a suggestion for steam player reviews prioritizing problem.

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

first i need to admit, english is not my first language, so if what i wrote is hardly to be read, i apology it.
+++++

for now the steam always set the player review that got most agreements on the top of player review list, but didn't you notice that easier to make better reviews been pushed to the bottom of reviews?

because players need to spend more time on their game reviews, that means their reviews will post late than most suck/lack of content reviews and make their works lesser reading rate by other players, in the meantime those worse reviews easier will easier to get agreements by some reckless players and increase their priority on the review list. this will create the critical unlimited bad loop and make other players always see most worse game reviews on all steam games and very hard to find better reviews because those reviews almost in the bottom of review sea.

so i suggest you change the priority of game review, to make largest player review highest priority to show on the game reviews(first on the list).
because unless the player really want to write a review by the best, or the player won't spend too much time for it, it make sense, right?

[Gwarsbane]

Largest review does not mean its a good reviews... If they changed to this method people would just add a bunch of extra junk that while on topic does nothing to make the review better.

There is nothing that will push better reviews to the top of the pile. Valve can't even go through them with official review reviewers to see which ones are the best and push them up top because there are too many to go through.

And even if they did, there would still be complaints that they are cherry picking the ones that they like to be put at the top.


So no your suggestion doesn't make sense as there is nothing for Valve can do.

[darkdragonfire]

give those reviews a thumbs up, should help more right now to see those listed (i guess and hope)

large dont mean its good, short or emoticons same - but they all valid , somehow.
some " asciicode emotes" or one liner gets a thumbs up, without proper description, it doesnt makes sense at all but well :)

[fleur_geldof]

pls korting

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

Largest review does not mean its a good reviews... If they changed to this method people would just add a bunch of extra junk that while on topic does nothing to make the review better.

There is nothing that will push better reviews to the top of the pile. Valve can't even go through them with official review reviewers to see which ones are the best and push them up top because there are too many to go through.

And even if they did, there would still be complaints that they are cherry picking the ones that they like to be put at the top.


So no your suggestion doesn't make sense as there is nothing for Valve can do.

you still don't understand.

yes, largest review doesn't means best review, but at least it means the review that someone spent most time and stamina to write, so you can to ensure the player won't spend so much time to write something worthless review.

but if you just allow anyone those low content review there, you will also force other players to read them and blocked better reviews to be read. because those low content reviews easier to be wrote and faster to post.

this fact you ignore make those low content or something like picture reviews(you know what i mean) filled on all game's review list and make us harder to search something that have more value.

And THIS IS NOT FAIR!! also NOT comfortable for other players!!

[Mad Scientist]

Length of review & Time to make a review does not equate to good, helpful, or otherwise.

People will find your review helpful, or they will not. That is completely fair, and you have an equal chance, so there is no need to get upset over it. You're realistically just there to give a review for others to potentially see, as to determine if the product is worth buying or not, it's not a popularity contest.

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

Originally posted by Mr. Gentlebot:

Length of review & Time to make a review does not equate to good, helpful, or otherwise.

People will find your review helpful, or they will not. That is completely fair, and you have an equal chance, so there is no need to get upset over it. You're realistically just there to give a review for others to potentially see, as to determine if the product is worth buying or not, it's not a popularity contest.

at least, put a filter function to sort them with review's size, it can make players more convenient.

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

and don't forget, a review with highly reference value need someone completely understand the game he/she played and then to write it. it means this person cannot write it faster than those who only play it 0.5 or 1 hour.

if a game expected by more players, it's review will increase very fast. as i know the day KOF XV released, it's reviews is over 400!!

you think a fighter game fans who want to write this game's review deeply, how much time he/she need? otherwise, some players spent only 1 hour to write the review, which one has more reference value for you? and then when someone write the review 1 week later, how deep his/her review at the game's review list?

you can guess how many low content reviews can get those thumps up easier than the player's review who spent 1 week to write. his/her review harder to get thump up is not because his/her review worse than others, just because his review is too hard to be find!

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

A longer review doesn't guarantee usefulness, but the amount of useful information is roughly correlated with length in general, because in a short review there literally are fewer words that can provide meaningful information about the game.

Simply using length as the prioritization metric is probably not a good idea, as it's easily hijacked, but the system could use length as an extra weight along with the usual helpfulness metric.

This would make the system prioritize higher-rated longer reviews over higher-rated shorter reviews, making it so that silly one-liners don't as easily percolate to the top.

[Brian9824]

Disagree completely, makes 0 sense as again length of a review doesn't mean anything related to quality. Considering you can already filter reviews by time played on the game its completely un-needed and would just make people spam their reviews to take up as much of the text limit as possible with pointless filler to get higher exposure.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

...and even if people can spam things (which they already can), those would less likely be marked as helpful.

