one problem with steam's review aggregation

[=Snappy=]

/\/\/ UPDATED \/\/\

To be clearer, maybe I should have explained my background outlook on this. Which is: I'm not trying to pick from the 10-20-30 newest/most popular games that are already bubbling to the top of everyone's store homepage due to various valve techniques. I'm actually digging through the "advanced search", trying to find the "hidden gems" etc. "Show all games under $10" yields almost 400 pages of results -- almost 10,000 games! It's common for me to scope out 100-200 or more games during a major steam sale. It's time-consuming, and in case you haven't noticed, the rate at which products are coming to steam seems to be increasing as well, so we need better tools to sort through all that stuff.

Furthermore (I already explained this somewhat but I'll try a little different wording): the "problem" is, that it takes a game to be really bad to get anything but some kind of "positive" rating. Again: I don't want to buy games that just "aren't terrible". I don't even really want "good"; I have too many games already. So I either want "great" games (to play) or "dirt-cheap" games (to 'collect').

I want "The Best", or at least "close to it"! The top 5% (that's 1 out of 20, btw). The "cream of the crop." (And, believe it or not, even "overwhelmingly positive" does not necessarily indicate this. I'm not even sure "100% positive" would, if such a thing exists.)

Not every game that gets a thumbs-up icon is as good as every other game that gets a thumbs-up icon. There's levels! (...and even accounting for "taste", I literally can't believe there's people in this thread arguing against that fact. SMH.)

Anyway, that's why I would like a little quicker way to assess games than having to go to every single page and read the reviews. Like I said, maybe a 1-5 stars instead of a simple thumbs up/thumbs down. (Yeah, I know there's "mixed". That means "thumbs down". :P) That way everyone could still filter out the ♥♥♥♥ -- the 1's and 2's (or is it just the 2's? :P) -- and meanwhile be able to spot the difference between "good", "great", and "the best" by a 3, 4, or 5. It works for amazon. It works for newegg. It works for google. It would work fine, here.

And, btw, when a game has passed my "first round" of filtering and I'm actually deciding "really buy this or not?" then yeah, I do read the reviews.

And, finally, btw, I do get the usefulness of a purely binary rating system. Cuz when it comes down to it, it's "do you" or "don't you" / "yes" or "no"? I hit on that a long time ago. But the fact is, due to limited resources not every prospect with a "yes" rating can be actualized, so another more finely-graded rating helps. Again: there's levels.

[original post follows...]

-------

"very positive" just means "a lot of people said it was 'good'".

...or more accurately: "a lot of people said it was 'not bad'".

it doesn't mean "people said it was 'very good'".

-------

the flaws of this system certainly run much deeper and wider than this, but this simple realization really stands out to me as fundamental to why the system is not very helpful to me as a consumer, much less as a connoisseur.

it's just a safety feature. it may help people steer clear of utter trash, but it's not a good way to help people identify high-quality games.

[76561198001062896]

And you suggest what exactly to fix this?

[=Snappy=]

i purposely did not discuss that cuz it's pretty obvious.

it's also pretty obvious that steam doesn't really care what users think and just does wtf they want, anyway.

...and additionally, i purposely did not say why i wasn't going to discuss it, cuz i wanted to keep my post brief.

but since you asked. ;P

"oh, idk.... maybe a numeric system like every other shopping site review system on the 'net?"

1-5 stars. (though I prefer 0-5). 1-10? (or 0-10?) or 0-100? they're all the same, really. they allow you to distinguish the good from the great, whereas steam's just lets you separate the relatively small portion of games that are complete ♥♥♥♥, from the vast pile of "everything else".

i'm sure steam has their machiavellian reasons for not doing a numeric system but i wanted to express my displeasure with the uselessness of what they give us, anyway.

thanks for reading. ;)

[Sovietball]

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

i purposely did not discuss that cuz it's pretty obvious.

it's also pretty obvious that steam doesn't really care what users think and just does wtf they want, anyway.

...and additionally, i purposely did not say why i wasn't going to discuss it, cuz i wanted to keep my post brief.

but since you asked. ;P

"oh, idk.... maybe a numeric system like every other shopping site review system on the 'net?"

1-5 stars. (though I prefer 0-5). 1-10? (or 0-10?) or 0-100? they're all the same, really. they allow you to distinguish the good from the great, whereas steam's just lets you separate the relatively small portion of games that are complete ♥♥♥♥, from the vast pile of "everything else".

i'm sure steam has their machiavellian reasons for not doing a numeric system but i wanted to express my displeasure with the uselessness of what they give us, anyway.

thanks for reading. ;)

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

"very positive" just means "a lot of people said it was 'good'".

...or more accurately: "a lot of people said it was 'not bad'".

it doesn't mean "people said it was 'very good'".

