Reviews Need Two Separate Thumbs

[𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪]

One thumb for actual product quality.

Second thumb for ethics surrounding product.

You would fix the review bombs by having them funneled into the latter, and if people thumbs down the former product quality based on the latter ethics surrounding the product, then Steam would have a legitimate basis to filter those reviews out for being false.

As-is we repeat the same old issue of "yeah the product is good but I only get 1 thumb".

Let people have 2 thumbs, and review bombs can be done without them confusing people who just want to know if the product itself is good or bad, separately from if the ethics are good or bad.

This is becoming an exceedingly obnoxious repetitive issue every time a company or individual ♥♥♥♥♥ up ethically, forcing people to convey this in reviews, but reviews not allowing for the nuance of separating the product from the creator if the reviewer desires to do so.

Forcibly mixing these 2 concepts together makes reviews unreliable at a glance -in a store this big, at a glance is all a game's reviews will normally get.


Edit:

Example

Game:

LOVE this game, best shooter I have ever played! #swag

[x] (Optional: Select this box if you want to rate the ethics surrounding this game.)
Ethics:

The developers scammed their kickstarter supporters and sent a cease and desist to my favorite modder. There are also known shadowbans and inconsistent moderation policies. Please sign the change-dot-org petition and spread the word.

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

can you tie this back to how you feel the suggested feature would increase this presented problem?

It would give people with an axe to grind a platform to do so, including as previously mentioned, the ability to essentially freely libel a developer or publisher with false accusations (as demonstrated with the hogwarts scenario), of which Valve would have to deal with if they encouraged, supported, or endorsed the idea in a more legal sense. Now imagine this applies to anything social-political or political and the reviews could be skewed more heavily in the name of "ethics" because people disagree with any one stance the Dev or Publisher has.

That is why if they have an issue with such, they can use another platform to discuss it.

sorry, you largely did cover this already, thank you for reiterating and expanding.

so, do you see any good compromise then?

I still dont think it would change things much, I see your consideration about the psychological perception of having more freedom to express since it will appear like there is more social room to express 'para social' chagrins but I also am dubious if it will present such enough to really inflate that problem beyond what is already present.
But say I am wrong, say I am too biased or stubborn to see it as severely as you do.

Is there a way to split the reviews so we can accomodate external impacts on experience without making it look like steam has given room for people to unload whatever issues they may have... real or imagined.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

Publicado originalmente por SlowMango:

You're trying to split hairs.

no, im getting into legal parameters, ive taken administrative justice classes and have an idea of how legal terms work. you cant assume context with legal contracts... they say the devil is in the details for a reason, you always take generous interpretations with contracts.

ironically, I was told I'd make an excellent prosecuter.

They are not required to get super detailed in their rules about the reviews. In fact, it benefits them more when they aren't so people don't try to skirt around and 'technically' not break the rules.

There is no legal parameters to get into because Valve's lawyers have already done so.

[Mad Scientist]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

sorry, you largely did cover this already, thank you for reiterating and expanding.

so, do you see any good compromise then?

Use of a different platform if a user wishes to go outside the limitations. There are channels as example that do cover dev issues such as a series called "Dirty devs", it seems clear that Valve just prefers moreover reviewing the game. One can still put immediately relevant information about a dev into the review, but it would have to be true & accurate, such as deleting reports about bugs or server issues or requiring 3rd party signups to even leave bug reports that they actually will look at, but if they do so, they must ensure the review is still primarily focused on the game itself.

The compromise is essentially like anywhere "know what to do, and what not to do", in addition to knowing when to do something elsewhere such as more in-depth reviews, including reviewing the developer elsewhere, benchmarks, social-political/political gripes or personal vendettas.

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

I still dont think it would change things much, I see your consideration about the psychological perception of having more freedom to express since it will appear like there is more social room to express 'para social' chagrins but I also am dubious if it will present such enough to really inflate that problem beyond what is already present.
But say I am wrong, say I am too biased or stubborn to see it as severely as you do.

Sometimes one has to consider any potential reasons or bias from a source as well, as well as the probable intention behind such. This is why in a fair amount of time programmers or developers may look into such, and find out that perhaps the intention is not the best, and that they do not want to implement such due to that.

