1 more option for reviews, "neutral"

[Damnagic]

There really needs to be 1 more option for reviews and especially for EA games, i.e. "neutral" or "later".
I know there is at least few games which are haunted by their terrible EA stage reviews, but also there is way too many games that have either way too positive or negative ratings to reflect the state of the PRODUCT.

As everyone knows, there is plenty of EA games and they are released in immensely different stages. Some have just barely any character controls while others are comparable to BF3 after 20 patches. You can't leave a proper review with just the 2 options.

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

There is some repeat in information but there is informatuion a positive review will never mention.

But then any other negative review wouldn't be necessary.

And especially not the reviews that are "this game sucks 2/10" and that's all there is. But Valve has yet to implement a minimum word count.

That still says more that
"5/10
I am commander Sheperad"

Again, your reasoning is that neutral-status reviews cannot offer unique information, yet there are giant piles of both positive and negative reviews that repeat information found in other positive and other negative reviews respectively. Why should those reviews be allowed to be posted? At the very least, Valve shouldn't help them by letting them get away with posting "this game sucks 2/10", but instead should opt for implementing something as simple as a minimum word count filter.

Yawn Negative reviews, at best, can mention things Positive rveiews don't
Positive reviews, at best, can mention things negative reviews don't.
Neutral reviews can at best echo what a positive or negative review already said.
As said Why bother?
It's like non-alcoholic beer.

Because some people like the taste of beer but not the alcohol content of it?

Have you tasted Non-alcoholic beer? because it does not taste like beer. Even when compared against american beers.

As said. WHen the only thing you can add is more, then altering anyof the other criteria would do the same thing and still be more of an improvement. So unless you can fiund something that only a neutral/mixed review can possibly say...I think we're don on this tangent,.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

But then any other negative review wouldn't be necessary.

And especially not the reviews that are "this game sucks 2/10" and that's all there is. But Valve has yet to implement a minimum word count.

That still says more that
"5/10
I am commander Sheperad"

Really? How does "this game sucks 2/10" say more than "5/10 I am commander Sheperad"?

Both state the person's overall opinion and offer no other meaningful information. Both are uninformative reviews.

If anything, the one that claims to be "commander Sheperad" is more amusing to some people (not to mention it also literally contains more characters).

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Again, your reasoning is that neutral-status reviews cannot offer unique information, yet there are giant piles of both positive and negative reviews that repeat information found in other positive and other negative reviews respectively. Why should those reviews be allowed to be posted? At the very least, Valve shouldn't help them by letting them get away with posting "this game sucks 2/10", but instead should opt for implementing something as simple as a minimum word count filter.

Yawn Negative reviews, at best, can mention things Positive rveiews don't
Positive reviews, at best, can mention things negative reviews don't.
Neutral reviews can at best echo what a positive or negative review already said.
As said Why bother?
It's like non-alcoholic beer.

Why bother letting people post uninformative positive reviews and uninformative negative reviews, then? Particularly when more substantive positive and negative reviews already exist.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Because some people like the taste of beer but not the alcohol content of it?

Have you tasted Non-alcoholic beer? because it does not taste like beer. Even when compared against american beers.

Oh, if it does not taste like beer, then that's one more possible reason for people to want to drink it, because some people will end up liking it.

There's even people who will drink specifically diet sodas just for their taste.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

As said. WHen the only thing you can add is more, then altering anyof the other criteria would do the same thing and still be more of an improvement. So unless you can fiund something that only a neutral/mixed review can possibly say...I think we're don on this tangent,.

They can indicate a mixed position in summary to the reader. The reader can choose to beeline to such reviews, and I know I would, because such reviews are more likely to contain a mix of information that is useful to me.

This is not an option that either of the current headline choices offer to review readers.

If this choice were to exist, I would use it. You clearly don't want it to exist, but don't worry, you won't be forced to use it. To use an analogy you raised before, no one would hold a gun to your head to use it. (Also, if you're done with the thread, no one's holding a gun to your head to keep posting -- well, if someone is, then should I help you by notifying your local authorities that you're being held hostage?)

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

That still says more that
"5/10
I am commander Sheperad"

Really? How does "this game sucks 2/10" say more than "5/10 I am commander Sheperad"?

