Sriver says:

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.

I was about to type a response but I think you've said it for me.

Sriver says:
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.

You got it. If you dont like the track, then go away and forget about the track. This site is *not* about negative ratings

The ratings are from people who already like the track.

Thats the premise, and thats why you need to give an award before you rate the track. You are rating how much your award is more than a simple track rating.

I'll say it again, the rating is a companion, not an alternative, to awards.

eie says:
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.

Seriously, how much effort does it take to 'scan' over awards with just a smiley or award symbol? This is kinda funny.
When you're interested in awards on your tracks then you'll have a look at your track page whenever you see there are new awards. If then you see a new smiley or just a new number is exactly the same effort for you. Either there is a new smiley or there is nothing. Look you have to anyway.

MrA says:
Who knows how many people type something worthwhile because their is no button to avoid typing at all.

+1, I for example

MrA says:
, when the ability to leave very little text is sufficient and keeps the awards chronology safely (and easily) intact.

Agree, and I like this. I see who awarded it, I see when he awarded, I see what he wrote (or if he wrote nothing).
That's just fine for me.

sriver says:
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.

This would be pretty dumb because they would make it become even more overrated. Even a retard should understand this.

But because of all this confusion about numbers, because many, if not the most, find 1 out of 5 negative, it would probably a good idea to make it stars or a bar with stars instead of numbers.

MrA says:
I'll say it again, the rating is a companion, not an alternative, to awards.

As long as it's also displayed as a companion to awards and you can't sort tracks by their rating only, this sounds logical.

I think sorting tracks by their rating should be only possible as secondary order (while the primary order would have to be 'sort by awards' in this case).

The primary method for sorting tracks will be by awards, as well as this front page lists will be by awards.

We might allow 'rating' to appear in the custom search critera, but that is yet to be confirmed.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had read that it would be possible to sort tracks by their rating only.

I'm OK with the option to sort tracks by awards and having the ratings as a tie-breaker in case several tracks have got the same amount of awards.

Well what I'm saying is i dont know what will be possible yet to search by.

but...

Lets look at it sensibly, supposing you could search by just rating then it would mean that all the tracks with 1 award and 5/5 rating would be at the top of the list. So im not that worried about this, its a silly search.

It all depends how dynamic we can make our search functions.

But be sure of one thing. That is that on the site. Awards are number one, and rating is number two.

Well, I guess I simply misunderstood what you said about sorting tracks by rating earlier in this thread. I'm sorry.

well you know what, this is 23 or 24 pages of thread so im not going to start searching if you wont

Here's my vision. Maybe it's an irrational vision, maybe not.
No matter how much we may want the rating system to look like this:

good---------------------------awesome!

There's a good chance that people will interpret it like this.

bad------------OK------------awesome!

Once this happens, I see: "i hate this track, only awarding to give it a low rating."

I personally believe that a rating system is incomplete without a 'bad' to it. If that's not what we want here, then maybe it's just not the best idea to add one, because I don't think I'm only one that thinks this...