Forums → News and Feedback → Time before being able to rate a game
| 17 | 6268 |
Hey, I've seen that it's very common for no-lifers to just go through every game on AG and just rate the game before it even loaded. An example of somebody doing that is here: AlexAltea
He joined just 10 days ago, and has 2173 games rated, and 2 comments, Obviously he's just been going through all the games on AG and rating them without even playing them
So to counter this, I was thinking that maybe games could have a 15 minute timer before they can be rated? So the person has to have the game window open for 15 minutes and THEN they can rate it. Also, so counter the idea that somebody just opens a ton of games at the same time and waits 15 minutes, then rates all of them and goes on without playing them, I suggest that if the browser he/she is using has more than one game open, then only one of them should begin counting down, while the other game that is open is paused until the first game has either been closed, or has become able to be rated.
I'm not expecting this to be implemented in this AG, but it'd be awesome if it was to be done for AG3. It'd definitely help keep people from just rating games they haven't even let load.
- 17 Replies
this should be in the AGv3 forum, post it there, ad see a respose!
i personally think its a good idea, but maybe 30 seconds...
Oops, for some reason Please became part of the link even though I hit return >.< Link is here. Please reply there instead of here
oh alright some admin/mod moved this thread to the right forums . Thx to whoever it was
I totally agree, also I think that we should have the ability to flag someoneâs account, just like flagging someoneâs comments. When the account is flagged you would send a quick message on what the person has done to the Administrators. That way the Administrators could get rid of people like this, or at least remove their points, another possibility would be to ban them for a period of time. And if the Administrators are worried about people spamming them make it so that when you flag somebody you do not earn any points. In addition I think that the period in which you cannot rate the game should be more like thirty seconds to a minute.
Hey, I've seen that it's very common for no-lifers to just go through every game on AG and just rate the game before it even loaded.
Hey, I've seen that it's very common for people to complain about other people getting AP, and complaining about people spamming game ratings without proof.
Obviously he's just been going through all the games on AG and rating them without even playing them
Can you prove that? It's possible that he has been a guest on Armor Games for a long time and created an account to rate the games he has played.
I don't see why we should care. The most someone is going to get from rating games is about four thousand armor points, and in AG3 you might not even get armor points from rating games. Not sure about that one, from how you're going to get armor points in AG3 it looks like you'll get them from rating games. Since in AG3 you'll get armor points from gaming, like Kongregate. Where you get achievements and such.
Perhaps AG should just make it one point for rating a game instead of two. I never understood why they would give two points for game ratings. It's better to give just one to reduce the spamming. It's likely that people won't spam game ratings if it's one point because they won't get rewarded much.
Instead of a timer, we could have a set limit of games you can rate per day. Like how Kongregate has, on Kongregate you can only rate fifty games a day. I agree with their system because I doubt people will play hundreds of games each day. It's not likely that they are playing them throughly. So having a limit of rated games will be good. I don't like the idea of timers because you can simply open a whole bunch of games on several web browsers. With your counter idea for that, I don't like it. It's basically making AG stricter than it needs to be. "Hey, you can only rate a game if you wait fifteen minutes and you have to wait more time to rate games!" People can easily play multiple games at a time, so I don't like the idea.
I think one minute is enough, as now you can do it in 3 seconds, it took him about 6519 seconds to rate those 2173, but if it would have been a minute, he would need 130380 which is 20 times greater, and enough in my opinion
Hey, I've seen that it's very common for people to complain about other people getting AP, and complaining about people spamming game ratings without proof.
There is a specific point in all this in which logic becomes the deciding factor instead of proof. This case is beyond that point.
Can you prove that? It's possible that he has been a guest on Armor Games for a long time and created an account to rate the games he has played.
So according to you, he was able to remember how good 2173 games were? He's able to look at all of those games and tell you everything about them? I don't buy it at all.
I don't see why we should care. The most someone is going to get from rating games is about four thousand armor points...
The more games that are added to Armor Games over time, the more this number rises. It's going to have to be fixed sooner or later. Might as well be soon.
...and in AG3 you might not even get armor points from rating games. Not sure about that one, from how you're going to get armor points in AG3 it looks like you'll get them from rating games. Since in AG3 you'll get armor points from gaming, like Kongregate. Where you get achievements and such.
