Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
No wonder you keep misinterpreting a neutral review as "indecisive"; you somehow think that neutral means "I don't know".
No, a person who writes a neutral review quite definitely knows what their opinion is, and it's neither positive nor negative.
Meanwhile, there you go again, ascribing motives of dishonesty to people that run entirely contrary to their repeatedly stated desire to more properly represent their opinion. You are being extremely disingenuous.
You are conjuring up some needless and irrelevant sociological analysis when the fact of the matter is the review cannot be posted without clicking either the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down button.
Ahh, you know a synonym. Would you like a gold star?
Steam is not obliged to cater to any particular style, but it can certainly improve its system to cater to a wider audience, by offering just one more option.
Also, we're talking about reviews. You should probably remember the topic of the thread.
Oh hey, deflecting again because you have no counterargument.
Once again, the "method" you speak of is highly impractical and doesn't actually improve the review system.
Given that readers are highly unlikely to know said personal threshold for most reviewers because most reviewers are not personally known to readers, this provides no information about the game.
Some people just can't stand the idea of others having more options to use.
Or they could answer the question - Are you FORCED to WRITE reviews? - rather than keep avoiding it when the answer is clearly NO.
And you expect any insight of value to come from someone who doesn't know their own mind?
That also ironically sums up the concept of 'I don't know'.
That is the requirement. You are not forced. You have agency. You can choose which button to click, and you can choose not to click either button and decline to engage with the system. Nothing is forced upon you.
Its a simple basic requirement for using the system. Like literacy.
Not quite a synonym. Different contextual meaning.
The audience is as large as they need it to be so they don't need a 'woder audience' If anything they need to find someway to narrow the audience a little.
Pointing out the truth is an effective counter argument for you.
It doesn't diminish the review system EIther. If nothing else it creates a parallel system that people can choose from. As for Impractical. you mean it'd require you to do more than sqawk and mewl about the problem hmm?
....Is rather irrelevant. Most people take putting their endorsement on something with some weight. Hence why some people will decline to recommend things they.
So as said. Its a simple basic requirement. if you do not or cannot meet it you should either review the subject matter until you can, or review somewhere that has fewer requirements.
That's the part you're still failing to see -- or, alternatively, failing to acknowledge because it doesn't fit in with the argument you're trying to make. The rest is your own armchair psychologizing.
As I just stated, they do know what their opinion is. You ignored what I just said.
But you cannot choose not to click either button yet still post the review. Even though that button isn't actually part of the review; it contributes no information about the game itself.
Again, you've fallen into the fallacy that a recommendation is necessary for a review. But this was to be expected since you have repeatedly shown your disregard for the text of the review.
Amusingly, your appeal to "contextual meaning" actually supports the opposite argument that you don't want the word "forced" to make the system look bad despite its flaw.
Meanwhile, either way, the situation is the same. Reviews can't be posted without the reviewer being forced to click either of two buttons that themselves say nothing about the game itself.
Who are you to say what Valve thinks of their platform?
Adding a neutral option wouldn't diminish the review system either. On the other hand, such an option would enhance it.
Doing the same thing in two separate places when one would suffice...pretty much a perfect example of inefficiency.
No, I mean that it would not actually have the coverage necessary to make such an alternative review system useful to prospective customers, whereas Steam adding one simple option would benefit prospective customers in an instant.
Figure out what you want to say first. Or better yet, get your logic straight before you try to post.
The "requirement" you speak of does not enhance reviews; it merely discourages some people from posting reviews that could provide potentially very useful information about games. Your logic is again, as usual, flawed.
But they are frequently paired. To make a recommendation one must performa an evaluation, and its very hard to put forward an evaluation without stating a recommendation.
You can think of it as the recommendartion being the answer and the review being the reasoning behind the answer.
Quite the contrary. It asked the most telling question. You can feel all sorts of ways about something but asking for a recommendation. THat requires you to think 'one level higher'.
Actually, no, that's not a recommendation system, it's a rating system, and is generally attached to a review system where people get to actually post text reviews.
You know what's a "recommendation system"? What Steam used to have, like ten years ago. The predecessor of Steam's review system.