At least the two out of ten w negative would also say the reviewer did not see any merit in recommending the game.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Really? How does "this game sucks 2/10" say more than "5/10 I am commander Sheperad"?

At least the two out of ten w negative would also say the reviewer did not see any merit in recommending the game.

That text says nothing about merit and nothing regarding a recommendation. It simply says that the person disliked the game, and nothing else.

If you're assuming that this came with a "Not Recommended" status, then...
1. it's the status and not the review that you care about, in which case...
1.1 Why doesn't Valve just let people post ratings without writing reviews?
and
1.2 why do you need to come up with "5/10 I am commander Sheparad" anyway? because even if it were an excellently informative review, the status would still be the same.
and
1.3 repeating a negative recommendation is still repeating information, so by your logic that negative recommendation is unnecessary.
Furthermore,
2. "Mixed" status would show the reviewer has reason to go either way on the recommendation, which itself is useful information, suggesting that there's some good and some bad in the game and therefore advising the customer to consider that they might have mixed experience themselves.

[theone]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

theone の投稿を引用：

Good, I'm glad you finally get it.

Here's the thing. The main argument being made for this idea, the one that can be objectively taken as a given, is that it would allow more people to leave reviews.

No it isn't. The recommendation question doesn't stop anyone from leaving a review. The problem for many people though is that the two options given for answering the question don't provide for the view of many of the reviewers, and this is affirmed by comments made in very many reviews.

As a result the summary of the data only gives a count of who said yes or no, even though it claims to represent positive and negative views. There are many reviewers who claim a neutral stance but choose yes or no because they're the only options. This makes the summary of the data a misrepresentation of the reality. That's a bad thing.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

The thing is, the same benefit can be stated for teh removal or adjustment of any of the other 3 criteria. The proiblem is quantity does not guarantee improvement iun quality.

Nobody is objecting to the other criteria as they're either reasonable or in the case of the 3rd one, there's no better solution on offer. In any case they're not the subject of this thread. I note you claim that your fourth criterion, the recommendation question, is also reasonable. Many disagree. THAT'S the subject of this thread, so you can't really present it as given.

Quantity vs. quality isn't relevant. The "question" doesn't prevent people from writing reviews, nor necessarily results in fewer reviews. Neither does it have any bearing with respect to the quality of reviews. It causes misleading statistics in the summary.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Is there anything a neutral review can or is likely to say that a positive or negative review would not, cannot?

That's not relevant. People write neutral reviews. Again the topic being discussed is the recommendation question, not the reviews.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

The positive side is ironically where you can find the most indepth acounts of gameplay (by the simple reasoning that people who like a game will generally spend more time with it than people who aren't and so will see more of the game and spend more time with the mechanics to understand its nuances.

The negative reviews are where you find the problem lists. This is where you tend to learn of bugs, glitches, crashes, failures to start, . Things that the positive people may not have actually encountered. In some of the more detailed ones you'll find an echo of the gsameplay breakdowns you get in positive reviews. Not as often because people who do not fancy the game generally don't spend as long playing the game.

That's a mixture of conjecture, assumption, wishful thinking, and opinion. Many reviews contradict this claim.

Some reviewers seem to answer the question yes when their review seems to lean towards no, and vice-versa. Some do this deliberately, others because people simply don't agree on all that is positive or negative.

Other reviews are purely joke reviews that might be harmless enough, while others can simply be deliberate and spiteful trolling.

Some reviews strike a great balance between the positive and negative, to the point where they clearly are not an attempt to sway the reader's opinion one way or the other, but merely to provide the reader with adequate information to make his or her own decision. They may choose to answer yes or no to the question of recommendation, but without a neutral option, obviously they're forced to choose between two unsatisfactory options.

You can't draw a strong connection between all reviews and all answers to the question. The statistics can only ever be a rough guide, perhaps giving a ballpark impression of the overall opinion of all reviewers. The inclusion of a third, neutral option however, along with catering for those who consider their review to be such, would tend to stabilise the volatility of the system. One thing having a neutral option could never do is contribute to the sometimes distorted extreme positive and negative results that the current system allows.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

But what would those missing mixed reviews mention?
We'd just see them echoing what was in the positive and negative reviews (never mind that many of the well written positive negative do this already).

There aren't necessarily any missing mixed reviews, as I've said earlier. They're just hidden in among the positives and the negatives, waiting to be discovered by the more discerning readers.

