Why not make the possibility to award without text?

Empty awards wouldn't be visible on the trackpage, making it easier for authors to see written feedback. Or make such empty awards smaller, so they wouldn't make up a lot of space of the track page. This would possibly make it cleaner, and allow for written awards to be more visible, rather than having to scan each awards as now for some sensible feedback. People could still choose to just write on their awards, but empty awards would be an option for people who don't want to write anything.

Just an idea though... =)

We could, but separating is an extra thing to code, when the ability to leave very little text is sufficient and keeps the awards chronology safely (and easily) intact.

* Maybe a button which just says 'leave no comment' is possible and it could reduce the space, but in a way, although we are happy enough to accept minimal awards, we might like to 'encourage' comments. Who knows how many people type something worthwhile because their is no button to avoid typing at all.

wow.. That was a good idea, that you can change your rating later.. +1 (maybe remove our award, but i dont think anyone want that right ? )
"any way" I made a example...
Star = This player rated your track
no star =
All award without comment, might be on top like the image
Those 5 stars show the rating of the track (imagine flowing gellow paint )

@ MrA:

There's one thing with your suggested rating system that I don't understand. If there's a track that is in my opinion 'just good enough' for an award, I am supposed to increase the amount of awards the track has got but decrease its rating (by giving it a 1.0).
This sounds quite illogical. Did I misunderstand something here?

You are very much misunderstanding.

If you dont like the track, then dont award it. End of.

I said I like it 'enough' to give it an award.

Sorry, the rating is from people who like the track 'enough' to award it. Its an extention to their award. it is not a replacement measure to awards, its a companion. If you dont like the track. You dont award it or rate it.

But if you do like it 'enough' for an award, then your rating is your choice, no matter what effect on the average, it might be 1/5 or 5/5.

If giving an award increases the awards but reduces the rating, why is that any problem?

Well, it's totally illogical.

Also, as eyebo and others have pointed out, people will always try to 'rate tracks down' if they think they're 'overrated'. Just have a look at how many 'overrated' discussions we had on the previous Exchange sites.
Now imagine what will happen if we enable these users to rate tracks in a way that their rating actually decreases. They (or at least some of them) will 'rate these tracks down' although they'd have to award the track, which should originally mean they like it.

If you want to try out a rating system, why not separating it from the awards? You could still say '1.0 is a positive rating'.

Sriver says:
If you want to try out a rating system, why not separating it from the awards? You could still say '1.0 is a positive rating'.

Beacuase with no prior investment in the track (ie an award), then it doesnt matter what we say 1.0 is worth, it becomes a negative rating.

Also

Sriver says:
people will always try to 'rate tracks down' if they think they're 'overrated'

Some peolpe may award a track and try to moderate their rating to effect the overall rating, but its not exactly a huge problem. Other players may have a propensity to give 5/5 ratings with an award. How can we tell?

The rating of the track is not a stand alone thing, its a rating of how much the people who awarded the track liked the track. There is nothing illogical about them awarding the track and giving it a rating that lowers the average, its perfectly expected.

Remember that the whole process is public, so if odd behaviour happens then it stands out. The most important thing is to banish the idea that the award and the rating are different, they are not, they are versions of the same thing.

So, if I like a track very much, I'm supposed to award it and give it a high rating. The amount of awards will increase, as well as the rating.
If I like a track 'enough' to award it, I still give an award but a low rating. The amout of awards will still increase, but this time, the rating will decrease.
But if I don't like it at all, I should not award the track. The amount of awards stays the same then. But the rating doesn't change either.

Regarding the amount of awards, the system seems to be logical. If I like the track (no matter 'how much'), I award it, but if I don't like it, I don't award it.
Regarding the rating, it looks illogical though. If I don't like the track, I can't influence its rating. But if I like it, I can make it either increase or decrease.
That means that for the rating of the track, it would be the worst to consider the track as OK, the second worst to consider it as bad and the best to consider it as good.