Subpyro said: The joy of submitting a review and watch it climb the ladder will hardly be obtained when there is abuse possible alongside it, hence it is but a dream more or less. I wouldn't go that far in the statement as I still feel the system was working at least 80% fine (without abuse) before. I have 50+ reviews and was never abused for one (not discounting it's existence). But you really need to start considering that abuse is always possible. People will abuse the helpful button, especially when time is involved as it's much simpler. The only abuse-free system is one with no voting buttons at all, and solely "filtered" by score/date or just random (please mods don't get ideas). But even then, just thinking in the moment, you could abuse by re-posting a review if date was a filter. Abuse is a given. In a way, the fact abuse was so clear in the old system was a good thing as it could be called out easily. In this system it'll be much more subtly effective. But also consider that the ladder was the only real form of interaction in the old system, which is why it was fun. What would've been a good move would be to add more interaction, like a comment section Subpyro said: What is factual is that in time, every reviewer loses that drive towards watching their position on the ladder. It just becomes irrelevant. I don't know how much fact that statement really carries, but I never lost the drive. I also found the ladder very useful in finding other critical reviews. If people all get bored of that and still write, than they mine-as-well start talking to the wall. |
BlokeTokesDec 1, 2015 11:46 PM
| I honestly did not understand the OP, seemed very mathematical. Anyway I don't know what is so complicated about upvoting and downvoting (or lack of voting), it's all pretty simple and easy to understand. The reality is that no matter what you do people will always find ways to agree or disagree with reviews that regardless of whether they are accurate or inaccurate, and which no system can change. If people want to find reviews that aren't the super popular ones, they can find them, if they don't, they don't, there is no real need to interfere. There also isn't really any basis for concluding that newer reviews are going to be better than ones that have been around forever, either, or, vice versa. |
DoubleMangekyo said: "Kay. Now how about an option to hide reviews altogether as a default? So much this, I've never though that any of those personal opinions masked as 'reviews' should have any impact in the shows I've watched because of: First, with just a little glimpse at any review and you can see how messed and biased they are, people here love to put their personal opinions above everything, they ignore rules, other people opinions and common sense, what is the point of creating a review which only talks shit about a series without any explanation? Second, to make things worse a lot of bad reviews (or those reviews with one to six lines) appears above good reviews a lot of times and this makes me think if there is any moderation working at this part of the site. The reviews section should have a moderating team bigger than it has at the moment (if there is any moderating team at all) before any type of change (well not only this section but the site as a whole), because if things goes like this changing everything without proper control you won't will be able to handle it in the future and it's clear how it is already happening. xbobx said: Thank you, MAL Staff for your everlasting attention to user feedback; Your insightful and flawless community interaction; But above all, your interest in improving the site in collaboration with users! Thank you for providing such a great environment! I'm proud of being an user of this site and this wonderful community. Not sure if it is sarcasm or not, my bells are ringing loud. Explanation is needed here. |
 |
Jonny_Mhl said: First, with just a little glimpse at any review and you can see how messed and biased they are, people here love to put their personal opinions above everything, they ignore rules, other people opinions and common sense, what is the point of creating a review which only talks shit about a series without any explanation? Second, to make things worse a lot of bad reviews (or those reviews with one to six lines) appears above good reviews a lot of times and this makes me think if there is any moderation working at this part of the site. The reviews section should have a moderating team bigger than it has at the moment (if there is any moderating team at all) before any type of change (well not only this section but the site as a whole), because if things goes like this changing everything without proper control you won't will be able to handle it in the future and it's clear how it is already happening. Perhaps you should apply for said review moderator position, since you know so well about what has and hasn't been done, along with your own personal vision of how the section of the site should look, then. PS: since you can't be bothered to look, there are review moderators currently. |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
lawlmartz said: Jonny_Mhl said: First, with just a little glimpse at any review and you can see how messed and biased they are, people here love to put their personal opinions above everything, they ignore rules, other people opinions and common sense, what is the point of creating a review which only talks shit about a series without any explanation? Second, to make things worse a lot of bad reviews (or those reviews with one to six lines) appears above good reviews a lot of times and this makes me think if there is any moderation working at this part of the site. The reviews section should have a moderating team bigger than it has at the moment (if there is any moderating team at all) before any type of change (well not only this section but the site as a whole), because if things goes like this changing everything without proper control you won't will be able to handle it in the future and it's clear how it is already happening. Perhaps you should apply for said review moderator position, since you know so well about what has and hasn't been done, along with your own personal vision of how the section of the site should look, then. PS: since you can't be bothered to look, there are review moderators currently. I used to be a mod on a games site and I used to delete/lock thousands of entries/posts in every goddamn day and I really don't want to do it again so soon. Yeah I know there is a very small and almost non existent moderation team working on the reviews, that's why I've said they need more moderators in that area ASAP, because if they continue with this small team nothing will be different, people will continue to mess up with the reviews even with the new system because there is no real control over it, you can see how toxic some areas of those forums are even with moderators around, now think about the review area with only a few people looking after it. What a mean with the review section is: as a watcher why should I watch a show if the reviews are totally negative or full of disinformation? Reviews should be used to make people more interested about a show which they haven't watched yet (or read in the case of manga) and as you said on your blog post the reviews should be also well written/legible and without trolls and spoilers. http://myanimelist.net/reviews.php?id=204596 This is one example of what I'm talking about. I've read your blog post and I agree with some of your ideas but the one about the score tiering could be like the one used on Steam: 95% overwhelmingly positive, 83% very positive, 69% positive, 50% mixed, 40% negative, 25% mostly negative and 15-0% overwhelmingly negative. Also it should have a threshold of at least 50-100 watched/read series before being able to post a review to avoid all the spam we see daily on the news panel. |