Give up trying to make a case against neutral reviews. We already have them. They don't have to say anything different to positive or negative reviews, although they could.
Reviewers and readers don't necessarily agree on what is a positive feature of a game, what is negative, and what is irrelevant. It is up to a reviewer to choose whether or not their review counts as a recommendation for, a recommendation against, or neither. In all three cases the reader then has the chance to read the review and decide whether they agree, disagree, or even remain undecided.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Thusly we have a case where the best written Mixed or Neutral review will say no more than the best written positive (or even negative) review. And the worst written will be no less cringe worthy than the worst "Positive/Negative" review.

Sorry, but there can be no "thusly" in your summing up, as I've disputed your points, so if you think you can you'll just have to invent some other unconvincing argument to see if that flies.

In any case though, this discussion, again, is not about reviews, or the quality of reviews, or whether positive reviews say more or less than negative reviews or neutral reviews. (Really, why would these things even be connected or relevant?)

This discussion is about the recommend question, which tries to shoehorn three distinct types of review into two categories, for the purpose of summarising data. At this task, it fails.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

"5/10 I am Commander Shepard"

Good for you Mate.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

So what's the point of a neutral option? Other than you get more people whom you can't even use to generate a consensus/aggregate cluttering up your database. This actually makes the worst neutral review potentially worse than the worst 'positive/negative' review.

No, there is no "other than" bit; those claims have been put to rest. The point of a neutral option is that it is wanted by reviewers who want their reviews accurately represented in the data.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

A better case could be made for loosening the ownership criteria or the playtime criteria, or even the literacy criteria.

That would be off-topic in this thread, but you can suggest those things if you like. Personally I think you'd find you'd get a lot more objections to those than the small handful of people objecting to a neutral option.

And loosening the Literacy criteria? Ha, don't make me make a joke at your expense;)

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

theone の投稿を引用：

I note you claim that your fourth criterion, the recommendation question, is also reasonable. Many disagree. THAT'S the subject of this thread, so you can't really present it as given.

Precisely.

theone の投稿を引用：

Some reviewers seem to answer the question yes when their review seems to lean towards no, and vice-versa. Some do this deliberately, others because people simply don't agree on all that is positive or negative.

Other reviews are purely joke reviews that might be harmless enough, while others can simply be deliberate and spiteful trolling.

And then there's also the troll reviews. There have been reviews literally going "Five Guys Burgers and Fries" as a review to review-bomb Depression Quest over a controversy involving its developer (that odd text is a reference to said controversy, for those unaware of this), and then marking it as positive.

If Valve actually cared about stuff like "oh, mixed reviews won't give useful information", then they would have done much more work to stop stupid crap like nonsense/meme reviews.

But they don't. In fact, they did the opposite. They gave a button that people can press to show their appreciation for nonsense/meme reviews!

So this means that the whole argument of review text usefulness is a complete pile of bunk.

theone の投稿を引用：

One thing having a neutral option could never do is contribute to the sometimes distorted extreme positive and negative results that the current system allows.

This. The system currently has no way to differentiate between a very polarizing game and a game that feels mediocre to a lot of people.

And differentiating these is very, very useful information to a developer/publisher.

theone の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Thusly we have a case where the best written Mixed or Neutral review will say no more than the best written positive (or even negative) review. And the worst written will be no less cringe worthy than the worst "Positive/Negative" review.

Sorry, but there can be no "thusly" in your summing up, as I've disputed your points, so if you think you can you'll just have to invent some other unconvincing argument to see if that flies.

Unfortunately, by all accounts so far, it appears that Start_Running will just continue running in circles endlessly insisting that he is right.

theone の投稿を引用：

In any case though, this discussion, again, is not about reviews, or the quality of reviews, or whether positive reviews say more or less than negative reviews or neutral reviews. (Really, why would these things even be connected or relevant?)

They are fundamentally not relevant to the question; he just cobbled together this line of argument because I said that a neutral review status that I'd turn to because I can reasonably expect to find more mixed opinions there which would be more informative to me as a customer.

(Meanwhile he keeps addressing me as if I'm the reviewer, while making snide insults at me and my intellectual ability to handle writing a review according to Steam's silly constraints, which are ironically easily circumventable by anyone with half a brain. And the biggest irony is that I'm not even the one who starts these threads making this request!)

theone の投稿を引用：

This discussion is about the recommend question, which tries to shoehorn three distinct types of review into two categories, for the purpose of summarising data. At this task, it fails.