-------

the flaws of this system certainly run much deeper and wider than this, but this simple realization really stands out to me as fundamental to why the system is not very helpful to me as a consumer, much less as a connoisseur.

it's just a safety feature. it may help people steer clear of utter trash, but it's not a good way to help people identify high-quality games.

How do you propose to fix it? The very positive type ratings help identify high quality games. And don't use high quality games to define a game. Everyone's taste is different.

[The Big Sadman]

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

i purposely did not discuss that cuz it's pretty obvious.

it's also pretty obvious that steam doesn't really care what users think and just does wtf they want, anyway.

...and additionally, i purposely did not say why i wasn't going to discuss it, cuz i wanted to keep my post brief.

but since you asked. ;P

"oh, idk.... maybe a numeric system like every other shopping site review system on the 'net?"

1-5 stars. (though I prefer 0-5). 1-10? (or 0-10?) or 0-100? they're all the same, really. they allow you to distinguish the good from the great, whereas steam's just lets you separate the relatively small portion of games that are complete ♥♥♥♥, from the vast pile of "everything else".

i'm sure steam has their machiavellian reasons for not doing a numeric system but i wanted to express my displeasure with the uselessness of what they give us, anyway.

thanks for reading. ;)

Not gonna happen.

The reason why is simple, people can't rate objectively. Which is why amount of likes and dislikes is the more objective ratio. If you want details, just read the actual reviews. I, for one, only read negative ones and most of the time, they're enough of a reason to buy the game or stop me from buying one.

All in all, your ideas are bad and juvenile.

[Hextravert]

There is at least one problem with your so-called realization.

Needless to say, I will purposely not point out any.

Additionally, I will also purposely refrain from explaining why I refuse to do so.

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

the flaws of this system certainly run much deeper and wider than this, but this simple realization really stands out to me as fundamental to why the system is not very helpful to me as a consumer, much less as a connoisseur.

it's just a safety feature. it may help people steer clear of utter trash, but it's not a good way to help people identify high-quality games.

[Start_Running]

Positive means more people rated the game a pleasant experience than unpleasant. That's simple and un ambigious.

To get more information you will have to read the reviews to find the context of those positive and negative reviews.

[=Snappy=]

Original post updated. (Not that most of you who have responded so far should really feel the need to respond again...)

I think most of you completely failed to understand or recognize the simple 3 lines of my first post, so I'll repeat them:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"very positive" just means "a lot of people said it was 'good'".

...or more accurately: "a lot of people said it was 'not bad'".

it doesn't mean "people said it was 'very good'".
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Please also take those in the context of the thread title, which is "ONE PROBLEM with steam's review aggregation system". Not "how to completely fix..." or "why [it's] completely broken and useless", etc.

Beyond that, I actually do have detailed ideas about what would constitute a useful "overall quality index" for games. Ideas that would serve me well, and I would love to see implemented, and others would probably love, too. But I'm not going to post them here mainly because, for one thing, valve would NEVER. I've been on steam my 10+ years or w/e and I think I have a pretty good read on their capability/willingness to implement detailed, high-quality usability features. They're a little more focused on big picture stuff, pun obviously intended. Which is why I tried to keep the original post basic and focused.

But none of that's really relevant to most of you who have responded so far because you'd probably just come here and say "" and "[that idea sucks]" and "[you can also try [this] which won't accomplish what you're trying to do at all, either]" or "[for each 10-20 words you wrote I only read one or two and then came up with my own meaning of what you were getting at, so here's my response to that]", etc. And ... oh yeah ... how could I forget plain old "[tl;dr]"?! :\

[76561198001062896]

Valve, funnily enough, DID implemented not one but many community requested features

Note that Valve not implemententing each and every random crap little billy considers to be revolutionary does not mean they dont care.

[Tito Shivan]

YouTube discarded the 5 stars rating system. And numeric game ratings systems have been the butt of the joke for over a decade ( there's a reason 'IGN: 10/10 GOTY' is a meme)
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/08/using_5star_rat.html

[The Big Sadman]

Your ideas are still bad and juvenile.

[=Snappy=]

i'm currently in the process of reading that link -- and his other related article (http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/12/collective_choi.html) -- and preparing a detailed response.

but for now, since we're lucky enough to have attracted the interest of a real-live moderator to this thread, maybe he/she could do something about this troll...^

[Hextravert]

Since we're lucky enough to have a report button, maybe you should use it like everyone else . . .

Then again, you probably find it just as flawed and unhelpful as the current review aggregation.

Let's replace it with a five-star rating system too — it's the answer to everything after all.

