I often find that when I rate a game, I know that I have either over or under rated it. This is frustrating because no matter how much I try, I cannot change my rating. This doesn't mean that you can rate more than once, it means that you can 'change' your rating.
I'm sure this would be a welcome addition to Armor Games.
It reall irritates me when people say that sense the mods can't do anything pertaining to fixing up the site.I only know of one mod who even programs(dank) so its really the Admins(Dan and Shpigford to be exact) who have it put into effect.
Anyways I see no reasons why this idea shouldn't be put into effect,and I can find many reasons why it should...
People change their minds People can accidently press the rating button some how People find things out about the game after they have rated Games sometimes have updates that make them better
Those are all the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.The only issue that they need to make sure off is that everytime it is rated againl,people do not gain more AP for it.After that it would be a perfect thing to implement,and something that I personally think would have a fairly high demand and need for since from what I have seen more people seem to rate games and comment on them then those who talk on the forums(for whatever reason) so I definitely approve this suggestion,even though I do believe it has been suggested before maybe a couple of weeks ago or something.
everyone is write about spending time playing bofore you rate and all. But its a great idea, and if you didnt like some glitches, or things you were complaining about, and they fix those problems, you should be able to re-rate.
[quote]I like this idea, but someone might go back and give every game a low rating just for fun. So, I say no to this idea.
Oh, that's just such a poor reason... like the editing idea where someone will spam and edit to hide the evidence. Rubbish! =( There can't be a bad reason for every idea.... can it?[/quote]
Sorry, I should have specified... I like this idea, but you should really play a game before you rate it. Even if there are updates, you can still write a good lengthy comment about it.
Sorry, I should have specified... I like this idea, but you should really play a game before you rate it. Even if there are updates, you can still write a good lengthy comment about it.
OK,so this would effect the rating how exactly?The thing is the rating to me personally is a bigger deal for the fact that it shows up on the page where the game is with the rest of the list.The highest rated games tend to fair better instead of the ones with the longest nice comments.Sorry,but to me I don't think that would be good as a supplement.
OK,so this would effect the rating how exactly?The thing is the rating to me personally is a bigger deal for the fact that it shows up on the page where the game is with the rest of the list.The highest rated games tend to fair better instead of the ones with the longest nice comments.Sorry,but to me I don't think that would be good as a supplement.
Who cares what shows up on the front page. AG decides what goes on there anyway... Remember when Sin Mark was on the popular games list? It had a lower ranking than all of them. I would say Dan picks them, but I'm not sure.
So does even matter if you accidentally rate a game too high, or too low? No, I don't think it does. Play the game first, then make your rating decision. If the game has updates, your just gonna have to deal with it. Usually updates don't make much of a difference anyways.
Maybe a limit of changes? Should the limit be equal the numbers of time the games was updated (reuploaded)? I think this would make the most sense after reading some comments.
I seriously don't see a point in arguing against this idea if you have no real cons against it.All anyone so far has offered is reasons why it isn't needed,which can easily be argued against,and if your going to add the option of changing your rating then whats the point in limiting it?
Who cares what shows up on the front page. AG decides what goes on there anyway... Remember when Sin Mark was on the popular games list? It had a lower ranking than all of them. I would say Dan picks them, but I'm not sure.
I never even said the words "Front Page" in that comment so what made you assume that I was only talking about the front page anyways?Yes I already know that all of the games in the popular games list are chosen by Dan,but my point with your comment though is that there is really no point in telling people to "deal with it" when the issue could be fixed and have no negative side-effects.It just doesn't make any sense to me why you are even against it.Could you somehow try to explain it to me?
It doesn't really make sense to me either. Why would somebody disagree with something that would benefit us all? Theres no point limiting how many times a person can rate a game and if a person wanted to go back and rate all the games a 1, they would've done it in the first place! This won't matter if they rate it a 1 anyway because if the game is good enough, other peoples ratings will prove the better of it.
I already explained the editable comment idea and mods would have a record of all users comments whether they have changed it or not. This idea also goes for forum posts. It would bring spamming down by %30 percent. Instead of a person posting a post and then saying something like "Oh sorry I meant to say..." in another comment, they could just edit their comment and fix it. If they wanted to add something to the comment, they can just put "EDIT:" and whatever they needed to write at the end of the comment. I have seen this all over the web and it seems to work great! Another add-on to this would include being able to "delete" a comment. There are many uses for this but I won't list them all here.
This idea should be used on Armor Games and I really hope that the admin will take a look at this thread and implement it.
Looking back at the post above, I see where I could've changed a few things. This further proves my point. I also think you should be able to "vote up" forum posts. This isn't major but I think some people would like it.
well Matthewwest while I'm glad you agree with me on this issue I think it would be best that we try to talk about the issue at hand,and not go too far off talking about other things that have already been suggested,unless you are trying to make an argument that concerns them.This typically leads to people going off-topic.I hope you understand,but anyways I'm still waiting for a reason why this would hurt AG in any way possible.Even the smallest thing at this point,because so far no one has really given any reason to go against it that seems logical.
oh right and while this does kind of prove again the fact that an edit feature would be helpful,I do feel the need to add in that yes this has already been suggested and I confirmed this when I found it in the list of commonly suggested ideas,so I will just leave it at that...
This won't matter if they rate it a 1 anyway because if the game is good enough, other peoples ratings will prove the better of it.
Popular games usually get hundreds of votes and one rating won't influence the rating much. Only large quantities of the same rating will show a big impact on the average rating. And I think good people outnumber spammers two to one.
I also think you should be able to "vote up" forum posts. This isn't major but I think some people would like it.
I like the idea, but the up voting idea is generally for finding merit worthy comments. And because you can't get merits in the forums it doesn't have a point.
well Matthewwest while I'm glad you agree with me on this issue I think it would be best that we try to talk about the issue at hand,and not go too far off talking about other things that have already been suggested,unless you are trying to make an argument that concerns them.This typically leads to people going off-topic.I hope you understand,but anyways I'm still waiting for a reason why this would hurt AG in any way possible.Even the smallest thing at this point,because so far no one has really given any reason to go against it that seems logical.
yes, Matthew was getting off topic, but it was only a little post, and seeing as it wasn't a load of gibberish I think it could pas through as okay.
oh right and while this does kind of prove again the fact that an edit feature would be helpful,I do feel the need to add in that yes this has already been suggested and I confirmed this when I found it in the list of commonly suggested ideas,so I will just leave it at that...
This post doesn't explain anything to me and most likely Matthew. All it tells me is that this idea has already been suggested and that it's a commonly suggested idea.
Sounds like a good idea to me, for the people saying that you should play longer before you rate it, sometimes you'll rate a game and either like or not like it then you'll go back and play weeks later, and you'll have a different opinion on it.