Pretty much this.

theone の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

"5/10 I am Commander Shepard"

Good for you Mate.

Meanwhile, "10/10 I am Commander Shepard" and "1/10 I am Commander Shepard".

theone の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

So what's the point of a neutral option? Other than you get more people whom you can't even use to generate a consensus/aggregate cluttering up your database. This actually makes the worst neutral review potentially worse than the worst 'positive/negative' review.

No, there is no "other than" bit; those claims have been put to rest. The point of a neutral option is that it is wanted by reviewers who want their reviews accurately represented in the data.

And it is also wanted by people like myself who would like read such reviews.

theone の投稿を引用：

And loosening the Literacy criteria? Ha, don't make me make a joke at your expense;)

Well, at least he gets an F on proofreading his writing, considering how often he breaks formatting with misspelled quote tags, on top of all the other misspellings.

[Start_Running]

theone の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Here's the thing. The main argument being made for this idea, the one that can be objectively taken as a given, is that it would allow more people to leave reviews.

No it isn't. The recommendation question doesn't stop anyone from leaving a review. The problem for many people though is that the two options given for answering the question don't provide for the view of many of the reviewers, and this is affirmed by comments made in very many reviews.

You're right it doesn't stop people from leaving a review. So long as they can answer the question they can leave a review. And yes it does provide for the position of 98% of reviews, I'd actually say 100% but there's always likely to be one crazy that would defy the norm. Much like there are people men who are sexually aroused by being kicked in the nuts.

The joke is. Even if you are are perfectly neutral, you can honestly answer the question asked. There's actually no need for a middle ground answer for a question in whch the two answers available will accuratly reflect 100% of the possibilities.

Don't limit yourself to lables and positions and you will see the full range. A dance is not just a chart of static step positionss, it is a continuous flow. A novice musician sees notes, an experience muscian sees the transition and interaction between notes.

COnsider this question:
Are you closer to ALbany, than you are London?

If you can find a way that the question could not be accurately answered by a yes or a No I will concede the point.

That's a mixture of conjecture, assumption, wishful thinking, and opinion. Many reviews contradict this claim.

Some reviewers seem to answer the question yes when their review seems to lean towards no, and vice-versa. Some do this deliberately, others because people simply don't agree on all that is positive or negative.

The contradiction is a stylistic choice. Emphasizing the negative by use of the positive.

"The woman is a saint. She moves with the grace and poise of a dancer. She possesses both an erudite eloquence that would shame most statesmen, and a beauty that would turn even the most devout priest from his vows. And yet I'd throw myself out a window if I had t spend more than five minutes in a room with her."

You can use glowing praise to highlight your distaste for someone or something.

Remember just because you wouldn't recommend a game, doesn't meen you have to hate it. And just because you would recommend a game , doesn't mean you have to like it. I can recommend the movie Titanic, but I certainly didn't like it. I wouldn't recommend 'Meet the Feebles' though I personally loved the film. This is a concept most people are able to grasp by the time they're 10 years old.

This is part of the nuance the system allows. Remember the question asked isn't 'Do you like/dislike the game?" It's do you recommend the game?" FOr some people the questions are synonymous,, for others they are entirely different questions and an affirmative can be given to one and not the other.

Again. The question is not complicated, it is a simple reasonable question. And a not unreasonable criteria. no more than the other 3. If you can't meet itm, then you cannot answer the question. And before you say 'I can answer it but it'd be a lie' Note that means that what valve and the system would be better served by finding some way to weed out the liars and ban them from use of the review system rather than capitualte to such inherently dishonest narcisissts.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

There's actually no need for a middle ground answer for a question in whch the two answers available will accuratly reflect 100% of the possibilities.

There are three possible answers: yes, no, and the null answer.

The system currently supports approximately 66.67% of the answers: only yes and no.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Don't limit yourself to lables and positions and you will see the full range.

Everyone sees the full range; it's only the system that restricts people to two choices.

It's ironic you're asking other people to not "limit yourself" and "see the full range" while you don't see the full range of possible answers to the question yourself.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

A dance is not just a chart of static step positionss, it is a continuous flow. A novice musician sees notes, an experience muscian sees the transition and interaction between notes.

