Themaniac2 says:


@Ville
It is actual feedback, it says, "you know how you made that track right there, yeah, that one, well, don't do it like that because it's bad." That sounds like feedback to me The main purpose of being able to give a "-1" is to tell them that they should look for ways to improve their tracking skills. The karma system for online does that nicely, if someone sees their track online has bad karma then the're more likely to try to make a better track next time than if it's not possible to tell them it's bad (or unpopular if you would prefer that term) Imagine the karma system if you couldn't put a --. Would it work any where near as well? NO. The awards system is basically that isn't it? Well, that with a comment attached, which half of the people who award don't use properly anyway.

Fair enough, it's feedback. But it isn't constructive.

After getting a -1 the builder knows that his track is bad. But what does he do with that information? He can't just think, "Alright, I'll make a better track then!" It'd be really cool if it worked that way, but it doesn't. Liking/disliking a track is always subjective. One might like this track and other one that, even if they were of the same style. Furthermore, a track consists of parts. You have start, then that cool jump, then that wide turn and then finish. Yes, in the end a track has to be considered as a whole, but constructive feedback should always break the track in parts and mention the bad spots.

The "-1" or "--" or a negative vote tells the author: "I did not like your track." To analyze it further, it means either "I did not like any part of your track, or the track as a whole" or "I disliked a part, or some parts of your track so much that driving the track was a negative experience for me." Even if it was a famous author and you were expecting more from him (but the track wasn't bad), the options are still valid.

Now, does this help the author? When he opens the editor, does he know what to fix? He was not told whether it was the scenery, the MT, or that one jump here, or that tight curve there that made the track bad. He's confused. He was completely content with the track when he uploaded it, but obviously there's something wrong, as he received those negative votes. He doesn't want to change anything that others think is just fine - but he doesn't know what the others think! He might remake most of the track and reupload it, but what if he still gets negative votes? It shouldn't be the author's job to read people's minds. If you give feedback to a track, in a way or another, it's definitely not just to increase your award/comment count or whatever. It's primary intention is to help the author. MX is not a competition. We want to help people to be better trackers. And forcing people to write feedback, it works so much better.

About that server karma thing. It's mostly implemented for the server moderators/admins to see if the audience likes the track. Sure, it feels really cool for the author if his ++/-- rate is 88/3, but he doesn't get anything out of it (other than most people on that server like the track). He can't improve his tracking with that information. And yes, you can improve even if everyone likes your tracks.


Sorry for the really confusing post, I hope you understood what I mean.

A download/award ratio could actually work if only registered downloads would count. And of course 1 download per user.
It shouldn't be hard to do since we count registered download(er)s already.
And I think it would actually be a good compliment to the award system. Maybe even better than ratings. At least for me it would be more interesting to see than ratings.

It would be worth to think about if it would be shown to anybody or just to donators.

I hate having the last post on the page ... it always gets ignored.

What about users who try a track online and award it? They never download the track from here themselves ... Like I said before, I really don't think it would turn out to be an accurate system.

I think ratings just tells you something: High rating you're on the good way and low ratings you have something bad in your track. But nothing more. Is a kind of feedback, but nothing more than this.
Rating will be a nice tool to players for search tracks not for authors taking some feedback. If your rating allows you to enter in the top rated, obiously is a "reward" or recognition for the author.
Anyway, now that awards will be rated I will try to write some words to explain my decision on rating. (If is public visible, as comented Skunky) I would prefer visible to all ratings.

Important thing is to know wich feature is more used by comunity for searching tracks. If we continue looking for awards all will be almost the same, but if people starts to use rating as a preference for searh, awards istelf will loose value. I mean: If most people is using rating, and I award but with low rating, my effect in the overall position of the track will be negative... So maybe the author would prefer not recive my award to mantain his rating. XD (I'm still thinking that an award with low rate is better than nothing, but you know... I'm just a learner with a just a few awards...)
Maybe sice rating some authors focused in rating will hate some awards, who knows XD

Ratings will be a deep change. This is the only thing I know. XD

"Some say that Stig don't understand the ratings and he never won an award XDDD

SkunkY says:
A download/award ratio could actually work if only registered downloads would count. And of course 1 download per user.

no.. download don´t tell if the track is good it just tells how many that try the track if even that, just becouse 50.000+ bought trackmania it did not mean 50.000 like it ?
Negative you are talking about is it about rating or just a comment ?
if its about rating a track -1 it says (i dont like this track but here is a big award. lol

It's been stated already that users will not be able to search by track rating. It may become a secondary filter for awards, but it you could not ask for the tracks with the highest rating.

The only thing a rating system accomplishes is giving a better idea of how 'well-liked' a track is by those who awarded it without visiting the actual track page. This is not a huge difference. If anything, it will keep users award from tracks that they may have tried if the rating system not been implemented. It's also important to remember that people have their own opinions, some of which may not align with the opinions of the rating masses. This means someone may like a track for reasons that others did not. In this respect, a rating system is not helpful. I still stand opposed to its implementation.

Bucky says:

What about users who try a track online and award it? They never download the track from here themselves ... Like I said before, I really don't think it would turn out to be an accurate system.

Well that's a valid point. Though an awarder could just automatically add +1 download to keep the ratio correct because it's assumed you have played the track when you award it.

SPIDER you didn't understand me.
I was not talking about just the number of downloads.
I was talking about a download/award ratio.

For example:

Track A: 100 downloads / 20 awards = Ratio 5 : 1
Track B: 12 downloads / 8 awards = Ratio 1.5 : 1
Track C: 510 downloads / 30 awards = Ratio 17 : 1

So it would actually be a kind of rating. Track B has the best download/award Ratio, Highest percentage of downloaders who liked/awarded the track. Track C, which would be on top of the award list, has the 'worst' d/a ratio.

This could be an indicator that track B is very much worth a try.

SkunkY says:

Bucky says:

What about users who try a track online and award it? They never download the track from here themselves ... Like I said before, I really don't think it would turn out to be an accurate system.

Well that's a valid point. Though an awarder could just automatically add +1 download to keep the ratio correct because it's assumed you have played the track when you award it.

What about those people on the server who don't award the track? They did probably play the track, too. So, you'd have add +1 download per player who is on the server, which would be too hard to implement I guess.

Well, also a valid point but I say
people who don't interact on mx are not relevant.

Like any other system it's not perfect. ^^
Most players on servers never come to mx anyway. There are of course some who play online and still come to mx frequently.
I still like the idea but maybe you're right and it's too incalculable and therefor imprecise.
Although a rating also gets imprecise by the way people use it (rate 5 to get the rating up and vice versa), just like the award system (not giving award because the track has 'too many' already).

so don't show the rating until you rated/awarded the track? sorting will still be possible, but without exact numbers.