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

i'm currently in the process of reading that link -- and his other related article (http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/12/collective_choi.html) -- and preparing a detailed response.

but for now, since we're lucky enough to have attracted the interest of a real-live moderator to this thread, maybe he/she could do something about this troll...^

[Black Blade]

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

Beyond that, I actually do have detailed ideas about what would constitute a useful "overall quality index" for games. Ideas that would serve me well, and I would love to see implemented, and others would probably love, too. But I'm not going to post them here mainly because, for one thing, valve would NEVER.

So.... why even post?
I never get the idea of "I have ideas, but i am not going to say them"
So they are just as good as not having ideas at all

If someone falls to a hole, then someone pass by and tells them he has a rope, but his not going to use that rope, as the guy is never going to be able to climb up it, that rope is useful as much as not existing at all
Also if the guy just give the rope someone else may have passed by and recommend to tie the guy and pull him, so there will be no need for him to climb..

Publicado originalmente por =Snappy=:

/\/\/ UPDATED \/\/\

To be clearer, maybe I should have explained my background outlook on this. Which is: I'm not trying to pick from the 10-20-30 newest/most popular games that are already bubbling to the top of everyone's store homepage due to various valve techniques. I'm actually digging through the "advanced search", trying to find the "hidden gems" etc. "Show all games under $10" yields almost 400 pages of results -- almost 10,000 games! It's common for me to scope out 100-200 or more games during a major steam sale. It's time-consuming, and in case you haven't noticed, the rate at which products are coming to steam seems to be increasing as well, so we need better tools to sort through all that stuff.

Furthermore (I already explained this somewhat but I'll try a little different wording): the "problem" is, that it takes a game to be really bad to get anything but some kind of "positive" rating. Again: I don't want to buy games that just "aren't terrible". I don't even really want "good"; I have too many games already. So I either want "great" games (to play) or "dirt-cheap" games (to 'collect').

I want "The Best", or at least "close to it"! The top 5% (that's 1 out of 20, btw). The "cream of the crop." (And, believe it or not, even "overwhelmingly positive" does not necessarily indicate this. I'm not even sure "100% positive" would, if such a thing exists.)

Not every game that gets a thumbs-up icon is as good as every other game that gets a thumbs-up icon. There's levels! (...and even accounting for "taste", I literally can't believe there's people in this thread arguing against that fact. SMH.)

Anyway, that's why I would like a little quicker way to assess games than having to go to every single page and read the reviews. Like I said, maybe a 1-5 stars instead of a simple thumbs up/thumbs down. (Yeah, I know there's "mixed". That means "thumbs down". :P) That way everyone could still filter out the ♥♥♥♥ -- the 1's and 2's (or is it just the 2's? :P) -- and meanwhile be able to spot the difference between "good", "great", and "the best" by a 3, 4, or 5. It works for amazon. It works for newegg. It works for google. It would work fine, here.

And, btw, when a game has passed my "first round" of filtering and I'm actually deciding "really buy this or not?" then yeah, I do read the reviews.

And, finally, btw, I do get the usefulness of a purely binary rating system. Cuz when it comes down to it, it's "do you" or "don't you" / "yes" or "no"? I hit on that a long time ago. But the fact is, due to limited resources not every prospect with a "yes" rating can be actualized, so another more finely-graded rating helps. Again: there's levels.

[original post follows...]

-------

"very positive" just means "a lot of people said it was 'good'".

...or more accurately: "a lot of people said it was 'not bad'".

it doesn't mean "people said it was 'very good'".

-------

the flaws of this system certainly run much deeper and wider than this, but this simple realization really stands out to me as fundamental to why the system is not very helpful to me as a consumer, much less as a connoisseur.

it's just a safety feature. it may help people steer clear of utter trash, but it's not a good way to help people identify high-quality games.

What is "high-quality games."?
I know someone that hated games like Portal (boarding) and Borderlands, and finds Bwrhalla as the top of the games they love

There is not something simple like its good or bad, it depends on who you are and that you like
I honestly do not think having a 5 star system will help with anything
For one user 4 star will mean a great game, and no game gets a 5 as no game is perfect
For other 2 is decent 3 is ok 4 is good 5 is anything from above avage to amazing

Each will have there won, meaning the score will be all messed up over all, and in the big image of it all, you will gain absolutely nothing
You got all ready Very positive, Very negative and so on, for the over all view
That is based on what you can say is from 1 to 2.4 and from 2.6 to 5
Its just more simple as its a dry cut of top or bottom with no middles on the personal level, meaning that its also more simple to filter

and just by the way, many of the 1-5 scores, are more of a 1 horrible 3 ok 5 amazing, 1 can also be many times, not that good, and 0 is horrible... there is no clear answer on that from anyone on its true meaning
And in the grand of things, it will not matter, as you will have the same Very Negative to Very Positive you have all ready that will remain, for the most part, the same thing