Frequently Proposed Idea n.32: add on rating system

[Magigi12]

Please don't ban me...

"
The add-ons server should have a ranking system
Background: Some players feel that this would enable them to quickly identify which add-ons are the best, so that they do not have to waste time with add-ons they consider sub-par.
Result: The developers feel that this would be unfair as the system would be entirely subjective because people have different tastes, so the idea will not be implemented.
"

I feel this would be REALLY important for new players coming to the game. Every single internet service that produces ratings I can think of GREATLY improves the experience.
Of course tastes are subjective, everybody who uses rating systems knows that, but I don't see how protecting developers from being evaluated can be seen as "fair" and how this "fairness" could possibly be more important than making the game more user-friendly.

As it is, I only download campaigns which have been downloaded a lot... I guess that is really not fair, since new campaigns will be ignored, even though they might be wonderful. But I have to choose somehow, and I am sure many people use the same strategy.

Thanks for reading!

[Raijer]

Well, you might want to check the Players' reviews, as it gives reviews of most interessant campaigns, but i don't think you should hope for a rating system.
The campaigns in Wesnoth are so diverse that you simply can't grade it. It's way too subjective, as people will prefer one thing or another.
The only thing i see that can be done is the reviews, as it indeed give a biased point of view, but also shows which type of campaign it is, and helps knowing which you might like.

[Dugi]

Some time ago, I posted this, and I believe I've managed to persuade the developers that some sort of ranking system might be actually good. However, nobody seems to be really keen on doing it, so I am considering about coding it myself somehow (but I'll need to have more free time first, and getting them to agree with details, ranking like 8.3/10 isn't a very good option).

[fabi]

We are aware of the problem and discussed it at our yearly meeting at the FOSDEM (Free and Open Source Developers European Meeting) in detail.

There is no concrete plan how we solve the problem right now, but expect it to be worked on soon.

And no, you are not going to be banned

edit:
@Dugi
Please feel free to join our irc channel #wesnoth-dev at the freenode server if you want to join our "inner circle".

[Dugi]

Please feel free to join our irc channel #wesnoth-dev at the freenode server if you want to join our "inner circle".

I should have more time by the end of February, I'll try to remember this.

[Eagle_11]

You will end up with almost any addon above average rated, fe. if that maximum is 5 there will be long column of 5's no matter what it is solely dependant on popularity, maybe some 4 and 3's and rest ratingless unless its really poorly made or if someone bothered to scroll down that column to see that there are other addons down there at all.
In the end you would have to rely on trial and error again to find an addon that suits your tastes.

[Dugi]

I have said that a rating like 8.2/10 is not a solution. It would merely separate the garbage (broken, incomplete and objectively bad add-ons) from other add-ons.

What I was proposing and I still believe that might work is:
Everybody can write a review that would describe what is the add-on good at and what is it bad at, who might enjoy it and some other stuff (this can be told quite objectively). Anybody can rate the reviews, vote them up and down accordingly to their quality, and the total votes for and against are shown (quality of reviews can be rated quite objectively IMO, unlike add-ons where everyone has a different taste). When viewing the add-on's description, reviews are shown bellow the official description, ordered according to a formula trying to place the most relevant reviews first (reflecting the vote up vote down ratio, total number of votes, age if it is older than the last update). IP address for each vote is stored to prevent cheating or voting more times accidentally.

[GunChleoc]

The last time we discussed this, one of the ideas in the room was to introduce a tagging system to help with filtering.

[Magigi12]

YES! Tagging would be great!

Another idea, but probably overkill and complicated to realize, is the "people who liked this also liked..." thing. Some kind of automated suggestion feature, which uses the ratings to cluster add ons together.

For the ratings I think the easier the better. Less is more. One to five stars. It works for amazon, trip advisor, flash game sites like kongregate and newgrounds... it would work for wesnoth too. You guys think too much
Even if most campaigns are compressed between 4 and 5 stars, the decimals will help, not everybody will give 5 stars to every single add-on.

The only caveat is that you need enough people who actually give a rating, and you should not show a rating before it is somewhat solid (after 10 ratings maybe?). So you want to encourage people to rate, another reason to keep it simple.

Of course reviews and review ratings are also a good idea, but a bit complex, and definitely not a substitution for a quick simple rating system.

[tekelili]

Just my 2 cents: limit rating/feedback to those nicks who have been registered from 2 years or older. It prevents feedback cheating and, seriously... who cares the rating a player that downloaded BfW a month ago gives to first campaign he plays?

[doofus-01]

For the ratings I think the easier the better. Less is more. One to five stars. It works for amazon, trip advisor, flash game sites like kongregate and newgrounds... it would work for wesnoth too. You guys think too much :-P

But it doesn't work for Amazon (I don't know about the others). You need to read the reviews to know what a given instance of 4/5 stars means.

Just my 2 cents: limit rating/feedback to those nicks who have been registered from 2 years or older. It prevents feedback cheating and, seriously... who cares the rating a player that downloaded BfW a month ago gives to first campaign he plays?

2 years seems a little harsh, but what you say there is mostly true.

[Accatitippi]

Just my 2 cents: limit rating/feedback to those nicks who have been registered from 2 years or older. It prevents feedback cheating and, seriously... who cares the rating a player that downloaded BfW a month ago gives to first campaign he plays?

As a player who downloaded Wesnoth 3 (or so) months ago, I would care to know the opinion of players in a situation similar to mine.
I think 2-3 months are more than enough to prevent feedback cheating. Or, if there is really a way to know when a player downloaded the game, one could add some magic code that automatically downrates addons that received many good ratings only from new users. (I know boardgamegeek.com does this for boardgame ratings, but they chose not to disclose the details of their anti-bias system in order to avoid cheaters working their voting pattern around it).

[Dugi]

The add-on rating and reviewing system was coded and is currently waiting to be merged with the main code. There is no need to persuade anybody anymore.