taken the time to try files out before they rate.
New members have a 24 hour cooldown period that means they cannot rate files positively or negatively for the first 24 hours of their account life. This should help to reduce those "special" individuals who create multiple accounts in order to down-rate other user's files.
These features go hand-in-hand with the updated download history page (accessible from the right hand navigation) that will now show you which files you have rated, and how you have rated them.
But this isn't the end....
These changes are in the forefront of further changes to the download section of the site that should both improve the functionality of the site and increase usefulness and interactivity.
Following on from this rating system rehaul work has begun on a new commenting system for all files that will change the current mono-thread commenting system into a multi-threaded system that will be moderated not only by the moderation staff here but also by the file authors themselves. Thus file pages will become self-contained "mini-forums" where users can create multiple threads to post in, rather than all posts being placed in a single thread, with everything fully controlled by the file owner who can set whether they want other users to be able to create new threads or just themselves, as well as being able to remove posts and threads made by other users. And of course the file owners will be able to pin selected threads to the top of the list as well.
But for now
Take a look at the new system and see what you think and maybe hold back judgement until you see the affect it has on the site. Of course all the old ratings have been converted over to this new system and ratings of 7 or more on files have been changed in to endorsements for the file in question. Ratings of less than 7 have not been changed in to endorsement feedback because a PHP script cannot ascertain the reasons why someone has rated low.
Feedback, as ever, is appreciated. Just remember; constructive criticism.
216 comments
Comments locked
A moderator has closed this comment topic for the time beingEDIT: Heh, I see now that we can already see what files we endorsed. My bad.
What evidence do you have that supports this huge percentage perception? People who know what they are doing tend to be 100% quiet whereas those that have ANY kind of trouble (such as newbies...not necessarily stupid) will raise their hand and ask a question before even knowing the existence of the Oblivion Mods FAQ. Typically, when I point new mod users to that FAQ, they tend to stop posting questions that are covered in that FAQ....if they actually read it. You can probably get a fairly representative and actual percentage by looking at several mods and compare the amount of downloads to the amount of questions asked that were covered in the readme/description. Keep in mind that those listed in top lists and must have mods will have a much higher ratio of newbies simply because that is normally where newbies try their 1st mod.
It used to work that way. No matter what you voted before, a 2nd vote would remove the prior vote. If it does not work that way right now, please report it as a bug (most-likely related to the recent upgrade)
The negatives are not factored into any top listing or other ratios. It is mainly there as an attempt to corral would-be trolls. Just about anyone browsing this site and looking at the negatives can quickly tell if there is an actual problem with the mod in that area or if it was just the NN (Normal Negative) crowd that did a drive-by voting. The combination of removing the forced commenting and giving a pick-list to choose from when having a bad experience is much-preferred than what somebody angry has to say at that moment. It gives such people a way to voice their gripe in a manner that will not result in their banning and it has proved successful. The amount of hot-temper bannings went down dramatically once this change took effect.
Dark0ne has already explained that such lists that rely on download / vote counts/ratios would be too costly in performance to the database and any attempt to defer when these numbers were updated simply means the site will always be out-of-sync with the actual numbers and cause more confusion than what it is worth.
There have been cases like this reported in the past regarding mods that were downloaded but does not show in the tracker. It seems that those scenarios have mostly been mods less than 2 MB and quite possible that the member was not logged in at the time of download...which you don't have to be logged in to download files under 2 MB.
LHammonds
There is also the question of when to use the negative endorsement option. The author may have uploaded a mod with some serious glitches that got revealed through user testing and feedback. In its current state the mod deserves negative endorsement, but what if the modder fixes the bugs and uploads a clean version? How long should the users wait before they use the negative endorsement option? Should it not be possible to reverse a negative rating once the mod is fixed?
All in all, the negative endorsement feature presents more issues than benefits. Maybe a positive endorsement/number of downloads ratio should be used instead? Or a combined sorting feature that shows the most frequently downloaded AND highest rated files?
There is one more thing: when I re-visit a mod, the site does not show if I have already endorsed the mod or not (I have the same problem with the tracking feature, the only way to find out if I'm already tracking a file is to click on the Track link again and get the error message).
