rcplanefubar
Active member
Hey COOL I just got my first "1" . Thank you for the jealousy driven complement.
Rating Misuse
- Thread starter guest_jo
- Start date
- Status
MadMonkey
Active member
rcplanefubar said:
I've had a couple of those myself.
Is it just me or does this forum seem to have a higher Immature Idiot to Mature Adult ratio than the others I frequent?
A 1 is rarely deserved, the only time I would use it is if someone posts an unusable AV or a color scheme that shows no imagination AND looks like crap (IE low resolution, no time taken to detail, etc) or one that is simply scribbled on and posted (trust me, there's a few).
Last edited:
HX3D014
New member
Good to see that the Jakowlew Jak-3_EA is still strong even though there is a Clueless vote of 1 for it
I wonder if KE could Determin if the 1 voter is on a mission or what ??
that is an Idea. If a voter Goes out of whack and appears to be careless and Spitefull or Obviously Not genuinely interested, then they could be baned as a Voter (after they have been Given a chance to Eplain their actions, such as Mentioned By OP and some others).
NE Way.. the good ones are still strong
I wonder if KE could Determin if the 1 voter is on a mission or what ??
that is an Idea. If a voter Goes out of whack and appears to be careless and Spitefull or Obviously Not genuinely interested, then they could be baned as a Voter (after they have been Given a chance to Eplain their actions, such as Mentioned By OP and some others).
NE Way.. the good ones are still strong
jeffpn
Well-known member
I just had a thought; I hope I can express it correctly. People are way too interested in getting hight ratings. It almost seems like it's ratings in mind when designing an aircraft. The system, we all know, is being abused. A rating is just a number. You know when you've created a good aircraft. Ratings aren't all that important. If you're wondering what the best evaluation of your models are, go find Nemo_UK. Hmmm, whatever happened to him? His models were nothing short of spectacular!!!
rjmanzuk
Active member
Look behind you ...
Sure seems to be a proliferation of less-than-great AVs on the swaps here lately. Something in the water, you s'pose?
It's rumored that he's closely related to Tony Elms, who now works for KE, and appears here now and then to keep us on the straight and narrow. And no-one who's been around this forum for very long will ever argue that his work is among the best! Those of us without skill, talent or tools REALLY appreciate what he and those like him do for us in keeping our hangars overflowing.jeffpn said:
Sure seems to be a proliferation of less-than-great AVs on the swaps here lately. Something in the water, you s'pose?
MadMonkey
Active member
jeffpn said:
I'm not worried about getting high ratings, I'm worried about making good AV's and color schemes. If it gets good ratings, yay, I did a good job. If it gets consistently bad ratings, I may need to rethink my methods. We watch ratings to see how we're doing, but we don't build models just for the points.
We're always hoping for good ratings because we're trying to put out good files. The problem is that if we create something good and it gets some good ratings then some doofus comes along and rates it 1, the rating drops and some people would be less likely to use it.
True, but it's an important number in a sense... not everybody will come through and download every single file to make their own opinion. They'll go for the highest rated files possible, I know I do that when downloading models for Flight Simulator and other programs. So when somebody consistently rates models at 1, it brings the overall rating down, meaning less people will get to use a great model/CS/AV/airport or whatever.
Yes we do, the problem is letting other people know that it's good.
I think everyone who rates a plane should be listed in the ratings window, plus have a mandatory comment box. If you don't have time to fill out a comment, you don't have time to be using G3.
jeffpn
Well-known member
Now, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm well beyond where I should have jumped out of this thread. A couple interesting points you made, mm. Like your consistently bad ratings meaning you might want to rethink your EAs. But again, Does it really matter if 1 person or a hundred people download your files? I do appreciate the work the modelers do, but they are strictly in it for the fun of it. And if the 1 ratings are as consistent as you say they are, then it's irrelevant to have a '1' rating on every EA, since all the airplanes are equally affected. Would be interesting to have rater's names on the ratings, though, like you said.
Sammy Yousef
Active member
Ratings aren't meaningless.
You try spending your time getting your club to agree to give you their permission/blessing to have your version of their field posted publicly, then see how embarrassing it is to have a bad rating attached to that download. If there's another club you'd like permission to add it's less likely they'll agree, let alone be enthusiastic if you have a rating on your last piece of work that says "hey this guy produces junk".
I imagine the same would be true if you build a plane that's like a real r/c plane and ask the company that produces the plane to allow you to post it with it's real name and markings. If they see it's been rated poorly they might even be less accommodating than a club and withdraw their permission. (I don't want to spend the money on the tools to build planes, but I've modified some to look more like others and chose only to post under non-identifying names and stripping the decals off the plane. I just can't be bothered with the hassle).