| |
| To the ones stating that the review aspect of MAL requires more moderators, know that the applications are currently widely open. Anyone is free to apply. Though that does not necessarily mean that anyone who applies will be recruited. On the contrary, the amount of the ones applying and not really fitting the role can be quite high for various reasons. You see, review moderation requires just as much skill in community approach as it does in the execution of rather detailed guidelines. As such, there aren't really that many that would do great in a day-to-day basis as review mods, though that is rather hard to explain exactly why. It is factual that the position requires a lot of 'labor work'. Furthermore, each case is different, making the reviews a perpetual grey zone which has to be judged one by one, with more and more cases pilling up. It is the type of repetitive work that requires patience and constant focus to do right. From that alone, you can picture that the position does take its toll. It is tiring and one requires quite some dedication, drive and skill at it. But the issue comes in that many times, the 'skill' aspect in this matter is related to rationality. However, people that are rational like to rationally see the big picture. And the big picture is that being a review moderator takes a hell lot of time and energy that could be used more productively in your life, to put it that way. Hence the 'appropriate' users choose not to apply. From the ones that do apply for whatever reason, however, not many fit the bill. One requires the drive and determination, but at the same time have a lot of common sense, respect the community and other staff members and not show signs of exceeding aggression. The two sides usually don't like each other, however. If a user is in only for the status, they will apply successfully but won't last long under the pressure due to the determination being necessary. If a user is determined and loves reviews, there is a high chance that they will be seen as someone who acts 'off', which could potentially lead drama to the team which the MAL staff wants to avoid. If a user both holds a sweet point for reviews and is collected, they probably will also see that dedicating oneself to the moderator status is too much of a toll and will decide not to apply. From this last group, however, some actually spend so much time on MAL and still remain at the 'correct mindset'. It is those that do well as moderators. In reality, it is destroying them, but they more or less are sacrificing themselves for the community instead of doing something better for themselves. It is those that the staff, and at the end of the day, the community is looking for to look after reviews. But the numbers of those are relatively really low and rightfully so. On the other hand, recruiting more moderators that wouldn't exactly fit the part and by that bring some sort of compensated members to the team could result in more harm than benefit. At the end of the day, they could just recruit those who they believe they could trust and look remotely well-suited. But at that time the staff's list would constantly change, with people coming and going, which is not a bad thing under any means, it just requires an active management team to handle the part, which MAL currently does not have. A single person which is also responsible for other aspects of the website (Kineta) could not handle it and it would be unreasonable to burden her with it. It is a path MAL has chosen. Searching for the rare gems. It is not wrong, but it is risky. Then again, it fits the part. MAL always was focusing on quality above everything else in aspects such as information in the databases. Looking for an optimum by leaning towards lower quantity and higher quality in the staff is one of the ways, but you cannot expect perfect results. |
SubbedDec 4, 2015 12:05 PM
Nervin said: With these new changes, I have oberved an increase in the "bad" reviews (ie short "reviews" that consist of a paragraph) as others already have pointed out. Stricter review guidelines or review editors could solve the problem of "bad" reviews. Also, sometimes a paragraph is sufficient. Short isn't always bad. If users can see (with the future updates) who upvoted/downvoted on reviews, wouldn't it make the downvote raids much less significant, as it will be easily traceable? Visible not-helpful votes would increase conflicts between users, such as people asking "why did you downvote that review?!" |
aikaflip said: same could be asked about why did they liked that review (expecially if it was a troll or heavily fan-biased review)Visible not-helpful votes would increase conflicts between users, such as people asking "why did you downvote that review?!" and anyway, so far they can give an answer what's the harm? if they start spamming there is always the report and block options (as if people don't already use your list and favorites as arguments when they want an excuse to criticize or a justification, you can't escape from that) |
 Fixes to make the Profile more bearable after "the Modern★Profile★Update★★Rip★Profile★" |
Subpyro said: All of that can be solved if the direction they're going changed to trust the user-base more and put them mostly in-charge of handling things. If they developed a system that could track unusual numbers of voters in a day by a ratio/percentage system, I would think that could track vote-raids. From there you could just cancel that day's votes all-together if it is at such an extreme difference in voters compared to prior days - this being automated, without moderation. I'd rather have an automated system make that assumption with a sorting system than just having a bunch of filters. |
BlokeTokesDec 5, 2015 12:42 AM
aikaflip said: Visible not-helpful votes would increase conflicts between users, such as people asking "why did you downvote that review?!" You can moderate your own profile. And that might be more of a curious question than a raged one. Could also make the reviewer learn something. |
