You can say some tracks getting 100, 200 or 400 awards with the years is unfair.
And newer tracks that have been released years later can never ever get as many awards (which is true in most cases).
And that this is proof for the flaw of the award system.
But be honest.. for how many tracks is this relevant? You can count these tracks with your 10 fingers.
You could argue that GanjaRider is in advance because he is well known from the previous games and released his game very early, even before release of the full game, and with the time he might have 200 or 300 or more awards while an author who comes 2 years later might get just 80 awards even though you believe his track is THE best track ever.
That's so unfair.
Well.. it is not fair. I can't refute this.
But is that enough to mistrust the whole system?
It is not, because like I said, we're talking about a few tracks here.
For the majority of tracks this problem does not apply.

And sriver made a very good point some pages earlier.
For new players who look for most awarded tracks (or best tracks if you will) it is better to see old tracks from the earlier days on top than some that have been release years later because of what we know from TMS, TMU and TMN.
Tracks that are on top of botw 3, 4 or 5 years after release tend to be very hard for newcomers.
Because after years of playing and building tracks the proficient and well-respected authors and drivers have developed their skills and preferences of styles that hardly any new player can find enjoyable.
They have to get some practice on older (easier) tracks, otherwise they will just quit the game out of frustration before they even had the chance to really get into it.

No, this is exactly why we need a rating system, that can measure the average players opinion about the track.

Lets say there is a track a beginner can't finish, that's rated 5 stars, the beginner will most likely rate it 1, because most players would award/rate tracks they can finish, so the best of all time-list would still consist of easier tracks. Even if it's irrational to rate tracks based on your ability to finish them, I believe this is what's most likely going to happen. This can be bad and good, but the point is that this system is more dynamic, it's going to allow newer tracks to appear in a best of all time-list. Whether that's good or bad is for everyone to decide, but I still want a system that can calculate the average of the voters, rather than one that mainly helps old tracks get more *points*(awards).

(I know I'm always way to optimistic, but most of you are way too pessimistic )

btw, sorry for going a bit off topic, but why there's such a discussion, if the coders never said something about?
As far as we know, they aren't going to change the award system, and what make me sad, is that they doesn't even give a fuck about this discussion.
So i don't see the reason to continue this big-suggestion-about-the-rating/award-system.

.dejavu says:
why there's such a discussion, if the coders never said something about?
As far as we know, they aren't going to change the award system, and what make me sad, is that they doesn't even give a fuck about this discussion.

Understand why you might not find it so far back in this thread but....

MrA says:

Here is why it might be useful to make ratings....

Just Awards
Track1 1
Track2 3
Track3 10
Track4 10
Track5 24
Track6 63

Awards + Ratings
Track1 1 5
Track2 3 1.5
Track3 10 2.3
Track4 10 4.8
Track5 24 1.8
Track6 63 4.1

If we had optional ratings given at the end of an award, you can see more about the track. Don't you already begin to start having ideas of which of those tracks you would prefer to try? It may not be the on with the most award or most stars, although in that example, you would most likely want to see Track4.

Compare that to the first list and you would have no idea Track4 is worth seeing at least as much as Track5 or Track6, unless you knew the authors.

Now maybe track4 is by an author you never heard of, now you really see some benefits of ratings, they can show you a direction you not have followed before.

This is what is planned, it is not a rating system in place of awards, it is a rating system that is a companion to the awards. So far I have not read anything to lead me towards any other proposal.

We are not interested in letting people give negative ratings, thats not whats its about here, the rating if/when we do it will be a way for people who like the track enough to award it, to also give a rating which says 'how much of an award' the award they have given is.

I like it much more than just awards. And awars will stay... So everybody will be happy!

I like tis system a lot just a question - what will happen with old awards?

Space says:
I like tis system a lot just a question - what will happen with old awards?

Not sure, maybe we will allow retrospective ratings to be given. It depends what is sensible to develop. I would be insterested to know if people think that a rating should always be something that can be given later (and/or changed) or if (except for old awards given when there was no rating possible), be something that should be given only at the time of the award.

ie, awards are something that can not be withdrawn, but maybe the rating could be something you can go back and modify so that it can be a live thing, which may be changed as your impression of the track ages (or as the track ages).

Ook, thank you for the explaination MrA.. i think i miss some threads and discussion then :/

Instead of numbers beside the stars, can't we just have the number of stars.

Example, instead of:
3
It would be


(assuming = a star)

We would also have half of a star for 3,5, but I would think it would be a better idea if we could keep visible numbers away from a rating.

I don't think I will disagree with such a system, but my question is, what would be the measurement for best of the week-list? This is something we need to discuss.

Also, this system does not give people any reason to write feedback on the awards. Many people might just use the rating as an excuse not to write. How can we solve that problem?

Lastly, if there is anything you disagree or agree with, please post your argument! =)

I have myself not much to say at the moment, although I will try to think of possible solutions ^_^

eie, the awards system allow people to participlate on levels. So the ability to leave words is something some people like to do, and its something some people have difficulty with, or prefer not to do. This is why we let people leave just one word, or just the award symbol.

We want the system to allow people who wanting to be expressive to do so without needing everyone to be.

The same will be for ratings, you wont have to leave a rating when you give the award if you dont want to (maybe this another arguement for letting people go back later to give their rating)

So its about letting people engage to the level they want to rather than forcing a level. The lowest level is an award and nothing much else. The higher level is an award, a rating, and all sorts of word which will probably explain the rating.