And that question doesn't actually add anything to the review. It doesn't actually say anything about the game. It's merely used by the system to classify the opinion type.
But that question is indeed forced. Because there's no way to post a review without clicking one of the two response buttons on that question, even if those buttons have nothing to do with the review itself.
Actually, it's quite easy to put forward an evaluation without a recommendation: "My opinion on [thing] is [positive/neutral/negative], for the following reasons: [reasons]".
Furthermore, the recommendation itself doesn't contain any information about the product being evaluated, nor is an evaluation even required to make a recommendation -- as you've previously pointed out, it's possible to write a s***post or even no text at all and simply post a recommendation.
You fail to see that those two questions are actually not part of the same ranking.
It's like if someone is asked 'Are you closer to London than you are to New York?" The answer can only be yes or no.
If one is truly indecisive then the correct course of action is to abstain (and quit wasting everyone's time).
It kinda does. Since one can't give one answer but doesn't want to give the accurate answer. AGain. Nothing is lost by such sorts being excluded from the system. If they want to gush so bad about the game they can do it on their facebookm where the requirements are as low as theyneed them to be.
let me fix that. The Options are:
Yes:
Go Get it!
You need to play this
It's Okay
It's interesting
No:
Not worth it.
Skip it
It's just Okay
Nothing interesting.
Stay the hell away.
You basically make the equate the yes to being an enthusiastic endorsement, and the no to be a resounding condemnation. They are not necessarily. The question is whether or not you thnk the game is worthy of your recommendation. It either is or isn't. Saying yes doesn't necessarily mean you think the game is good, and saying no doesn't automatically mean you thought the game was bad.
Just because your supervisor doesn'tr ecommend you for a promotion doesn't mean they think you're a lazy slacker that needs to be fired. Just means they don't think you have what it takes to fill the position they were asked to recommend you for.
It is literally used as the basis for recommending the product to the consumers on many platforms. So yeah It's a de facto recommendation system. Its just that the decision as to whther something is a positive or negative is taken out of the author's hands and into the hands of the marketers who want to spin it.
It does. It's more data and moreso it is data that handily contextualizes the data that follows which allows for quite a few stylistic approaches to the presentation of that data. Since you generally like to ignore it and downplay it it surprises no one that you fail to see the significance of it.
It says the game was deemed worthy of recommendation by the individual.
Why pray tell would you make such an easily falsified statement Quint?
Just because YOU don't place any weight on it doesn't mean there's nothing being communicated. That you handily ignore it is your own business, but don't claim it isn't there.
WHich means it must be refering to a property of the game, ie it is saying something aboutv the game. Otherwise it coyuld not be used to classify. Wow way to falsiy your own statement.
But that question is indeed forced. Because there's no way to post a review without clicking one of the two response buttons on that question, even if those buttons have nothing to do with the review itself.
ANd that you can state it as postive/neutral/negative, and the language you use within your reasoning will communicate whether or not you recommend something. Meta-Messagging is a thing Quint and its a rather important part of communication.
You keep making that assertion and yet you yourself have already shown it to be false. That it can be used to classify the response and that it could be used to distiguish one game from another means it says something about the game. That is self-evident.
Its not required.. I mean you can just say the first word that comes into your mind or roll a dice, but much like using apowerdrill as a sexual aid, its not the intended use.
Yes. ANd there's nothing in any system that can prevent that. As for not posting an evaluation. Well just ecause one isn't given doesn't mean there was no process. Someone can decline to give their reasons, or their reasons may e silly to you but that's the business of the author. Not yours.
What two questons?
You mean:
What do you think of the game? and DO you recommend the game?
If those are the two then it shows you don't actually read what other people say. I've always said teh two questions are distinct if somewhat related. My statement is that Valve chose to add the more telling of the two.
Is a 5 star RATED product a RECOMMENDED product? Of course it is.
Is a 1 star RATED product a NOT RECOMMENDED product? Of course it is.
Therefore by definition a 5 star system is a recommendation system with a rating attached.
As for the current REVIEW system on Steam you attached a recommendation or not to a game after WRITING a review (voluntary) as you have done 55 times and given the current supposed flawed system validity.