Piegoose said: All of that can be solved if the direction they're going changed to trust the user-base more and put them mostly in-charge of handling things. If they developed a system that could track unusual numbers of voters in a day by a ratio/percentage system, I would think that could track vote-raids. From there you could just cancel that day's votes all-together if it is at such an extreme difference in voters compared to prior days - this being automated, without moderation. I'd rather have an automated system make that assumption with a sorting system than just having a bunch of filters. It's not that simple as some create well-over 100 accounts simply to cast a single downvote on a single review with one of them, potentially also logging in with proxy through these accounts. It might seem like I'm exaggerating over here, but I'm really not; things are like that. But if it wouldn't go to such extremes, I would agree with your idea, as the further moderation necessary wouldn't be that excessive. But as said, things aren't all that sweet. |
| it would be interesting to have the members vote the "helpful-ness" of the whole review system.. (maybe i could make a thread for that) |
Fixes to make the Profile more bearable after "the Modern★Profile★Update★★Rip★Profile★" |
yhunata said: MAL, you might honestly want to change the default sorting method for the anime page. This is the third review shown and it isn't even a fucking review. He's literally telling you not to read any reviews and to watch the series. But that's why you didn't hit that Helpful option, is it not? ;) Just a notice in case anyone is interested, I'm making a suggestion thread soon to improve the current Weighted system by adding something called a Threshold. As it is, the reviews currently get pumped up by votes received at the review's submission and maybe a day later, due to these reviews appearing on the Recent Reviews page. At such time, their Helpful/Time value is insanely high (more than 1 if the Time reference is one day) and then it simply drops due to reviews not being as actively voted on later on in time, but the time still constantly going onward. As such, this Threshold would increase the power on votes in time, meaning that the more time it has passed and the review then receiving a vote, the more it would influence the 'Helpful' factor in the Helpful/Time ratio. I don't have any exact scale ready yet, but it could increase slightly exponentially. That is because a linear increase in power would make it increase far too soon, and while the 'normal times' might be alike, the beginning (review's submission) and long future (let's say, 10 years time) might reach immense extremes. As such, it has to be an altered curve. |
Subpyro said: yhunata said: MAL, you might honestly want to change the default sorting method for the anime page. This is the third review shown and it isn't even a fucking review. He's literally telling you not to read any reviews and to watch the series. But that's why you didn't hit that Helpful option, is it not? ;) I reported it, as it is not a review. But if you want me to not hit the helpful button if a review is bad, I would have to do so for well over 75% of the so called "reviews" we have on this site. P.S. I'm being generous with the 75%. |
 |
yhunata said: I reported it, as it is not a review. But if you want me to not hit the helpful button if a review is bad, I would have to do so for well over 75% of the so called "reviews" we have on this site. P.S. I'm being generous with the 75%. From all the reviews I've read fully on MAL, I've clicked the Helpful option for less than a single percent. |
| I myself write reviews often as well, and I can say that the quality has dropped overall, and I rarely vote helpful in the "lastest reviews" section page as well anymore. It is shame that most people won't bother with the section anymore because of this issue. |
 |
Subpyro said: It's not that simple as some create well-over 100 accounts simply to cast a single downvote on a single review with one of them Ya that's the point, this wouldn't track what a specific account does, but it would track the activity on a single review. Let's say the review usually gets 1 vote every 3 days. If one day it suddenly gets 10 votes, that would be cancelled out automatically - the system assuming it was a raid. The accounts wouldn't have any back-lash to them as there would have to be moderation to see if the account is suspicious enough. |
Piegoose said: Ya that's the point, this wouldn't track what a specific account does, but it would track the activity on a single review. Let's say the review usually gets 1 vote every 3 days. If one day it suddenly gets 10 votes, that would be cancelled out automatically - the system assuming it was a raid. The accounts wouldn't have any back-lash to them as there would have to be moderation to see if the account is suspicious enough. Still unclean as; a) That would cancel out a legit vote or two between there b) The abusers could simply cast a single downvote per day, every day of the year - they are that determined Your idea is on the right track, though. I would upgrade it simply with something like a requirement of 3 months of account existing plus at least 125 forum posts and 25 comments made before being able to vote. It would erase most doubt of quick-shoot alternatives. |
Subpyro said: Still unclean as; a) That would cancel out a legit vote or two between there b) The abusers could simply cast a single downvote per day, every day of the year - they are that determined Your idea is on the right track, though. I would upgrade it simply with something like a requirement of 3 months of account existing plus at least 125 forum posts and 25 comments made before being able to vote. It would erase most doubt of quick-shoot alternatives. Who cares about voting? What I've seen in this thread is a lot of "all the reviews suck and I wouldn't vote on them anyway" The QUALITY of the writing in the section is what needs to change at this point. That, and when the season ends, there's always a flood of voters on reviews for the series that just finished, which would throw a major wrench into Piegoose said: Ya that's the point, this wouldn't track what a specific account does, but it would track the activity on a single review. Let's say the review usually gets 1 vote every 3 days. If one day it suddenly gets 10 votes, that would be cancelled out automatically - the system assuming it was a raid. The accounts wouldn't have any back-lash to them as there would have to be moderation to see if the account is suspicious enough. whatever this is ^^^ |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
lawlmartz said: Who cares about voting? What I've seen in this thread is a lot of "all the reviews suck and I wouldn't vote on them anyway" The QUALITY of the writing in the section is what needs to change at this point. That sort of mindset is just useless, really. The people will submit what the people will submit, you cannot force them to write something that would necessarily have to meet someone else's standards. What you can do is order the reviews based on these said standards. And that is what we are trying to pull out here. |