I'm obviously requesting this is implemented only if getting points from game ratings will be possible in AG3.
Perhaps AG should just make it one point for rating a game instead of two. I never understood why they would give two points for game ratings. It's better to give just one to reduce the spamming. It's likely that people won't spam game ratings if it's one point because they won't get rewarded much.
Valid point, but I'm pretty sure that some people will still go about spamming ratings. It may take double the time, but some people are obsessed with the idea of getting AP. And again, when more games are added, they will still end up being able to get as many points from spamming ratings as they will on the current Armor Games.
Instead of a timer, we could have a set limit of games you can rate per day. Like how Kongregate has, on Kongregate you can only rate fifty games a day. I agree with their system because I doubt people will play hundreds of games each day. It's not likely that they are playing them throughly. So having a limit of rated games will be good.
That could be another solution. But there is no guarantee that someone can't just go ahead and play beyond 50 games; which brings me to my next point.
I don't like the idea of timers because you can simply open a whole bunch of games on several web browsers. With your counter idea for that, I don't like it. It's basically making AG stricter than it needs to be. "Hey, you can only rate a game if you wait fifteen minutes and you have to wait more time to rate games!"
Limiting the amount of games one can rate will make AG more strict as well. Some people may not want to play a game thoroughly and then not be able to rate it, but instead has to wait for tomorrow, in which case they forget, unless of course they write themselves a note, but not everyone wants to make schedules for themselves on which games they have yet to rate. But let's take a look at the amount of browsers out there. internet explorer, firefox, chrome, opera, safari, and maybe one or two more that I not really known. That's 5 browsers. That means they can only open 5 games at once, and then they have to wait 15 minutes, and then rate, and move on. Still slows them down quite a lot.
People can easily play multiple games at a time, so I don't like the idea.
People can easily thoroughly play through 2 games or more in 15 minutes?
People can easily play 2 games thoroughly in 15 minutes? Doubt it. Remember: the timer simply keeps you from rating the game. Not playing it. Once the timer for the first game you have open, the timer for the next game begins counting down, whether you rated the first game or not.
_________________________________
@Haku1234567890 @bicola1
I think one minute is enough, as now you can do it in 3 seconds, it took him about 6519 seconds to rate those 2173, but if it would have been a minute, he would need 130380 which is 20 times greater, and enough in my opinion
But one minute/30 seconds is no where near enough time for a person to play through a game at all. Would still be spamming even if they waited a minute/30 seconds.
There is a specific point in all this in which logic becomes the deciding factor instead of proof. This case is beyond that point.
Oh, so just because YOU say he spammed, he spammed. Yeah, nice logic there. Since you made the claim that he spammed game ratings, you must prove it, otherwise it's void. It's like me saying you chat spammed all those comments. Can I prove it? No, so it isn't right.
So according to you, he was able to remember how good 2173 games were? He's able to look at all of those games and tell you everything about them? I don't buy it at all.
Okay? You don't have to buy it, but it's still possible. There is something out there called "memory", if you haven't heard of it. I can remember most games I've played if I load up the screen for them.
The more games that are added to Armor Games over time, the more this number rises. It's going to have to be fixed sooner or later. Might as well be soon.
From what I've seen, the people who just go out and rate all the games that are out don't wait for more games to be added to the site to rate them. They usually just leave the site when they've rated all the games on a certain day/week.
It may take double the time, but some people are obsessed with the idea of getting AP. And again, when more games are added, they will still end up being able to get as many points from spamming ratings as they will on the current Armor Games.
Being able to rate fifty games a day with my idea would reduce it since they won't get getting much points and rating will be limited. Unlike now, you can rate however many games you want.
But there is no guarantee that someone can't just go ahead and play beyond 50 games
Sure. But setting it as fifty will be good because it takes time to actually play flash games before you can give it a real rating.
Limiting the amount of games one can rate will make AG more strict as well.
Not as strict as "you have to wait fifteen minutes to rate!". I've played several games I haven't rated, and if I want to rate them, I'll have to wait fifteen minutes, when I've already played these games, that'd be frustrating.
But let's take a look at the amount of browsers out there. internet explorer, firefox, chrome, opera, safari, and maybe one or two more that I not really known.
There's about ten-fifteen web browsers, if not more. Those are just the top web browsers. Someone could easily download, install, and open them all with a flash game in each, wait for the time limit to be over, then rate the games, then repeat. That won't stop rate spam.