This has literally nothing to do with the topic.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

COnsider this question:
Are you closer to ALbany, than you are London?

Once again, we are not measuring distance. We are asking about opinions on games.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

That's a mixture of conjecture, assumption, wishful thinking, and opinion. Many reviews contradict this claim.

Some reviewers seem to answer the question yes when their review seems to lean towards no, and vice-versa. Some do this deliberately, others because people simply don't agree on all that is positive or negative.

The contradiction is a stylistic choice. Emphasizing the negative by use of the positive.

If we take your explanation as valid then "stylistic choice" can justify literally anything...including every single Commander Shepard "review" meme.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

And before you say 'I can answer it but it'd be a lie'

You're the only person who considers such to be a "lie", anyway. No one else thinks of it that way.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Note that means that what valve and the system would be better served by finding some way to weed out the liars and ban them from use of the review system rather than capitualte to such inherently dishonest narcisissts.

Ahh, passing moral judgements to call people "liars" because they want to improve a review system in order to be more honest. In addition to the irony, there is the sheer pointlessness of your position. And of course you can't stop there, you also have to call them "narcissists" too (and of course you also misspell that word but whatever), because you just have to show how they are bad people, even though you're actually just shadowboxing.

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

There's actually no need for a middle ground answer for a question in whch the two answers available will accuratly reflect 100% of the possibilities.

There are three possible answers: yes, no, and the null answer.

The system currently supports approximately 66.67% of the answers: only yes and no.

Read the question and you'll see where you math and logic fail.

Everyone sees the full range; it's only the system that restricts people to two choices.

Then you are only reading the labels.

This has literally nothing to do with the topic.

Expand your thought process a little. You'll see how it does (particularly if you take it in context with the previous part you quoted.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

COnsider this question:
Are you closer to ALbany, than you are London?

Once again, we are not measuring distance. We are asking about opinions on games.

Now I know you can't be that dense not to catch the similarities. I can only assume your attempt to focus on the differences is an attempt to obscure or evade the truth that you know that the question acts as a very fitting analogy and that if you ever honestly answered it you'd have to admit that your whole argument is moot.

But just incase i'ma break it down into baby chunks for ya.

The question asks one to describe ones position relative to two points in a comparative manner. Are you closer to one point than you are the other. There is no place on this globe of an earth where that question is not accurately answered by a yes/no

There are three possible scenario and the answer that describes them.

You are closer Albany - Yes
You are closer to London - No
The two points are equidistant from you. - No

See how that works?
The question did not ask where you were, it did even ask which poin t you were closest to. It asked if you were closer to Albany than you are to London. Equidistant means that the distance to either point is equal, ergo you are not closer to Albany than you are to London. In such a case the answer is no.

Now lets replace Albany, and London, with Yes and No respectively, you see the exact same sort of query. The question asks 'DO you recommend the game?" Or if you want to break it down. "Do you lean towards recommendation more than you do censure?"

Recommendation - Yes
Censure - No
Null(as you put it) - No.

If we take your explanation as valid then "stylistic choice" can justify literally anything...including every single Commander Shepard "review" meme.

Justifyu yes, and the stylistic choice can be criticisezed based on whether or not it generates the intended effect.

A Positive review that focuses on the negative aspects is basically saying that all the negative points listed were not enough to detract from the enjoyment of the game.

A nagative review that goes into detail about th positive aspects is essentially say that inspite of all the aspects listed, the reviewer cannnot recommend the game.

"I am commander shepard" is a stylistic choice, yes, but one that really conveys no other effect than an attempt at humor. An arguably failed attempt at humor.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

And before you say 'I can answer it but it'd be a lie'

You're the only person who considers such to be a "lie", anyway. No one else thinks of it that way.

You, quint and company are the ones asserting that t the system is making people respond in ways that the respondent knws does not describe their position. False information that is knowingly given and presented as truth is by definition a 'lie'. So either a person was able to describe their position truthfully within the constrains of the current system, or they could not and deliberately chose a response that did not., or to put it more precisely... they lied.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Note that means that what valve and the system would be better served by finding some way to weed out the liars and ban them from use of the review system rather than capitualte to such inherently dishonest narcisissts.