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:

One can still put immediately relevant information about a dev into the review, but it would have to be true & accurate, such as deleting reports about bugs or server issues or requiring 3rd party signups to even leave bug reports that they actually will look at,

Now, this is me pushing a little... I will admit that.

so, what if someone wants to thumbs up the game but then give all that extra crap a thumbs down?

Publicado originalmente por Mad Scientist:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

I still dont think it would change things much, I see your consideration about the psychological perception of having more freedom to express since it will appear like there is more social room to express 'para social' chagrins but I also am dubious if it will present such enough to really inflate that problem beyond what is already present.
But say I am wrong, say I am too biased or stubborn to see it as severely as you do.

Sometimes one has to consider any potential reasons or bias from a source as well, as well as the probable intention behind such. This is why in a fair amount of time programmers or developers may look into such, and find out that perhaps the intention is not the best, and that they do not want to implement such due to that.

No strong arguments on this point

[Tanoomba]

Publicado originalmente por ÁROCK!!!:

the fact that people tend to chose a positive response over a negative when only presented with those two options

That's not a fact at all.

[Tanoomba]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

so, what if someone wants to thumbs up the game but then give all that extra crap a thumbs down?

They can write a positive review and create a thread in the discussion forum to talk about their qualms about the publisher. Or, they can give the game a negative review and mention in the review that while tey enjoyed the game just fine, they are not OK with the publisher (this needs to be done civilly, of course).

Importantly, we are not entitled to a soapbox to rant about developer preactices, certainly not as part of the review process.

[Tanoomba]

The main flaw with this suggestion, as I see it, is that it is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It's being suggested that games are getting lower score aggregates than they "should" be because people are downvoting the publisher instead of the game. I don't believe this happens with enough regularity to have a significant effect on games' aggregates. Several people have mentioned Hogwarts Legacy, and despite the game's backlash being widespread and well-known, it still scored a comfortable "very positive" aggregate, with a score of 92% overall. It sold incredibly well and is a success by every measurable metric. Obviously the controversy didn't do it any harm, and OP's suggestion would not have made a difference since none of the people angry about Rowling would have given the game a positive review anyway.

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Tanoomba:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

so, what if someone wants to thumbs up the game but then give all that extra crap a thumbs down?

They can write a positive review and create a thread in the discussion forum to talk about their qualms about the publisher. Or, they can give the game a negative review and mention in the review that while tey enjoyed the game just fine, they are not OK with the publisher (this needs to be done civilly, of course).

Importantly, we are not entitled to a soapbox to rant about developer preactices, certainly not as part of the review process.

this suggestion is literally not soap boxing, its check boxing.

[Tanoomba]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

this suggestion is literally not soap boxing, its check boxing.

Right, but the underlying concept is that people wanting to express their disapproval of a publisher are taking it out on their games and should be given a separate outlet to do so. I'm saying we aren't owed that outlet.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Tanoomba:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

this suggestion is literally not soap boxing, its check boxing.

Right, but the underlying concept is that people wanting to express their disapproval of a publisher are taking it out on their games and should be given a separate outlet to do so. I'm saying we aren't owed that outlet.

Bingo.
And lets fce it.
We know how that would play out.
The way the OP imagines it would aloow a small group to have a disproportionately large voice.

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Tanoomba:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

this suggestion is literally not soap boxing, its check boxing.

Right, but the underlying concept is that people wanting to express their disapproval of a publisher are taking it out on their games and should be given a separate outlet to do so. I'm saying we aren't owed that outlet.

actually, its the mirror opposite, the whole premise of the suggestion is to make it more clear when the review is actually someone expressing disaproval of a publisher/developer ( for legitimate reasons or otherwise) and taking it out on the game.

the op is presenting an idea to increase review transparency, nothing else.

[Tanoomba]

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

actually, its the mirror opposite, the whole premise of the suggestion is to make it more clear when the review is actually someone expressing disaproval of a publisher/developer ( for legitimate reasons or otherwise) and taking it out on the game.

the op is presenting an idea to increase review transparency, nothing else.

Fair enough. But like I mentioned earlier, people who want to criticize the publisher can already do so, both in the review and elsewhere. It's OK to say "I enjoy Assassin's Creed Valhalla, but disapprove of the way UbiSoft protected employees who had received several credible accusations of misconduct." That's all the transparency we need. Whether that person gives the game a positive or negative review, the system is working as intended.