Subpyro said: lawlmartz said: Who cares about voting? What I've seen in this thread is a lot of "all the reviews suck and I wouldn't vote on them anyway" The QUALITY of the writing in the section is what needs to change at this point. That sort of mindset is just useless, really. The people will submit what the people will submit, you cannot force them to write something that would necessarily have to meet someone else's standards. What you can do is order the reviews based on these said standards. And that is what we are trying to pull out here. If you enforce actual standards upon the section, the writing will change. There will be those who can't be bothered to write things like this if you enforce criteria based on what I've laid out in my blog. Holding periods for accounts less than one month old, and length specifications at the very least. Curbing voting is even more difficult than writing, because it takes even LESS effort to click a helpful or not helpful than to drum up a review like the one I linked above. I mean, you have to go to that anime's page, click write a review, actually put something in the box, assign scores, and then submit it. That's at the very least 4 clicks vs the 2 it takes to vote a review up/down. Twice the effort, not including actually typing anything! |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
Subpyro said: a) That would cancel out a legit vote or two between there It's a fair sacrifice to make to have sorting at all. The general rating would still be there and honestly a sudden 10 votes in one day (in that scenario) wouldn't be likely and would prolly be from a raid. Subpyro said: b) The abusers could simply cast a single downvote per day, every day of the year - they are that determined I doubt they are, but that also would mean that this system is clear to everyone. I wouldn't explain how this system works out in the open but have it working behind the scenes. People who do down-vote raids are clearly immature and probably aren't too deep into the reviewing community. Subpyro said: I would upgrade it simply with something like a requirement of 3 months of account existing plus at least 125 forum posts and 25 comments made before being able to vote. It would erase most doubt of quick-shoot alternatives. I was thinking of something like that, but don't think comments and forum posts are the best way to go about it since some people aren't into that. I think the best I can think of is, again, the account-existing requirement. |
BlokeTokesDec 6, 2015 8:08 PM
lawlmartz said: when the season ends, there's always a flood of voters on reviews for the series that just finished, which would throw a major wrench into Piegoose said: whatever this is ^^^ Ya, I didn't want to go on too long in an explanation, but the system could work on it's own. The reviews start as the show airs, and the vote ratio changes naturally with that. Over time the show will get less popular and votes will drop by some system that tracks the average over recent time. The average will still be tracked at the start though, and maybe there will be some progressive system that could analyze votes like, for example: Day 1,2,3,4 - Average 100 votes per day Day 5 (show finishes) - 200 votes [The system stalls updating those votes to track further days] Day 6 - 250 votes Day 7,8,9 - Average 200 votes per day [System finally updates the votes as the pattern is consistent enough] So, basically the votes are held to test how out of nowhere a bombardment is. YouTube has a similar system that I don't fully understand how it works, but the number of likes/dislikes will stop at like 300 or something and sit there for hours as it follows some system of authorizing them. |
BlokeTokesDec 6, 2015 8:31 PM
lawlmartz said: If you enforce actual standards upon the section, the writing will change. The issue with that is that it still will be somewhat biased criteria. The sorting system effectively merges everyone's criteria and those that don't meet the majority will fall under. It was fairly effective, while some reviews during time of popularity would still get a boost from fans sometimes. lawlmartz said: Twice the effort, not including actually typing anything! If this is alluding to needing to give feeback with an vote, that would be a great idea. A comment section for any system they decide on would be an improvement actually, but tying words to a vote, with maybe a minimum length then, would make it not as easy to vote without thought. EDIT: Thinking on it though it would probably turn a lot of people off from going through with their votes. Not everyone wants to explain their thoughts, they just want to say "ya, I agree". I mentioned a few pages back that helpful buttons that section off why a review was helpful/not-helpful could be a good step in that direction to test, but maybe the step all the way to required-comments is too much atm. |
BlokeTokesDec 6, 2015 8:27 PM
Piegoose said: Ya, I didn't want to go on too long in an explanation, but the system could work on it's own. The reviews start as the show airs, and the vote ratio changes naturally with that. Over time the show will get less popular and votes will drop by some system that tracks the average over recent time. The average will still be tracked at the start though, and maybe there will be some progressive system that could analyze votes like, for example: Day 1,2,3,4 - Average 100 votes per day Day 5 (show finishes) - 200 votes [The system stalls updating those votes to track further days] Day 6 - 250 votes Day 7,8,9 - Average 200 votes per day [System finally updates the votes as the pattern is consistent enough] ^too much coding, too little reward. You've succeeded in curbing nothing. You just hid votes, and punished the reviewer, nothing more. It needs to be incremental changes from now on, really. These sweeping half-hearted overhauls don't do anything but make people mad. I maintain that the best way to move forward is the holding period on accounts, and a minimum word count. The issue with that is that it still will be somewhat biased criteria. Duh? It has to be "biased". When you have a free for all of writing, you see what you get. It's happening out there now. You have to enforce a standard upon people because they're not going to do it for themselves. how I imagine MAL staff looks reading this: |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
| I finally had enough of this idiotic implementation of a "weighting" algorithm, and reverted to most helpful (all time) Guess what ? It still is "weighted" on the anime's main page. A review with bloody 5 - FIVE! - helpfuls is topping a review with 2556 ! - TWOTHOUSANDFIVEHUNDRENDANDFIFTYSIX votes. WTBF ? I choose (all time) then I want to see (all time) and not this FAIL that is your (weighted). Respect our choice! And what exactly keeps you from putting in a damn threshold (minimum value needed) for number of helpfuls and time. This is basics! Damn bloody fix this already. |
