An additional rating would be cool imho.Altough I'd change the system suggested by Mr.A a bit:

There are two main things: Awards and Ratings. Ratings range from 1* to 5*****. You can give a track a one of these ratings WITH feedback. If you rate a track 1* to 3* the feeback will show up as a comment. Ratings 4* or 5* will show up as awards. An overall rating score is computed from all the ratings, good and bad ones.

So award a track with the rating 1 is impossible.

4 and 5 is only the level to award then.
low or high award.



better SkunkY. ? iam always wonder what the dot is fore.

SPIDER would you PLEASE use punctuation marks in your posts.
I'm sure you've learned them in school.
Makes it so much easier to read.

You wouldn't 'award', you'd 'rate' a track. If you rated it 4-5 your feedback would appear as an award. Otherwise as a comment.

So in the end you would have an overall rating for a track, which would be far more meaningful (incorporation of negative feedbacks) than awards only.

Anyway, just thought of this off the top of my head :-)

dont understand..... ?

So you can give award and rate it 1. ?
or is it like this.
example, rate 2 4 2 1 1 = 1 .

SPIDER says:
example, rate 2 4 2 1 1 = 1 .

yep. but I can't find any reasons why this system is better than current one.

I dislike the fact that:

We want people who rate a track to give feedback.
We don't always want to give feedback, but we want to rate.
We won't allow people to rate without giving feedback.
We are clearly hypocrites.

So for this to work, we would have to create a system so when you award, you have the option to not write anything, but you would still have to write something. And then if you choose to write something, it doesn't have to make any sense, but that's OK. And if you want to rate a track, you have to write something, even if it doesn't make any sense or not, but you would still have to write something. At the end of this, you are not allowed to vote lower than 3, but at the same time 1 is not a bad score for a track.

This could easily be made, right folks?

Why people thinks about awards like a rating system? Because a rate system is designed to tell you which is the best, like awards. You must be agree with me when I say that if a track has recivided a lot of awards, a lot of people liked the track, so this track is best than other wich hasn't recived lots of awards.This mean: more awards=better track.
This simplistic system works: Best tracks has more awards. It works like a wagon compared to a Ferrari, but it works: You can go to point B from point A with both.... Anyway this is not the problem.
IMO problem is this system has a lack:
Imagine you can rate a track with a perfect rate system (from 0 to 10 points), and we have the site plenty of 10 points tracks. If a new guy, but a genius on building maps, enters the site he can up to the climb faster: If the first downloader likes the track and gives him 10 points, others players will see his track on "first positions on the list". If the first guy who rated was his friend (I mean, first guy was "abusing" the system for hipe and our friend is a poor builder) this track will go down on rating list while others players make his rate. (We must believe most people is right and a lot of people will see this race).
But with awards, when a new guy (rembember a genius) enters the site, is very dificult (quite impossible) to apear in the top rated tracks. There is a site plenty of tracks with thousands awards. And this is the lack of the system: It blocks itself, and stop working. This new guy, with his incredible track desapears from the list in a few minutes (hours in the best case) and nobody saw his track, except a few guys who give him 10 awards the first two days (I'm in the best case again). And nobody will download his track again.
He recived a nice 10 awards full of nice words and comments. Yes. But he has a track wich is best than other tracks wich has 100 awards, wich apear always on top, because this tracks was uploaded years before... (Not beacuse is better, just is old)
This track also deserves 100 awards. And users will like to play this track if they were able to find it in this huge mess of tracks.... And awards are a exponential rating system, don't forgive this other lack. Because tracks with more awards apear in the top of the list when you are trying to find THE BEST track, so if i have 5 friends who hipes my crap track... (Yes I know, awards are just feedback... let's say in this way, awards are just POSITIVE feedback, my friends loves me, and we all were agree in that if a track has lots of awards it can't be a crap...)
I think most users works this way.
I want a rating system because I want to discover new nice tracks every day in the top "rated" list. Not always the same tracks... Maybe the best track in this site is still undiscovered XD
I have seen some nice and fresh ideas here...

DeMeNs says:
This mean: more awards=better track.

This is completely false, and you even alluded to that in your post, albeit unwittingly. Awards are a measure of track popularity.

For a user to get awards, he must get his track noticed. Some of the features that TMX included that MX has yet to include certainly hinder a new player from being properly recognized.

As said before, the system would work if it was used differently, but sadly, the user-base (in aggregate) is too set in their ways for any major behavioral change. The goal of any new feature implemented would be the spur to change the users interpret track statistics as ratings, and use the involved systems.

Bucky says:

DeMeNs says:
This mean: more awards=better track.

This is completely false, and you even alluded to that in your post, albeit unwittingly. Awards are a measure of track popularity.

I see this disagreement a lot, and I think the words 'popular' and 'good' mean the same exact thing here.
"Good" and "better" are completely relative words. Every track has people that like it, and people who hate it. People who like it (think it is "good") will ideally give awards, and people who don't think it's "good" will not. Therefore, tracks with lots of awards are, according to more people, "better." I understand that nobody can award EVERY track they see and like, and friend-awarding does happen occassionally, but no system is perfect.

Which brings me to my other point... what is it that makes some of you think that a rating system is really necessary? Trying to have awards and a system of rating would just make things more complicated for a new user. People who buddy-award could just as easily 'buddy-rate' a track. It wouldn't really fix or change anything, and the awards system has been the heart of a successful group of T/MX sites for six or seven years now! It's not flawless, but I think we just need to accept that and move on.