[Shinoskay]

Publicado originalmente por Tanoomba:

Publicado originalmente por Shinoskay:

actually, its the mirror opposite, the whole premise of the suggestion is to make it more clear when the review is actually someone expressing disaproval of a publisher/developer ( for legitimate reasons or otherwise) and taking it out on the game.

the op is presenting an idea to increase review transparency, nothing else.

Fair enough. But like I mentioned earlier, people who want to criticize the publisher can already do so, both in the review and elsewhere. It's OK to say "I enjoy Assassin's Creed Valhalla, but disapprove of the way UbiSoft protected employees who had received several credible accusations of misconduct." That's all the transparency we need. Whether that person gives the game a positive or negative review, the system is working as intended.

I hear you, and I hear mad scientist counter point.

You both make fair points even if I feel that the idea would work better then you guys think.

Thank you for engaging, I enjoyed talking with both of you.

[𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪]

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

Publicado originalmente por ÁROCK!!!:

I'm sure plenty of people do, it's just that I don't, and its because of years of experience, and the fact that people tend to chose a positive response over a negative when only presented with those two options...and that's in general, not just here.

I will say however that the negative reviews are always much more informative (and IMO, honest) than the positive.

No, people will tend towards whatever response they think they're supposed to give.
That can be positive or negative.
But that trend vanishes when there is no intervieweer or agent present.

The system works as is. No need to over complicate it, especially when the basis for that over complicatuion is some random person thinking a game should be rated lower or higher.

What are you talking about? No one likes the thumbs system as-is. Seriously, everyone who ever mentions the system ♥♥♥♥♥ on it. It does not work in conveying actual quality, the key factor in a product decision, and is also easily abused due to the ethics issue.

An overall thumbs up thumbs down, a recommendation, is completely useless to the average consumer. The average consumer does not need or want a recommendation except maybe from a family member or a friend that they can somewhat blindly trust. The average consumer needs a degree of detailed nuance or information, without having to read everything. Amazon reviews are consistently useful due to having well-categorized sortable star-reviews with percentages you can do easy rule-of-thumb judgements off off. Similarly, a 2-thumb system would allow that extra degree of nuance necessary to making a good product choice while also accounting for ethics without it ruining broader understanding.

I am offering a workaround that makes the thumbs-up thumbs-down method salvageable without ditching it completely. But 1 thumb is just not good enough given the ethics factor that is a blatant apples to oranges mixture with product quality.

[Tanoomba]

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

What are you talking about? No one likes the thumbs system as-is. Seriously, everyone who ever mentions the system ♥♥♥♥♥ on it.

People are exponentially more likely to mention an aspect of UI if they have a problem with it than they are if they're fine with it. Nobody's going to make a thread saying "I find the review system to be entirely adequate and appreciate it providing me with an accurate way to gauge user satisfaction with any given game".

Having said that, for the record: I like the thumbs system as-is. I think it's easy-to-understand, accessible, lends itself well to common usage, and as such leads to a greater number of reviews which in turn leads to a more accurate aggregate. It's a good system.

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

It does not work in conveying actual quality, the key factor in a product decision, and is also easily abused due to the ethics issue.

There is no such thing as "actual quality" when it comes to subjectively-experienced entertainment media.

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

An overall thumbs up thumbs down, a recommendation, is completely useless to the average consumer.

It's been incredibly useful for years and years now, giving us all an accurate idea of what any game's player base thinks about that game.

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

The average consumer does not need or want a recommendation

But they DO benefit from knowing how many people who've played the game recommend it.

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

The average consumer needs a degree of detailed nuance or information

That's what critics' reviews are for.

Publicado originalmente por 𒐪⎝ Epylector ⎠𒐪:

Similarly, a 2-thumb system would allow that extra degree of nuance necessary to making a good product choice while also accounting for ethics without it ruining broader understanding.

You can't keep repeating the "average consumer" mantra without acknowledging that the average consumer couldn't care less about a publisher's ethics. I would think the continued extreme popularity of EA and UbiSoft games makes that pretty clear.

Honestly, at this point it sounds more like you just want to assuage your own guilt for supporting and enjoying games from publishers who do terrible things. It doesn't work that way, though. You don't get to say "I supported this publisher, I really enjoy their games, but I think you shouldn't buy them because they do bad things". Pick a lane, dude.