BannoBunka_snorkDec 7, 2015 6:56 PM
| *darn, using my right hand is off-limits for a while. Typing with my left hand only is ... eww.* |
lawlmartz said: ^too much coding, too little reward I don't see how gaining a sorting system is "too little" a reward. If it is and everyone agrees that it is, then I'm not even sure what much of the conversation taking place before was for. But, for me, gaining a sorting system is the ideal goal, so if that was received that would be the ideal reward if anything. And yes I would expect coding to be involved to get this done. The system won't fix itself, and everyone - and the mods themselves - have made it clear that adding features that requires more work out of them on a daily basis isn't going to happen. So sorting can't really be achieved through any method besides coding... lawlmartz said: You've succeeded in curbing nothing. ... if combating raids is truly a priority. lawlmartz said: You just hid votes, and punished the reviewer, nothing more. In the scenario best supporting what you're saying, only a portion of the reviewers would take a minor hit to their potential spotlight. However, the other side of the coin is that we now have sorting and a number of other reviewers were protected by raids which would've affected their spotlight much more than the dents taken to those fortunate. lawlmartz said: These sweeping half-hearted overhauls don't do anything but make people mad. Firslty, any non-insulting comment shouldn't make anybody mad unless everyone pushes everyone to be quiet and simply respond to these posts that mods need to halt review-system work and focus on discussion. Since that isn't happening though, throwing in new ideas really shouldn't cause anger. Also, I'll actually admit yes my idea is half-baked, but the point is to throw something out there to show how things could be solved in a different direction and generate discussion. And you can't say it's impossible as YouTube has accomplished this through some coded method. lawlmartz said: I maintain that the best way to move forward is the holding period on accounts, and a minimum word count. If everyone agrees with you, go ahead, but I personally would see that as heading in a worse direction. In the old thread people considered things such as review moderators in the way of handing in reviews to them for them to decide their worth. I see your preference as a step in that direction, and even if it doesn't go further it still creates a light type of that environment. I don't want a system that restricts how I review and expects certain things out of me. I want a free system where I can write a paragraph or two if I feel it'll get across my point briefly (which I've done before and the majority didn't deem it "not helpful") - and it's not like I was lazy either - I truly just felt there wasn't much to say and I would be re-iterating and wasting my and the readers time if I went on. I am only interested in a system that prioritizes interaction and open mechanics. I, however, would be fine with light restrictions for accounts to be able to participate in reviewing, like maybe a 2-4 week period, but limiting reviews isn't what I'm for. P.S. If the staff looks like that then I'm clearly taking part in the wrong community. But I have a feeling that your idea is actually less of what they want considering that their move to helpful-only shows they are prioritizing a larger community open to casuals. |
BlokeTokesDec 7, 2015 9:22 PM
| As others have pointed out already, the main problem is the quality of the reviews, not whether it receives a lot of helpfuls or not, as this is dependent on the popularity of the show, the score given and the quality itself. I can agree to the fact that reviews do not necesarrily need to be long, yet most of the reviews seen these days have the same thing in common: only expressing that they either liked or disliked the show, rather than pointing out why they liked or disliked it. Subpyro said: Your idea is on the right track, though. I would upgrade it simply with something like a requirement of 3 months of account existing plus at least 125 forum posts and 25 comments made before being able to vote. It would erase most doubt of quick-shoot alternatives. This seems way too harsh for my own likes; assuming this was indeed implemented, it would mean myself wouldn't be eligible to even vote on reviews until a short while ago, which is ridiculous. Would I need to go through the forums to post various comments, just to be able to vote? Not everyone here is active on the forums or either on the comments section, as there are quite a lot that just use MAL for keeping track of their animelist and reading reviews. Besides, for newer reviewers like myself, it would be totally pointless to even try to get an old review noticed when there are ones with over 1000+ helpfuls, which the only option would be reviewing airing series. Again, rather than limiting the reviewer himself by putting such restrictions to voting, quality should be the priority. Piegoose said: I am only interested in a system that prioritizes interaction and open mechanics. I, however, would be fine with light restrictions for accounts to be able to participate in reviewing, like maybe a 2-4 week period, but limiting reviews isn't what I'm for. Seems like a good idea. |
|
Nervin said: As others have pointed out already, the main problem is the quality of the reviews, not whether it receives a lot of helpfuls or not, as this is dependent on the popularity of the show, the score given and the quality itself. I can agree to the fact that reviews do not necesarrily need to be long, yet most of the reviews seen these days have the same thing in common: only expressing that they either liked or disliked the show, rather than pointing out why they liked or disliked it. It's true a popular show will get more votes, but I wouldn't correlate that to meaning they get more helpful over not-helpful votes. Also, sorting worked on a percentage system that made the amount of votes not too relevant to exposure. It was about majority rules, and that works as later in a show's life there will naturally be less people browsing the reviews. And I personally felt in the old system that letting the community interact with downvotes held back the majority of bad reviews, and the first page or two of reviews would usually contain the reviews I'd consider good. I agree there are simplistic reviews out there, but I honestly find them easy to avoid and they usually wouldn't last with the not-helpful button. I don't like the idea of censoring those reviews though as I like the review system being open to everyone, the overall community deciding what should get exposure. Taking that away might even split the community in some fashion But that goes straight back to why the not-helpful button was removed, being the abuse of the button. That is why I think a system that tracks the average votes over the past few weeks or something could track sudden bursts of votes which would usually never occur naturally (at least from experience with my 43 reviews). So you'd have a system that could protect, but if it was really some sudden growth in popularity, a consistent outburst in votes over time (maybe a week) would be accepted in the system as to allow room for growth in popularity. I think that system sounds workable, fair, and effective. |