- "I couldn't get the file to work" ninety percent of the time means "I didn't read the readme"/"I'm new to mods and put it in my Documents/My Games/Fallout 3 folder".
- "The file didn't do what the description implied" usually relates to "This file didn't do what I wanted".
- "There were important files missing (animations, textures, etc.) that meant the file didn't work properly" is pretty pointless anyway - it just means that the file gets a negative endorsement before being able to fix the problem. A PM/comment would do just fine. It also usually means again "I didn't read the readme"/"I'm new to mods and put it in my Documents/My Games/Fallout 3 folder".
- "The file caused conflicts with the game or other popular files" means "The file caused conflicts with my other 200 mods in my effed up load order".
- "The file did not meet my high quality standards" usually pertains to "It didn't have NUDEZ CHICKZ in it/THIS AUTHOR SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT MY MOD".
And the flagship of all "reasons"...
- "After playing the file it doesn't fit in to my personal tastes or beliefs, etc." usually means "I DON'T LIKE THIS AUTHOR/THIS FILE HAS HUNDREDS OF ENDORSEMENTS AND MINE HAS NONE/NOT ENOUGH NUDEZ WOOMENZ/ANY OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER".
I could not agree more!
Negative endorsement is meaningless.
If I don’t like a MOD I don’t install it, if I encounter bugs I inform the author and if someone claims a MOD does not work I recommend reading the readme.
I bet most of the posts about a MOD not working or causing problems are from people that never bother to read what the creator has to say.
Crash
So I'm for not keeping this negative endorsement system, although not used. Yet there should be a way for a mod users to gather informations on it : is it buggy, is it always supported, is it reliable etc.
-ThePriest909
The trouble is the thumbs down votes are so worthless that they'll do very little to dissuade anyone from downloading it. This is a good example of a perfectly good mod getting thumbs down for no good reason....
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/ratings_n.php?id=8411
6 The file did not fit in to the user's personal tastes or beliefs, etc. Who cares? this doesn't help the modder or downloader.
2 The user couldn't get the file to work Is the users incompetence the modders fault? the instructions were clear enough.
1 The file didn't do what the description implied It does exactly what the description says.
4 There were important files missing (animations, textures, etc.) that meant the file didn't work properly and yet there are screenshots from users showing it working just fine, even if this were the case how does giving a thumbs down help? telling the modder what's missing and giving them a chance to fix it is helpful.
4 The file caused conflicts with the game or other popular files Does it? which ones? bringing the problem up in the comments is helpful, the thumbs down here is pointless.
5 The file did not meet the user's high quality standards This is worthless without knowing what the users standards are.
An innovative and well made mod gets 22 thumbs down for no good reason at all.
Like I said the current system is a lot better than the old one but the trolls and halfwits are still getting their say, only this time the thumbs down legitimises it.
Since the change I've non-endorsed 2 or 3 mods. One was an extremely popular mod which I just didn't enjoy, and with all the great things the modder had said about it I felt rather disappointed. Tried to just get it over with without offending him, but was eventually talked in to expressingwhy I didn't like the mod. 1 negative out of 250+ positives, definitely something I'd be happy with.
The 2nd one was an extremely broken mod, it completely screwed up lot's of vanilla and SI scripts. The modders keep on talking about how they're going to fix it, but their scripter is out of the country. Should they fix it I'll gladly switch my vote, but until then NO ONE should use that extremely broken mod. 10 positive, 1 negative.
The third one was an amateur mod that just wasn't very good. Only myself and someone else actually gave it a negative vote. 5 people actually gave it a positive.
Note that for all three mods I offered bug reports, suggestions, etc. at one point or another.
My point is, if ever a time comes that a file suddenly gets 20 negative votes out of nowhere I'm sure the admins will look in to it. Until then everyone should just relax and take everything with a grain of salt. There will still be far more positive scores than negative... even if the mod isn't really great, simply because I guess people want to be nice or whatever, or they don't truly realize what a really buggy mod might be doing to their save/game...
Trust me, assess, are assess and they can't help not show that they are assess. Even with the comment free non-endorsing they'll still end up being a jackass and getting banned. Though from the beginning I've been in support of required written comments, or optional written comments when non-endorsing.