So basically Amazon and other have the same Yes No system as Steam. They just lie to the people giving the reviews to make them think they're given 'nuanced' answers, wwhich is a par for the course trick used by serveyors.
Whern you think you'll have trouble getting a certain quantity ofrespondents you add some superfluous options that create the illusion of moderation.
We see that even here.
People saying they don't want to say No buty would happily say Mixed Neutral. Whcih are both 'ways of simply not saying yes.
No.
If one has a null recommendation, then there is no way in the current system to give "the accurate answer".
The point of this suggestion is to make it possible to give the actual accurate answer -- a neutral recommendation.
You don't want to read their reviews, but you're not the only person here.
Also, you assume that they "want to gush so bad". Again you're pre-emptively attributing negative motives as a pre-justification to decide that they shouldn't exist. And you're doing so in ignorance of the commentary that people suggesting this feature have posted in the many threads suggesting it, where they've mentioned that they'd be going into details about the game.
You'd rather dismiss the detailed information they have, merely in service of a needless dichotomous choice.
Once again, that's not how Steam itself uses it. That's just how you are interpreting it. Meanwhile...
Steam interprets the thumbs-up as positive.
Steam interprets the thumbs-down as negative.
Also, the descriptors you just posted show how you can't even keep your interpretations straight. "It's Okay" and "It's just Okay" on two opposing sides...
Fortunately, we can clean that up by throwing both of those into a new Neutral category.
The "marketers" spin anything anyway, but the customers who are using a 5-star rating system (the subject of Nx Machina's post that I was responding to) have some pretty clear ways to indicate positivity and negativity. 4 and 5 are clearly positive, 2 and 1 are clearly negative. And for those people whose opinion is neither positive nor negative, there's 3.
That "contextualization" doesn't actually offer any additional information about the game, and various "stylistic approaches" can be used independently of the positive/negative choice, a choice which need not be forced.
Because you have failed to falsify anything. You're talking about the overall opinion of the individual, not about the game.
Oh, I place an appropriate weight on it. I recognize that it is used to categorize the reviews, and I can generally find certain types of content based on said categorizations. But I am also aware of the limits of those ratings -- limits which you keep denying.
You just love hastily declaring arguments to be over while still arguing yourself, don't you? :P
Do the game's designs, design limitations, technical details and issues, art styles, etc. exist even if the reviewer hasn't played the game? Yes.
Does that reviewer's opinion exist if the reviewer hasn't played the game? No.
Thanks for helping to explain why forcing the positive/negative dichotomy isn't actually necessary.
And by that, I've noticed that you like buzzwords.
"it could be used to distinguish one game from another?"
I've written positive reviews about multiple games, and negative reviews about multiple games. Those aren't the same games with each status.
And even at an aggregate level, there are multiple games with the same Steam userscores.
But, as you've shown many times before, and have just acknowledged again, it's entirely possible to s***post a review. That doesn't make it meaningful. And if anything it calls into question the recommendation as well.
The recommendation is dependent on the review for meaning, not the other way around. That's how you've got it backwards.
But if the "reviewer" -- or just "recommender", if they don't actually post a review -- doesn't say anything about the game as their reasoning, the prospective customer gains no information about the game from them.
It's good that you acknowledge that they are separate questions. However, you make the mistake of thinking that the recommendation -- the binary question with no space for details or nuance -- is "the more telling of the two", compared to the text box that allows people to actually say things about the game.
Is your CAPS LOCK stuck again? It seems it is.
No, it's a rating system; it can be quite reasonably used as a recommendation system, but it's not actually a recommendation system itself. Since you claim to have been on Steam for 16 years, you would have seen what a recommendation system was like, here on Steam itself.
You and your "validity" mantra again.
On the contrary, my experience with it allows me to speak on its limitations. :)
Except, how does Amazon handle its five star system?
* Amazon product rating score is calculated based on 5 star rating scale.
* Consumers are shown star ratings of reviews.
* Consumers can filter reviews based on star ratings.
* Reviewers are allowed to choose star ratings of reviews.
It doesn't force them to use a positive/negative two-choice system.
Except for all the differences.
This is your personal problem. Not everyone is similarly limited or impaired.
Yes. one is honest and the other wears a disguise.