Piegoose said: I agree there are simplistic reviews out there, but I honestly find them easy to avoid and they usually wouldn't last with the not-helpful button. I don't like the idea of censoring those reviews though as I like the review system being open to everyone, the overall community deciding what should get exposure. Taking that away might even split the community in some fashion Please please tell me this is tongue in cheek. Piegoose, my comment about half baked ideas was not targeted at you. The half baked ideas that are getting implemented are coming from the staff. If they implemented your idea, something might actually change for the better, but as it stands, your idea is a lot more difficult to implement than my two smaller ones aimed at curbing a behavior, not at hiding it. Mine can be implemented with very simple if-then statements using information that the system already has. It doesn't require new, complex formulae. Simple = faster implementation, and as I've said these are steps to fixing a larger problem. You say a sorting system is a reward. They've put one in. Is it great? No. But there is one. Combating raids? It's not a priority anymore. That got smooshed with the removal of "not helpful", remember? Also, you have to admit- there wouldn't be a problem with the review section if it weren't so easy to exploit. If you make it harder to exploit (or less things to vote on, meaning less exploitables) then you see improvement. As Nervin said, as I've said, and I'm sure there are others- Nervin said: the main problem is the quality of the reviews, not whether it receives a lot of helpfuls or not, as this is dependent on the popularity of the show, the score given and the quality itself. We can play the what if game... what if there were no scores, would people quit voting altogether? or only vote on things they actually found useful through reading? Would people then just upvote any show they liked? Would people actually write decent things if a word count was imposed on them? Would people who write trash posts that still break the guidelines at that imposed length? Would people just copy and paste their one complete sentence over and over to make word count? Will there still be trash? The answer to all of these is YES. Yes, people are still going to write crap, but if you make it harder for them to write crap, less people are going to do it. This is basic economics. You price the low end people out of the market- not necessarily up until only those who are willing to pay the highest price are left, but until you reach a market equilibrium. Right now, we're at a shortage (of good reviews). A bad one. Good reviews are obviously in demand or we wouldn't be here. Supply is way low though. Raise the price, MAL. |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
lawlmartz said: Please please tell me this is tongue in cheek. I don't see how it's that wild of a claim to make with censorship of casual reviews in mind (which wouldn't be achieved simply be adding required minimum length). Right now all users can contribute to the reviews so it feels as an extension to community interaction. When you suddenly make it so only a number of individuals are allowed to review, you don't have an extension of the community, but the broadcasts from a selective group. Makes sense that some people would begin to talk down the reviewers as a whole then as it's not all of the community involved. lawlmartz said: You say a sorting system is a reward. They've put one in. If you're talking in the present, it's actually a filtering system not a sorting system. Kineta actually made that distinction too. Filtering filters content by irrelevant things or generalized things (like number score), while sorting uses ratios to form the ladder-type design you've noted before. lawlmartz said: That got smooshed with the removal of "not helpful", remember? I personally don't believe that. The capability of abuse is still very much there with time in as a factor. Just make an account and upvote your review every week and it'll probably stay around the top. What actually makes it worse is that it'll just much less noticeable now, so people can't complain to mods because they won't even realize it - since nothing is directly effecting other's reviews negatively. lawlmartz said: the main problem is the quality of the reviews I never saw that as a problem in the old system. Like I said, I always thought the first page or two contained the majority of reviews I'd consider good - while not all of what was there is what I'd consider good. Even so, good reviews were easy to find. With no voting mechanic at all, it'll be synonymous with writing to the wall, no feedback of any sort what-so-ever. If they added comments that'd be something, but they said they wouldn't when I asked them in the old thread - due to moderation they feel would be necessary (while I disagree, they don't have to delete bad comments, users can just down-vote them if they allowed it). To achieve that goal I'd say join this club ( http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=2913 ) and check out the other user's stuff as they have to meet requirements. lawlmartz said: what if there were no scores, would people quit voting altogether? It doesn't have to be removed, but I see no reason why it has to be required. I don't think scoring things is pointless, but I do think you have to look at the user's range to get an idea what that given score truly means - which most people probably don't do. lawlmartz said: if you make it harder for them to write crap, less people are going to do it I'd agree with that, but I still see a sorting system as the other solution which accomplished the same goal without restrictions and with more interaction involved. Having only well-written reviews would be a nice thing, but I feel interaction is another thing we should be prioritized. I won't feel motivated to type walls of texts that receive nothing in return. People may comment on my profile in response, but that's only happened about 5 times for my 43 reviews, some to the same review. |
BlokeTokesDec 9, 2015 2:02 AM