Ahh, passing moral judgements to call people "liars" because they want to improve a review system in order to be more honest. In addition to the irony, there is the sheer pointlessness of your position. And of course you can't stop there, you also have to call them "narcissists" too (and of course you also misspell that word but whatever), because you just have to show how they are bad people, even though you're actually just shadowboxing.

Judgement based on the evidence you and quint have provided in your own willing statements.

"Do you recommend this game?" Yes/No
If you do not recommend...then the answer is no. DOn't matter the reason or stance you have that prevents you from recommending, Could be your religion forbids you from recommending a game that was released between the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, WHo knows. The point is a yes means you can, and a no means you can't. You can detail the reasons for the 'can't/can in the text box.

So to sum up. Answer the question that is asked and stop trying putting Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria for your Date of Birth. The system works quite well for those of us who don't thry to cram hexagonal pegs into triangular holes.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

There are three possible answers: yes, no, and the null answer.

The system currently supports approximately 66.67% of the answers: only yes and no.

Read the question and you'll see where you math and logic fail.

It's your own ignorance that leaves you unable to recognize that a null answer is a distinct choice.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Everyone sees the full range; it's only the system that restricts people to two choices.

Then you are only reading the labels.

The system categorizes reviews by label. The system does not read review text.

The system only reads labels.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Once again, we are not measuring distance. We are asking about opinions on games.

Now I know you can't be that dense not to catch the similarities. I can only assume your attempt to focus on the differences is an attempt to obscure or evade the truth that you know that the question acts as a very fitting analogy and that if you ever honestly answered it you'd have to admit that your whole argument is moot.

Oh I know exactly why you picked that; it's because you want to force a dichotomous choice.

Except, unfortunately for you, there is an entire plane of points that are equidistant from two given points, for which sorting them onto one side or the other is ultimately a meaninglessly arbitrary decision.

And even if you're not precisely on this plane, while you might be ever so slightly closer to Albany or London, that distinction is not even meaningful if you're actually just on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic and both are still Really Freaking Far Away and that's the actual functional significance.

If you think that the difference between an opinion of a game that is on the fence but very vaguely positive and an opinion of a game that is on the fence but very vaguely negative is meaningfully the same as the difference between an opinion of a game that is enthusiastically positive and an opinion of a game that is enthusiastically negative, then either you have no understanding of nuance, or you don't care for nuance, both of which show that you can only speak for your own preferences, not the broad strokes of characterizing general truths that you purport to do repeatedly.

You are not the sole ultimate judge of videogame reviews.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

You're the only person who considers such to be a "lie", anyway. No one else thinks of it that way.

You, quint and company

Wow, now I even have a company name.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Judgement based on the evidence you and quint have provided in your own willing statements.

Protip, you're replying to Quint's post. Or I guess you've gone so deep into your own fantasy world that you no longer even truly see what you're replying to.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

"Do you recommend this game?" Yes/No
If you do not recommend...then the answer is no. DOn't matter the reason or stance you have that prevents you from recommending, Could be your religion forbids you from recommending a game that was released between the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, WHo knows. The point is a yes means you can, and a no means you can't. You can detail the reasons for the 'can't/can in the text box.

You can explain the system over and over again, but that doesn't mean it works well for the purpose of bringing useful information from reviewers to potential customers.

A number of people have proposed this improvement to the system. In your arguments against it, all you have to say is that (1) you don't like them being able to do something you personally don't like to do, and (2) you think that people who disagree with you are intellectually inferior.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

So to sum up.

To sum it up, you hate giving other people meaningful choice, and prefer to personally argue to death in favor of forcing people to use a flawed system.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Answer the question that is asked and stop trying putting Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria for your Date of Birth.

This js not a Date of Birth question, and no one is looking to answer it with "Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria".

This is about opinions on video games.

(Also, birth dates are sometimes not known with certainty, so your analogy again falls apart.)

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Read the question and you'll see where you math and logic fail.

It's your own ignorance that leaves you unable to recognize that a null answer is a distinct choice.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Then you are only reading the labels.

The system categorizes reviews by label. The system does not read review text.

The system only reads labels.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Now I know you can't be that dense not to catch the similarities. I can only assume your attempt to focus on the differences is an attempt to obscure or evade the truth that you know that the question acts as a very fitting analogy and that if you ever honestly answered it you'd have to admit that your whole argument is moot.