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

you just want to erase someone disagree what you steam's doing in the way of game review list sorting, right?

i know even i put any provement here won't work but i will keep to put my provements here and you can't stop me.

here is the provement 1
https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/202202/8d8c53b94c171df2f925321d6e5495ea.JPG
players won't understand anything from the 1 line message like Mr. Davis's review for Dying Light 1

here is the provement 2
https://truth.bahamut.com.tw/s01/202202/24ed7904f8a790426b8f9f37c1ac2ccd.JPG
Rhizzy will very disappoint because his review that spent his much time that get so many fewer thumps up than those people's just 1 or 2 lines reviews.

as i said many times here, the larger review doesn't means better review, but i at least proves that writer is really serious on his/her game review. and you just ignore this fact, ignore so many people judged by those unfair rules.

[darkdragonfire]

you can at least filter and sort by : your Language, the playtime , purchased or more.

When in different language you can use Steam Page in Browser for copy/paste using a website, extensions or directly google translate for language change.

For provement 2 it shows that the review got 3 awards, not much but still got attention and it could be that short is quicker to read and less losing focus but if you interested in , you take your time .

its not a real solution for sure but can help - if you know a game takes few hrs , search for minimum 4 hours (but that can be idle time as well here on steam, the problem)and purchased (i woudnt say, people who purchased would idle in it , but streams or whatever may occur time problems as well.

at moment searching reviews with "all languages, All reviews, playtime, display as : summary, most helpful, recent is nice but not helps with the problem to filter larger ones at all.

maybe a filter for "more then 50/80/100/150 letters" would be a change. o all reviews with more letters (larger ones) could be find.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Disagree completely, makes 0 sense as again length of a review doesn't mean anything related to quality. Considering you can already filter reviews by time played on the game its completely un-needed and would just make people spam their reviews to take up as much of the text limit as possible with pointless filler to get higher exposure.

Yeah. This is something they teach you in writing composition.
A big blob of dry text is going to be considerably less effective than a shorter, punchier block of organized text. If you write professionally for any publication, in any format this is something just about any editor will hammer into you.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by brian9824:

Disagree completely, makes 0 sense as again length of a review doesn't mean anything related to quality. Considering you can already filter reviews by time played on the game its completely un-needed and would just make people spam their reviews to take up as much of the text limit as possible with pointless filler to get higher exposure.

Yeah. This is something they teach you in writing composition.
A big blob of dry text is going to be considerably less effective than a shorter, punchier block of organized text. If you write professionally for any publication, in any format this is something just about any editor will hammer into you.

Effective for what purpose?

If you write professionally, and even if you've ever been a student, you'd know that there are not just length maximums but length minimums in many contexts, and even contexts without length minimums frequently have things going to a decent length because if it's too short it's not possible to say what needs to be said.

When providing the "insider information" about a game that only a player and not a prospective customer can have, a one-liner review isn't gonna be able to provide much detail -- or even much info at all. Especially if that one-liner is spent trying to be "punchy".

Now, while it's possible to spam Ctrl+V and generate a lengthy review, right now there's zero incentive to do so. The only people who would bother writing a longer review are those who actually have more to say about the game, which means more information for us readers.

I don't think that Steam should only consider review length in prioritizing what to show. Instead, Steam ought to take into account review helpfulness score but also review length. This would reduce the impact of the problem of people upvoting entertaining but overly short reviews.

[MovingTarget(Reject LGBTQ games)]

Originally posted by Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Yeah. This is something they teach you in writing composition.
A big blob of dry text is going to be considerably less effective than a shorter, punchier block of organized text. If you write professionally for any publication, in any format this is something just about any editor will hammer into you.

Effective for what purpose?

If you write professionally, and even if you've ever been a student, you'd know that there are not just length maximums but length minimums in many contexts, and even contexts without length minimums frequently have things going to a decent length because if it's too short it's not possible to say what needs to be said.

When providing the "insider information" about a game that only a player and not a prospective customer can have, a one-liner review isn't gonna be able to provide much detail -- or even much info at all. Especially if that one-liner is spent trying to be "punchy".

Now, while it's possible to spam Ctrl+V and generate a lengthy review, right now there's zero incentive to do so. The only people who would bother writing a longer review are those who actually have more to say about the game, which means more information for us readers.

I don't think that Steam should only consider review length in prioritizing what to show. Instead, Steam ought to take into account review helpfulness score but also review length. This would reduce the impact of the problem of people upvoting entertaining but overly short reviews.

you disagreed for disagree, am i right?

so you kept to teach us how to make something big garbage game review but this make us curious, how many people will do this like you said? it seems there has no benefit to do this thing.

and we both know that we can report those nonsense review if someone copy his review from other other people, as someone did it to me here.

i only want you to think if someday you want to write professional review here, you also don't want it put in the bottom of review sea. you just need some empathy.