| @Piegoose you said "might even split the community in some fashion" is the community not already split over how the review section has been handled? Why are we even here then??? When you suddenly make it so only a number of individuals are allowed to review My means are temporarily exclusionary. Plenty of other sites out there do not allow you access to parts of the site based on payment (surely there are some based on time as well)... it's not like we're making a pay to play game out of reviewing, but it's a known fact that a lot of these garbage/spam reviews come from accounts made within the last month. I've sat there and counted before. You can go right now and count. If it does amount to only delaying the garbage they might spew by a month, at least at kept it out for SOME amount of time. let me ask you directly, since I don't think you understand the goal here: Do you or do you not think that there is an issue with the quality of the reviews out there? Like I said, I always thought the first page or two contained the majority of reviews I'd consider good - while not all of what was there is what I'd consider good. This is contradictory. Answer my question straight, yes or no. you don't have an extension of the community, but the broadcasts from a selective group. Already is, already has been, always will be. You have in-group out-group. Those who have written a review, and those who haven't. It's a binary thing. There is no question. Lawlmartz said: You say a sorting system is a reward. They've put one in. That got smooshed with the removal of "not helpful", remember? these are jokes. ^ That club you linked has the most ridiculously arbitrary rules I've seen. No one is talking about implementing those kinds of rules on reviewing except Subpyro. Having only well-written reviews would be a nice thing, but I feel interaction is another thing we should be prioritized. I won't feel motivated to type walls of texts that receive nothing in return. People may comment on my profile in response, but that's only happened about 5 times for my 43 reviews, some to the same review. How it's always been, how it's going to be. You can't force the entire site-wide community to be community minded. You have to build your own. I've said that before about this site, but probably not on this thread. Idealism is cool, but that's just wishful thinking. |
| How to fix the review section, detailed here The average reader (HS level) reads at about 200 WPM. So a 500-800 word review should take 3-5 minutes to read. That's an acceptable length for something you're interested in spending 25 minutes to 4.5 hours of your life watching. Oh, and ANN requires any and all reviews to be 800-1200 words, no matter the length of the show. |
Piegoose said: Ya that's the point, this wouldn't track what a specific account does, but it would track the activity on a single review. Let's say the review usually gets 1 vote every 3 days. If one day it suddenly gets 10 votes, that would be cancelled out automatically - the system assuming it was a raid. The accounts wouldn't have any back-lash to them as there would have to be moderation to see if the account is suspicious enough. Sorry but what? This is terrible. Because: -There are a lot of reasons why a review might get more votes that are perfectly legit. Anything that can bring more attention to a series will do. For example, the end of a show, the beginning of a climatic arc, the announcement of a dub or sequel, the anime watching challenges that are organised here, the resume of a manga/anime that was on hiatus, the advertising of the reviews (to friends, in threads about people's opinion on a show and the like) etc. -If such a system was implemented, then there is no way for a review's weighted score (helpfuls/time) to ever increase after a certain point/time. Even if a lot more (legit) users find a review "helpful" than when it was originally posted (this is very possible), the votes will simply be deleted because they occur at a faster rate than before. Trusting a computer/an algorithm with no human participation for something like this is like trusting Google translate for an important translation. |
Agafin said: Sorry but what? This is terrible. Because: Well the other mechanic I mentioned was that the system could track the amount of votes days after the random peak that put the updating of the review on halt. Like if the 10 votes happened out of nowhere to the 3-votes-a-day review (which isn't the best example actually of how different the numbers should be, but it's just presenting the idea), the system would track the next maybe 2-3 days and see if the numbers are consistent - maybe a few more days. But I feel there has to be some sacrifices made be able to combat raids, have a sorting system, while also not being able to increase moderation. And it's not like things aren't being handled any less by a computer right now, at least in my system most people would have their vote placed. And I do understand some random vote spikes could be legit, but from my experience, vote spikes are very uncommon. |
lawlmartz said: is the community not already split over how the review section has been handled? Why are we even here then??? I didn't see that we're split, just in disagreement on how a broken system should've been fixed. Disagreement would usually lead to some middle ground, but since the mods aren't listening I'd just say it's more the whole reviewing community that had the not-helpful is a little frustrated right now - even if they feel the current system isn't terrible. lawlmartz said: let me ask you directly, since I don't think you understand the goal here: Do you or do you not think that there is an issue with the quality of the reviews out there? In the old system, no I didn't think there was an issue - while I did see some bad reviews. Currently, I haven't looked enough to have a solid opinion, but it surely does look more wonky. Also take note I usually come to shows a while after they were released, so I don't see the beginning hyped reviews at the top usually. lawlmartz said: This is contradictory. Answer my question straight, yes or no. How's that statement contradictory by the way? lawlmartz said: you don't have an extension of the community, but the broadcasts from a selective group. Already is, already has been, always will be. You have in-group out-group. Those who have written a review, and those who haven't. It's a binary thing. There is no question.But as you said above, there'd be less people involved if your idea came to pass. Less people = more selective with not many carrying casual perspectives, which in turn begins to make those reviews more of a broadcast for a group than extension of whole community (as in it being an open mechanic). lawlmartz said: That club you linked has the most ridiculously arbitrary rules I've seen. No one is talking about implementing those kinds of rules on reviewing except Subpyro. But how is word-length any less arbitrary? I feel I can get a critical point across in a fairly short length, but if there was a minimum I'd have to artificially extend my review or bring in other aspects I don't feel are that important to pad out the length - unless your minimum is around two paragraphs, which I guess would be fine. lawlmartz said: How it's always been, how it's going to be. You can't force the entire site-wide community to be community minded. You have to build your own. I've said that before about this site, but probably not on this thread. Idealism is cool, but that's just wishful thinking. Well I was speaking from the past, the ladder to be specific. There was some interaction going on with that. It wasn't perfect though and I was actually wanting improvements to the system before they hacked away at it. But even so, no voting at all with no comments is much less interaction and more a list of text-walls. I do suppose if the reviewing community got very selective though that there might be more talk in-between those involved, but I don't think it'd be that much more than there already is. It'd prolly be better to join a critical club at that point, like the one I listed, which has discussion boards that focus on that. |