Oh I know exactly why you picked that; it's because you want to force a dichotomous choice.

Except, unfortunately for you, there is an entire plane of points that are equidistant from two given points, for which sorting them onto one side or the other is ultimately a meaninglessly arbitrary decision.

Read. The. Question.
"Are you" - Establishing the frame of reference.
"Closer" - Comparative clause implying two items to be compared.
"to Albany" - First item.
than you are - Criteria for the comparisson
"to London" - second item.

If you are closer to Albany than London. The answer is yes.
If you are CLoser to London. The Answer is no.
If you are equidisant, the distance between you and either point is equal. If they are equal you are NOT closer to Albany than you are to London. So the Answer is No.

And even if you're not precisely on this plane, while you might be ever so slightly closer to Albany or London, that distinction is not even meaningful if you're actually just on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic and both are still Really Freaking Far Away and that's the actual functional significance.

Me thinks you're just mad because this argumnet pretty much undermines your argument, and then places a satchel charge under its feet..

If you think that the difference between an opinion of a game that is on the fence but very vaguely positive and an opinion of a game that is on the fence but very vaguely negative is meaningfully the same as the difference between an opinion of a game that is enthusiastically positive and an opinion of a game that is enthusiastically negative, then either you have no understanding of nuance, or you don't care for nuance, both of which show that you can only speak for your own preferences, not the broad strokes of characterizing general truths that you purport to do repeatedly.

Did you notice the the question in my analogy did not ask HOW close you are to either point. Just as the question the review asks is not HOW much you like the game. It's just asking if you lean more to recommendation than you do censure. You can affect a statement of magnitude via the text box. A slightly positive is still a positive, and a sligtly negative, is still a negative.

This is why the question shows evidence of far more thought and deliberation than one might think.

You are not the sole ultimate judge of videogame reviews.

No I'm not but that's not the issue. The issue is answering the very simple question asked. "Do you recommend this game?"

There is no neutral because neutral would still have to answer no.

Are you in yard a? If you are, the answer is yes. If you're in yards B through Z the answer is no. and if your standing in the no-man's land between a and any of the other yards, the answer is still no.

(Also, birth dates are sometimes not known with certainty, so your analogy again falls apart.)

Okay now you're just being desperate.
If a birth date is unknown its simply unknown. but anyone one who has half a brain knows that if they see:

D.O.B: Nina / Pinta / Santa Maria

Knows that the respondent is deliberately trolling, or functionally illeterate. In either case it invalidates the form and the application will be nenied or if it was a survey the form will be chucked in the trash bin without tabulation.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Read. The. Question.

Everyone already knows what the question says, thanks for pointlessly explaining it over and over again.

Once again, the problem is that the question is not properly meaningful for the purpose of soliciting information from reviewers and providing that information to customers.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

And even if you're not precisely on this plane, while you might be ever so slightly closer to Albany or London, that distinction is not even meaningful if you're actually just on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic and both are still Really Freaking Far Away and that's the actual functional significance.

Me thinks you're just mad because this argumnet pretty much undermines your argument, and then places a satchel charge under its feet..

What am I even mad at?

Methinks you're projecting your ideas of other people onto them, then fantasizing on top of that (like the "satchel charge" thing, as well as why you end up charging people with narcissism).

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

You can affect a statement of magnitude via the text box.

Once again, the system does not read the text box.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

This is why the question shows evidence of far more thought and deliberation than one might think.

You can read whatever meaning you want into it, and clearly you don't exactly care about how other people think of it anyway.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

You are not the sole ultimate judge of videogame reviews.

No I'm not but that's not the issue. The issue is answering the very simple question asked. "Do you recommend this game?"

The issue is that that question, with only two answer choices, is flawed.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

There is no neutral because neutral would still have to answer no.

"Neutral" is not the same as "no", except if you designate it as such. And since you are able to designate it as such, there is no problem with including such an option.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

D.O.B: Nina / Pinta / Santa Maria

Once again:

No one is answering date-of-birth questions. No one is answering with Columbus ship names either.

We are talking about opinions on video games.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Knows that the respondent is deliberately trolling, or functionally illeterate. In either case it invalidates the form and the application will be nenied or if it was a survey the form will be chucked in the trash bin without tabulation.

