Future Review Updates and Such
I'm currently thinking of dumping the Full/Mini review system... sorta. Just the designation of a review as full or mini seems to imply that the length is the only motive behind a Full review. While this is true to a limited extent (other factors do play a role), I think I may have a better idea for Miasma v2.
There will be a division between "Excellent" and "Good" reviews, rather than Full/Mini. An Excellent review would have certain guidelines that must be met, and a Good review would have slightly lower guidelines.
For example, an Excellent Review might have to have the following:
* Well thought out, original review.
* Discusses things pertinant to the review, doesn't include things that are questionable. Like comparing FIAT to the WWF or something.
* Touches on more than a couple virtues/flaws in the D-Mod, and backs them up with ample 'proof'.
* Ideas are presented in a clear and concise manner.
* Grammar and spelling should be good... they don't have to be perfect. But capital letters at the start of sentences, punctuation, etc. are expected.
A Good review would have at least:
* Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.
* As for Grammar and Spelling... it should be in english, and easily understood. If it just doesn't make any sense, then it wouldn't be accepted.
There would be cases where reviews go far above that required of a Good review, but just don't match the requirements of an Excellent review... so for those who are thinking that going just a little better than the Good review guidelines would get them an Excellent rating, nah.
There will be a division between "Excellent" and "Good" reviews, rather than Full/Mini. An Excellent review would have certain guidelines that must be met, and a Good review would have slightly lower guidelines.
For example, an Excellent Review might have to have the following:
* Well thought out, original review.
* Discusses things pertinant to the review, doesn't include things that are questionable. Like comparing FIAT to the WWF or something.
* Touches on more than a couple virtues/flaws in the D-Mod, and backs them up with ample 'proof'.
* Ideas are presented in a clear and concise manner.
* Grammar and spelling should be good... they don't have to be perfect. But capital letters at the start of sentences, punctuation, etc. are expected.
A Good review would have at least:
* Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.
* As for Grammar and Spelling... it should be in english, and easily understood. If it just doesn't make any sense, then it wouldn't be accepted.
There would be cases where reviews go far above that required of a Good review, but just don't match the requirements of an Excellent review... so for those who are thinking that going just a little better than the Good review guidelines would get them an Excellent rating, nah.
Well, as long as it isn't biased. (as always)
--WC
--WC
: I'm currently thinking of dumping the Full/Mini review system... sorta. Just the designation of a review as full or mini seems to imply that the length is the only motive behind a Full review. While this is true to a limited extent (other factors do play a role), I think I may have a better idea for Miasma v2.
: There will be a division between "Excellent" and "Good" reviews, rather than Full/Mini. An Excellent review would have certain guidelines that must be met, and a Good review would have slightly lower guidelines.
: For example, an Excellent Review might have to have the following:
: * Well thought out, original review.
: * Discusses things pertinant to the review, doesn't include things that are questionable. Like comparing FIAT to the WWF or something.
: * Touches on more than a couple virtues/flaws in the D-Mod, and backs them up with ample 'proof'.
: * Ideas are presented in a clear and concise manner.
: * Grammar and spelling should be good... they don't have to be perfect. But capital letters at the start of sentences, punctuation, etc. are expected.
: A Good review would have at least:
: * Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.
: * As for Grammar and Spelling... it should be in english, and easily understood. If it just doesn't make any sense, then it wouldn't be accepted.
: There would be cases where reviews go far above that required of a Good review, but just don't match the requirements of an Excellent review... so for those who are thinking that going just a little better than the Good review guidelines would get them an Excellent rating, nah.
That's a good idea, but wouldn't that be subjective? Grammar and punctuation of course can be measured, but finding something good or excellent not, as, for example, the reviews show since some rate a file good and others excellent.
I do like the part of: '* Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.' I think I will add that in future.
: There will be a division between "Excellent" and "Good" reviews, rather than Full/Mini. An Excellent review would have certain guidelines that must be met, and a Good review would have slightly lower guidelines.
