You should not show how many player that is rating the track. Just the overall score.
rating only shows like this: =>>
warning for headeach
How this work...
5 = 5 * 0 = (5)
4 = 4 * 2 = (4 4)
3 = 3 * 3 = ( 3 3 3)
2 = 2 * 4 = votes (2 2 2 2)
1 = 1 * 5 = votes (1 1 1 1 1) (Five votes for one vote.)

In this system its harder to get a top score.
Becouse a lower rating is worth more, if you know what i mean.
all below. = 2 votes. (5 + (X))
5 = 5 = 5 (5 / 1 = 5)
5 (4 4) = 4.3 (13 / 3)
5 (3 3 3) = 3.5 (14 / 4)
5 (2 2 2 2) = 2.6 (13 / 5)
5 1 1 1 1 1 = 1.66 (10/ 6)
A more complex count is possible. ^^ Just an example.

Edit: similar as my but anyway i saw this. that looks like a good system ^^
Higher score make smaller diffrent..
5 stars = 650 point
4 stars = 600 point
3 stars = 550 point
2 stars = 500 point
1 stars = 450 point

@SPIDER

What you actually mean is:

(x+x+x...+x)/n
where n is the number of x's, and x can vary from 1-5.

But we could reverse it, and say 1 was the best result, and 5 is lowest.
It might confuse people enough to make a fair rating >=D

haha
yes and no (y+x+x...+x)/n "i compare to one vote on 5 to see what does to the system.
((y = 5)) where n is the number of x's, and x can vary from 1-5.
but i say 1 vote on 1 = 5 votes on 1 got it

DeMeNs I wonder if you really read other people's posts and try to understand. We're going round and round here.
I've explained my thoughts and concerns about yours and other people's ideas several times.
I do understand your system but I have the feeling you don't understand the difference between theory and reality.
Your explainations are completly theoretical.
There will never be a track with 100 votes of 1 (or 0).
Neither will there be 100 votes of 5.
Neither does an average rating of 1 tell the author (or anybody) why the track sucked.
Neither does it approve I won't like the track.

A track with 40 downloads and 3 awards tells you 3 downloaders enjoyed your track and cared to let you know.
The same track might get 8 votes, maybe have an average of 2.
What now? The 3 awarders are idiots and don't know about quality?
And who is right about the track? The one who voted 1, the other ones who gave 2 points, the ones who gave 3 or the one who gave it 4 points? What does it tell about the quality?
You say you agree quality is in the eye of the beholder yet you say votes measure quality.. *confused*

Now I'm not sure if I get your idea about the star count right.. if you really want someone with 100 votes of 1 to be able to stand on top then you're messing up your own system, that's completly rubbish.
I hope I didn't understand this part.

... says:
Now I'm not sure if I get your idea about the star count right.. if you really want someone with 100 votes of 1 to be able to stand on top then you're messing up your own system, that's completly rubbish.
I hope I didn't understand this part.

haha. ofc not 1. = one and not a top track ofc, it will not get on the best track list.
1 vote on 1 = 5 votes on one and bring the track down from the sky abit, to avoid friend award or to adjust a little, but that will not have a big effect when a track got many ratings. Every little makes a great on.
hahahahahah

edit: tought you talking to me but i keep this post anyhow

Hehe, no I was responding to DeMeNs.

Ok guys, I think I'm having a rest from this topic.
You may go on debatting about new ideas.
Just don't be disappointed when no ability to give negative votes will be coming.
I'm pretty sure it will not.
So my suggestion is, focus on optimizing abilities for positive and constructive feedback.

SPIDER says:
You should not show how many player that is rating the track. Just the overall score.
rating only shows like this: =>>
warning for headeach
How this work...
5 = 5 * 0 = (5)
4 = 4 * 2 = (4 4)
3 = 3 * 3 = ( 3 3 3)
2 = 2 * 4 = votes (2 2 2 2)
1 = 1 * 5 = votes (1 1 1 1 1) (Five votes for one vote.)

In this system its harder to get a top score.
Becouse a lower rating is worth more, if you know what i mean.
all below. = 2 votes. (5 + (X))
5 = 5 = 5 (5 / 1 = 5)
5 (4 4) = 4.3 (13 / 3)
5 (3 3 3) = 3.5 (14 / 4)
5 (2 2 2 2) = 2.6 (13 / 5)
5 1 1 1 1 1 = 1.66 (10/ 6)
A more complex count is possible. ^^ Just an example.

Edit: similar as my but anyway i saw this. that looks like a good system ^^
Higher score make smaller diffrent..
5 stars = 650 point
4 stars = 600 point
3 stars = 550 point
2 stars = 500 point
1 stars = 450 point

I don't like first system. Is unfair. It seem designed derivelately to be unfair, in order to allow going down fast, and going up slow. If you want a system wich is dificult to be on the top it's nice. For example to rate music and always having something diferent on top. This is nice for a music program which always need a diferent new song to play when arriving at the number 1 to avoid being repetitive. And the songs aren't voted by the own musicians XD
If we take this system, abusers wins. (Abusing in low rates to "punish" what they think is over-rated). And I can under-rate tracks wich have better rating than mine to promote my own track with a diabolic efectiveness... XD
Abuse in voting will be always there. In all systems. We must take on this, and trust in that most people will vote what they really think the track deserves. We must take on friendly vote, and unfriendly vote (This track by that guy who was arguing against me in that thread in forum, I will vote lowest in all his tracks XD) and think that in a huge comunity these unfair votes will get minimized by the most people...
If we try to avoid friendly vote, we will benefit punish vote, and viceversa. And this is why I don't like none of them. I will prefer the simple, but fair, formula where 1 means 1 and 5 means 5. Whit a visible number of votes, average and total number of stars...
There are here a lot of users. Of course there's inmature kids, stupid people and Bill gates. But I really think that actually they aren't the most. Anyway, they can also abuse award system, wich is a exponential system, this means abusing on friendly votes has a huge effect on it, because is a "only postive" system, so you can't abuse it with negative votes. But in a exponential system, friendly vote has a exponential efect.

Let's do a experience if you want: Let's pick a underlooked track from this server. Not a totally crap, of course, a decent track, by a unknow author. And we give 30 awards to it. What we will get after a month?
Then we take the same track, and upload in a diferent acount of another unknow author.... And then we can't wait some time.... What we will get after a month?
In theory is the same track, so it will get voted the same for all people who don't knows is an experiment.
But the result is the first with 30 awards will have 30 X average-ratio-award/download x month (don't know the exact number of the site). So first month this 30 awards are multiplied for this ratio. And every month the same (notice that every month you have more awards in the formula, so number of downloads increases)...
At the end is impossible to get the same track in two acounts with the same awards.
Otherwise, with a averaged system (track 1= 30 votes with 5 stars and track 2 at it is), in theory, we will get the same average, with the same number of votes, after a time.
Abusers are a small %. Don't worry about them in a non exponential system

SkunkY says:
Ok guys, I think I'm having a rest from this topic.

+1

The award system is not 'exponential', but logarithmical. Within the first few days, you usually get more than 60-70% of the awards that you'll have got after a year.

Sriver says:
The award system is not 'exponential', but logarithmical. Within the first few days, you usually get more than 60-70% of the awards that you'll have got after a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm <- First line: "The logarithm of a number is the exponent by which a fixed number, the base, has to be raised to produce that number."

Skunky, maybe I didn't explain well what I mean. I would try to explain better my point (my enlgish is poor and for sure it's my fault if I was understood) but if you're leaving the thread maybe there's no need to do it...