Oh, how curious, Steam does not "chuck in the trash bin" those reviews that are completely devoid of meaningful content but instead lets people post them anyway.

Therefore, your estimation is mistaken.

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Read. The. Question.

Everyone already knows what the question says, thanks for pointlessly explaining it over and over again.

Once again, the problem is that the question is not properly meaningful for the purpose of soliciting information from reviewers and providing that information to customers.

The system does that. It just requires the information to meet certain criteria. Though I do like that you're insisting it has no meaning when it clearly does. WHat you're actually complaining about is that its not the question you WANT to answer. Which is not a flaw in the system It just means the system was not designed for those like yourself, nor does it need to be.

It is designed for people who can answer the question, preferably without lying.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Knows that the respondent is deliberately trolling, or functionally illeterate. In either case it invalidates the form and the application will be nenied or if it was a survey the form will be chucked in the trash bin without tabulation.

Oh, how curious, Steam does not "chuck in the trash bin" those reviews that are completely devoid of meaningful content but instead lets people post them anyway.

Therefore, your estimation is mistaken.

Or perhaps because even those minimalist reviews still manage to answer the core question of "Do you recommend this game?"

Essentially the system is willing to accomodate those who don't feel like writing an entire essay but just want to answer the question. Again, The form is meant to capture information that the inquisitor deems important to their needs. Whether you understand those needs or not is irrelevant.

Answer the question, or write your review somewhere that asks the question you want to answer. Like I dunno, Metacritic. Big audience, allows a scale from 1 to 10. That sounds absolutely perfect for you.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Though I do like that you're insisting it has no meaning when it clearly does.

For you to "like" a position you disagree with means you're just simply enjoying arguing for the sake of it.

Anyhow, it's ironic you're saying that I'm saying something is meaningless, when I've pointed out that there is an additional amount of meaning that can be captured by offering a neutral or mixed review option, while you're the one insisting there isn't.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

nor does it need to be.

The system does not "need to be" anything.

The system could simply not exist.

The system could only offer one recommendation status.

The system could do a whole bunch of other things.

The purpose of these proposals is to suggest an improvement to the system that would enhance its ability to capture meaningful information and then provide that information to prospective customers.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

It is designed for people who can answer the question, preferably without lying.

There you go, with your silly "lying" charge again.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Oh, how curious, Steam does not "chuck in the trash bin" those reviews that are completely devoid of meaningful content but instead lets people post them anyway.

Therefore, your estimation is mistaken.

Or perhaps because even those minimalist reviews still manage to answer the core question of "Do you recommend this game?"

Then why does Steam require people to post review text, if all that matters is the core question?

Why does not simply allow people to register their yes/no choice without writing a review at all?

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Essentially the system is willing to accomodate those who don't feel like writing an entire essay but just want to answer the question.

If this were true, writing the review would not be required to submit the yes/no choice.

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Like I dunno, Metacritic. Big audience, allows a scale from 1 to 10. That sounds absolutely perfect for you.

You like telling other people what you think is good for them, don't you. It's funny because you complain about people who want to write mixed-status reviews as simply wanting to hear themselves talk.

By the way, a 1-10 rating system is too fine and the distinctions between its point values are not fully meaningful. A 3-point system would be better than that. And I've mentioned this before, in this very thread, but I guess you forgot, and replaced that with your own fantasy version of me in your head.

(Also, I don't even read Metacritic, why would I post there.)

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

It is designed for people who can answer the question, preferably without lying.

There you go, with your silly "lying" charge again.

You're the one who brought the idea up. So now i have to factor this possibility in.

Then why does Steam require people to post review text, if all that matters is the core question?

My own theory. To establish a papertrail, and perhaps a demonstration of meeting the first crieteria.

You like telling other people what you think is good for them, don't you. It's funny because you complain about people who want to write mixed-status reviews as simply wanting to hear themselves talk.

And you ironically corrected that notion...for the worse.

By the way, a 1-10 rating system is too fine and the distinctions between its point values are not fully meaningful. A 3-point system would be better than that. And I've mentioned this before, in this very thread, but I guess you forgot, and replaced that with your own fantasy version of me in your head.

So? 0, 5, 10 That's your 3-point metacritic scale.

(Also, I don't even read Metacritic, why would I post there.)

Because its actually asking the question you want to answer.