People can easily play 2 games thoroughly in 15 minutes?
Remember, flash games aren't video games. Flash games don't take very long to go through. Setting this time limit on rating games will just upset people which will result in them moving away from the site. It's like setting a fifteen minute rule on posting in the forums, it's very annoying and is unnecessary.
Remember: the timer simply keeps you from rating the game. Not playing it. Once the timer for the first game you have open, the timer for the next game begins counting down, whether you rated the first game or not.
Remember, tabs and web browsers. Nothing is stopping people from opening twenty+ tabs on several web browsers to rate games. I don't think AG will implement something that stops you from rating a game if you're not playing another.
But one minute/30 seconds is no where near enough time for a person to play through a game at all. Would still be spamming even if they waited a minute/30 seconds.
So? It'll still stop rate spam by a little. But I still don't agree with the time limit for several reasons.
- Tabs and web browsers.
- It'll drive people away, since they have to play a game for fifteen minutes to rate a game. If I want to play a flash game then rate it when I'm done with it, I want too. I'm not going to wait fifteen minutes just to rate a game, or any other time limit. There are games out there I haven't rated yet I've played.
Since we don't even count that you're playing a game until you've been playing the game for a little while, we've thought about doing the same thing on AG3.
I had also built a 2-minute timer between game ratings, which should give a warning like "You must wait another 53 seconds before you can rate another game" kind of thing. I don't recall if that's making it into production or not.
Tabs and web browsers.
The way my system works is that it tracks your activity server-side, so even opening multiple tabs/browsers wouldn't matter.
15 minutes seems excessive. 2 minutes felt like the right amount.
We may also build some detection scripts that flag a user as rate-spamming if they rate more than __ games in a one-hour period or something.
In the case of AlexAltea, they rated 1,817 games in one day, between 10am and 8pm. In the 10am hour, he rated 443 games alone. That's 7 games per minute, which is obvious spam. So he got his ratings erased and points reset, and was given a warning not to do it again.
In AG3, you probably won't even get points for rating a game, so there won't even be a need to spam game ratings.
We may also build some detection scripts that flag a user as rate-spamming if they rate more than __ games opening a one-hour period or something.
I hope it's a pretty large number in the blank because one of my favorite things to do is open all variety of games and then open two games from every section. I then play them for around 10 to 30 minutes. Then I rate, comment and close the game (yes I'm aware doing this is murder to ones RAM but mine is very good.
In AG3, you probably won't even get points for rating a game, so there won't even be a need to spam game ratings
I agree and disagree with that. Perhaps rating a game could get 1 point while a comment gets 2 or more.
In the case of AlexAltea, they rated 1,817 games in one day, between 10am and 8pm. In the 10am hour, he rated 443 games alone. That's 7 games per minute, which is obvious spam. So he got his ratings erased and points reset, and was given a warning not to do it again.
I have a friend who did the same thing but since he joined a while ago it's a bit hard to prove it but in three days he rated about 1,000 games. It's ShardRaldevius if you want to check.
I then play them for around 10 to 30 minutes.
10 to 30 minutes per game. I forgot to add that part
Perhaps rating a game could get 1 point while a comment gets 2 or more.
IIRC, you won't get points from community participation such as commenting, posting, nor rating. It'll solely be from achievements.
I hope it's a pretty large number in the blank
Even at a 2-minute wait, that's a maximum of 30 games in an hour. That's hardly unreasonable.
10 to 30 minutes per game. I forgot to add that part
Then there won't be a problem. The timer starts when you rate a game, so even if you open a bunch of tabs, the rating control will still be active, but if you go through each tab and try to rapid-fire-rate them all in one shot, you'll get warnings that you must wait a while. If you're playing the games for 10+ minutes EACH, and you rate the game as soon as your done, then move onto another game, then the 2-minute timer won't affect you.
Perhaps rating a game could get 1 point while a comment gets 2 or more.
As GoM pointed out, commenting won't award points on AG3, we've discussed this several times. We're building a Reputation system for that.
Alright thanks cormyn Its good to see that the AG teams are taking steps against rate spamming.
Well, even though AG3 won't award points for rating games, we still need to protect against spamming ratings because we want people to give us ACCURATE ratings.
You must be logged in to post a reply!