[cut]What needs to happen most is community policing--we need to somehow get more people flagging bad items and rating items in general[cut]

It is not much helpful in creating a true community, for example, to have a rating system like this. What is the vantage for the community to have the possibility to enter as a guest (anonymous) and post comments on the user works? Why a registered user can rate another user work, but his rate and nickname is not visible (but i guess it is registered in some database)?

You will agree with me that this mechanism can lead to abuses and it doesn't really make it a useful tool to use (imho). In a real community, i think the "anonymous" should not exist.

Sorry for my bad English, anyway i hope you can understand what i want to say.

You are so right marcodd....it is so pointless to have anonymous...I think it is used ofen (but not always) by those who seem to enjoy abusing the system. I gave a 10 star rating to a member yesterday and left a comment to match my rate. Within a short period of time some anonymous user came along and downgraded my rating. No comment was made so I question their motive for doing it!!!!

As my comment was the only one there at the time, the member could easily have assumed that the lower rating was from me. As I saw this downgrade, I went and commented on how I had actually rated and questioned why someone would come along and anonynomously downgrade.

This is the problem. It would be better is all ratings were identified to all...much more realistic and fair! The whole system then becomes useful and provides valuable feedback to providers.

Cheers

Hi joypauline,

I think that problem stems from the fact that we don't have enough users rating in the first place. If there were more than two ratings on that one upload, each individual rating wouldn't matter nearly as much. Instead, the user would get a the average view of what people thought of his/her work.

It's important to remember that rating really has two purposes: to give feedback to the person who uploaded it, and to let other people who come to the site know what they're looking at, based on the average experience of other users. That second role is what I was hoping the rating system would really do for our users--help them sort by rating and rely on the experience of the past average user. 

-Jake

Hi joypauline,

i'm glad you agree with me.

But, as we can see, the site policy appears to be the following:

let them do whatever they want. No rules. A large base of users will regulate the abuses. 

I have some  doubts about this, it's a too optimistic vision about human nature.

Why in other big CG sites we HAVE to be registered to make anything? Why at Renderosity, for example, i cannot rate an image, without  posting a comment at the same time ? Are they silly, in that place? Or they know that , if they give people the opportunity to act as anonymous, they will find for sure someone who have time to lose making nice things, like the ones that you described so well?

Just to be as clear as possible about users self-regulation: Sharecg have created the 2d section... go to the Poser section and you will find 2 pages (actually, i guess they will increase in the next hours) of 2d images (png tubes), zipped and posted under the other format and category...

"It's important to remember that rating really has two purposes: to give feedback to the person who uploaded it, and to let other people who come to the site know what they're looking at, based on the average experience of other users. That second role is what I was hoping the rating system would really do for our users--help them sort by rating and rely on the experience of the past average user. "

A lot of categories needs a download and testing time before rating says something usefull for upcoming users. 

What bother's me is that people keep complaining about anonymous down ratings when as far as I've been able to ascertain, you can't rate anything unless you are logged in with a membername. I understand that even being logged in you can rate without leaving a comment and thus it looks anonymous to the users, but the ratings are logged by accountname and can be checked by the admin's.

As for this "Mysterious Down Rating" conspiracy theory that seems to be growing a life of it's own. There's no mystery at all. If an Item only has two ratings, one being 5 stars and one being 1 star, the system is going to average it out. Just because I happen to rate something with only one or two stars doesn't mean I'm being malicious, it just means that is what I think that item deserves.

With only 5 Stars total being allowed, I reserve 5 Stars for items that I find are exceptionally excellent. On the average, I rate most items with 2 or 3 stars unless they're outstanding in some way. I feel that is the most honest way to rate items.

Hmmmmmmmmm....ever the stabiliser....I like the way you always come up with plausible explanations!!!!!!

I still think that some people downrate for the sake of it BUT not in all cases. I have seen outstanding work here that has ended up with 2 stars.

But........I take your point as always!!!

Cheers

As you know, if you rate  a work without commenting, that rate looks anonymous to the work owner. It's not important at all that the administrator has access to the rates database.

What is the useful thing if i cannot see who rated me, and especially, if i cannot know why? The problem here is not the stars number, i appreciate a lot (really)  if i got low ratings with honest critics, if they are useful to improve my work. But what i have to do with a one star rating, if i don't know why i got it, or what is the problem with my work?

In my opinion, if someone rates a work, he must be obliged to write a comment, and must be clearly identifiable with his nickname. I can't see where is the problem.

All major CG sites have the rating system integrated with signed comments , i don't understand why ShareCG must be different.

Edited by marcodd on 10/31/07 01:55 PM.

i want to go back to what jake said about "not knowing what to do about borderline cases", the general views held on the subject of spamming and low quality uploads etc. what this site needs is a [censored]. everyone is being far too nice about the whole thing, out of fear of hurting somones feelings, or maybe out of fear of someone turning around and saying "well your work is [censored] too, maybe it should be deleted".

we all agree the site, and the forum needs moderation of some class. yes, a non emotional approach to site moderation is a must (and a really hard job too)

a knowledgable mderater for site content is needed also. someone who knows what "good" work is, in all the various catagories. now, this invites the argument of "art is about expression and good is a subjective point of view". this is of course a load of bollocks. (my backround in fine art proved this for me well and truely for me. lol)

this is a CG site providing assets, not an art site providing ego soothing, or a get rich quick site, providing a low signal-to-noise ratio. there is no interpretation needed to see that a piece of unusable polysoup mesh is crap. that a piece of hastyly thrown together primitives is crap. that a totally rubbish piece of procedurally generated texture is crap. etc etc etc.

everyone should be commended on their tact and diplomacy. especially jake. but when being nice doesn't work, shelve it. you are not answerable to anyone.  so delete the "borderline cases" delete the crap. delete the spam. if it not a useful, usable well crafted piece of work, it is just dragging down the potential of the site as a whole.

i know i am representing the more "extreme" views on the health of sharecg. someone has to.