It's also not true that all work is rated with a 1. These web vandals rate everyone else's work with a 1 so their stuff looks better than it actually is. It actually looks really bad for KE if everyone's work is poorly rated. If everyone's effort is rated as junk it reflects very badly on the tools they're supplying, and discourages people from buying the sim and/or developing user created content.
You try spending your time getting your club to agree to give you their permission/blessing to have your version of their field posted publicly, then see how embarrassing it is to have a bad rating attached to that download. If there's another club you'd like permission to add it's less likely they'll agree, let alone be enthusiastic if you have a rating on your last piece of work that says "hey this guy produces junk".
I imagine the same would be true if you build a plane that's like a real r/c plane and ask the company that produces the plane to allow you to post it with it's real name and markings. If they see it's been rated poorly they might even be less accommodating than a club and withdraw their permission. (I don't want to spend the money on the tools to build planes, but I've modified some to look more like others and chose only to post under non-identifying names and stripping the decals off the plane. I just can't be bothered with the hassle).
It's also not true that all work is rated with a 1. These web vandals rate everyone else's work with a 1 so their stuff looks better than it actually is. It actually looks really bad for KE if everyone's work is poorly rated. If everyone's effort is rated as junk it reflects very badly on the tools they're supplying, and discourages people from buying the sim and/or developing user created content.
crashed again
New member
jeffpn said:
correct, we that make planes for y'all dont realy care about the "ranking" from one to ten, just that people are enjoying them.
if you feel the need to bash a plane with a vote under say "4", it would be nice to pm the creator to let them know where they went wrong.
this would allow the next plane they make to be better for all.
enjoy
crashed again
jeffpn
Well-known member
I agree with your idea that it would be nice to let the author know what's not liked about the model for a low rating. And I'm sure you know that if your model receives an 8, nine 9s, a 10 and a 1, I'd say it's probably a well-liked model. If you receive a 3, three 4s and a 1, it's probably not a good model and does need some more thought. Then you could post in the forums asking for advice. Like I said earlier, I don't have a dog in this fight (which is very cruel, but in this case, just an idiom) so I'll limit my posts on this thought. Actually I'm only making a response to crashed, who quoted me.
opjose
Well-known member
crashed again said:
I would LOVE to let a few people know where I think they need to adjust things.
The problem is that we have quite a few who get offended too easily when someone critiques their work.
While a few seem to get over it and work at it, a few just don't get that they stuff they may be posting is so far off, that it's not worth the post. So they keep posting over and over again...
PM's don't work, I've tried.
Observations from one person don't work either. Multiple low votes, SOMETIMES does work however.
I'd love to be able to add OPTIONAL comments to my votes, so the recipient understands why I voted the way I did or what I've found. But this would just start more griping.... and the more immature ( age independant ) would then claim to own planes they don't actually have.
crashed again
New member
opjose said:
i guess that hit's it right on the head opjose, just what i am talking about.
crashed.
I'll agree with Opjose and Crashed - would be nice to explain"why" I gave a specific rating.
As an example, the last two aircraft I rated were the Mig-15 and the Cessna T-37-A-2. The Cessna got a 9, while the Mig only got a 5.
The Cessna got a 9 because the model flies exactly as I would expect a "real" Cessna T-37 with the modeled features to fly - no huge "3D" throws, doesn't float off the runway in 2' - to me it accomplishes what this software is _supposed_ to accomplish - it SIMULATES the real model. (CA - you would have had a 10 if you'd done the writeup within the file to describe the control functions - I don't want to read the thread )
The Mig got a 5 because it doesn't use a ducted fan, has about 3X the elevator throw it should have and half the thrust - a good "first effort" - but if I bought, say an Alfa Mig and it flew like that, I'd be dissapointed.
As an example, the last two aircraft I rated were the Mig-15 and the Cessna T-37-A-2. The Cessna got a 9, while the Mig only got a 5.
The Cessna got a 9 because the model flies exactly as I would expect a "real" Cessna T-37 with the modeled features to fly - no huge "3D" throws, doesn't float off the runway in 2' - to me it accomplishes what this software is _supposed_ to accomplish - it SIMULATES the real model. (CA - you would have had a 10 if you'd done the writeup within the file to describe the control functions - I don't want to read the thread
)The Mig got a 5 because it doesn't use a ducted fan, has about 3X the elevator throw it should have and half the thrust - a good "first effort" - but if I bought, say an Alfa Mig and it flew like that, I'd be dissapointed.
- Status