: For example, an Excellent Review might have to have the following:
: * Well thought out, original review.
: * Discusses things pertinant to the review, doesn't include things that are questionable. Like comparing FIAT to the WWF or something.
: * Touches on more than a couple virtues/flaws in the D-Mod, and backs them up with ample 'proof'.
: * Ideas are presented in a clear and concise manner.
: * Grammar and spelling should be good... they don't have to be perfect. But capital letters at the start of sentences, punctuation, etc. are expected.
: A Good review would have at least:
: * Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.
: * As for Grammar and Spelling... it should be in english, and easily understood. If it just doesn't make any sense, then it wouldn't be accepted.
: There would be cases where reviews go far above that required of a Good review, but just don't match the requirements of an Excellent review... so for those who are thinking that going just a little better than the Good review guidelines would get them an Excellent rating, nah.
That's a good idea, but wouldn't that be subjective? Grammar and punctuation of course can be measured, but finding something good or excellent not, as, for example, the reviews show since some rate a file good and others excellent.
I do like the part of: '* Provides a general response to why the author gave it the rating they did. "I liked it because..." and then a few sentences will do it.' I think I will add that in future.
Yeah, it will be a bit subjective... but the current Full/Mini system is much more subjective. "Ah, it looks kinda long *click Full*". I hope to whittle down the Excellent/Good things so it isn't too subjective, so the Staff just go down the list mentally, and if it misses an item, there really isn't any choice.
Hmmmm... What about reviewing graphics, plot/story, sound etc. independently? I mean.. so the file would have an average graphics score, average plot/story score, average sound score etc.? Well, maybe that would just be stupid anyway. Who cares about graphics? 
(i mean... overall rating, or gamplay, is what counts)
(i mean... overall rating, or gamplay, is what counts)Well, maybe that would just be stupid anyway.
Yes.
Yes.
You're talking of world wildlife <something>, or Smackdwown?
: You're talking of world wildlife <something>, or Smackdwown?
<something> = Foundation.
Um... yeah, I don't really care for wrestling, so I forgot that the WWF turned into the WWE or something.
<something> = Foundation.
Um... yeah, I don't really care for wrestling, so I forgot that the WWF turned into the WWE or something.
Comparing World wildlife foundation to FIAT would start an interesting arqument, though. "Does Dink break the balance of nature by killing fire boncas = reducing number of eucalyptus trees being burned = increasing the number of pandas?"
: Yeah, it will be a bit subjective... but the current Full/Mini system is much more subjective. "Ah, it looks kinda long *click Full*". I hope to whittle down the Excellent/Good things so it isn't too subjective, so the Staff just go down the list mentally, and if it misses an item, there really isn't any choice.
And then you've got a bunch of excellent and a bunch of good reviews, now what will that do? I mean, why would you want to transfer it into something else, if all you want to is to get rid of the difference between full and mini. Then you could easily just have reviews. Period. Why make any distinction?
And then you've got a bunch of excellent and a bunch of good reviews, now what will that do? I mean, why would you want to transfer it into something else, if all you want to is to get rid of the difference between full and mini. Then you could easily just have reviews. Period. Why make any distinction?
: And then you've got a bunch of excellent and a bunch of good reviews, now what will that do? I mean, why would you want to transfer it into something else, if all you want to is to get rid of the difference between full and mini. Then you could easily just have reviews. Period. Why make any distinction?
1) Excellent reviews would appear on the top of the page, like Full reviews.
2) Excellent reviews would get 3x as many 'points' as Good Reviews, like the way it is now. While most people just don't care about points, some people do, so its good to motivate them to write better reviews.
1) Excellent reviews would appear on the top of the page, like Full reviews.
2) Excellent reviews would get 3x as many 'points' as Good Reviews, like the way it is now. While most people just don't care about points, some people do, so its good to motivate them to write better reviews.