BlokeTokesDec 11, 2015 12:58 PM
Piegoose said: Well the other mechanic I mentioned was that the system could track the amount of votes days after the random peak that put the updating of the review on halt. Like if the 10 votes happened out of nowhere to the 3-votes-a-day review (which isn't the best example actually of how different the numbers should be, but it's just presenting the idea), the system would track the next maybe 2-3 days and see if the numbers are consistent - maybe a few more days. But I feel there has to be some sacrifices made be able to combat raids, have a sorting system, while also not being able to increase moderation. And it's not like things aren't being handled any less by a computer right now, at least in my system most people would have their vote placed. And I do understand some random vote spikes could be legit, but from my experience, vote spikes are very uncommon. This suggestion doesn't solve the vote raids in any way at all: we are talking of people who are willing to go through the hassle of creating over 30 accounts, each with a separate email account. These people will easily have the patience to wait each day/period of time to upvote a review if necessary; and Agafin already pointed clearly out why this is a bad idea in his post. Besides, why must the majority of reviewers suffer for the sake of purging those unlegitamate votes? That is just stupid, as the current political affairs is, if you know what I mean. And again, as lawlmartz mentioned before and as I did, if the quality of the reviews were better than they're now, these vote raid's wouldn't even be that big of a importance. Sure, it would be unfair for those who are doing it "legit", besides that with the unhelpful option gone, and consequently the percentage system, these vote raids have little impact. And votes were supposed to be visible right? @Piegoose: you seem to be intent on having a more interactive system, but let's face the fact: near to none would make use of it as it stands now. I like the idea as well, but it would be a pointless implementation at the moment with the current reviewing system. |
|
Nervin said: This suggestion doesn't solve the vote raids in any way at all: we are talking of people who are willing to go through the hassle of creating over 30 accounts, each with a separate email account. These people will easily have the patience to wait each day/period of time to upvote a review if necessary; and Agafin already pointed clearly out why this is a bad idea in his post. Besides, why must the majority of reviewers suffer for the sake of purging those unlegitamate votes? That is just stupid, as the current political affairs is, if you know what I mean. Would you not say the majority of reviewers are suffering from those few right now? My idea isn't worse than the current in that regards. Also, from my experience, vote spikes have never happened besides when I posted my review (but I could imagine it being a bit more common for recent shows, but tracking following days could appease that). I don't think the suffering would be as far and wide or powerful as it is now. And people keep saying these people are willing to do anything (while I honestly don't believe to an extent), but with the addition of a 3 week restriction to join in on reviewing/voting for new accounts, that could aid in those spamming accounts. The system itself also wouldn't be written in public for all to see, so many of those immature that just want to get back probably won't look into how things work to deep and expect each vote to count just fine. Also, I believe number scores are an effective motivator for immature vote-raid behavior, so making that optional would - I strongly believe - further limit the quick fix of voting raids, requiring the person to deliberate on each review after reading to see if it's worthy of raiding. Nervin said: And again, as lawlmartz mentioned before and as I did, if the quality of the reviews were better than they're now, these vote raid's wouldn't even be that big of a importance. I didn't see lawl say that exactly, but I wouldn't agree with that idea. I would see someone willing to vote raid as immature and looking at the basics to lead to a raid - being the number score. I'd assume the anime in question is a loved one of the immature guy, so he sees a top review with "4/10" and naturally gets upset. I don't think how deep the review is would solve that very much, besides making legit people not vote the review "not helpful" for good reasons (which isn't part of the vote-raid issue). Nervin said: besides that with the unhelpful option gone, and consequently the percentage system, these vote raids have little impact. And votes were supposed to be visible right? Is that saying the current system is already effectively against vote-raids? Well I would agree this new system was made with that intention, but as Agafin also said before, I believe the current system is very susceptible to abuse still - just in a way that's more effective with less notice. If one just upvotes their own review every week-or-so, they've effectively spotlighted their review the whole time with no clear notice as to if it was legit or not. And, as I also said like 3 months ago, if tracking each vote fixes that issue - then why wouldn't it also fix the not-helpful button's issue in the first place? Nervin said: @Piegoose: you seem to be intent on having a more interactive system, but let's face the fact: near to none would make use of it as it stands now. I like the idea as well, but it would be a pointless implementation at the moment with the current reviewing system. None would make use of the sorting aspect of my idea? I personally wouldn't agree with that, and the anti-vote-spike-aspect probably wouldn't even be clear to much of the voters involved so they'd vote without losing faith it'd not affect anything. If people are writing reviews right now though, I don't see how they'd be any less motivated in my system. And my system wouldn't be an "implementation" more as it would be the new default, filters just being an extra option to those who want more tools for browsing. |
BlokeTokesDec 12, 2015 6:04 PM
| Random question that's probably been asked but is there a way to set the default of the 4? |
Paul said: Random question that's probably been asked but is there a way to set the default of the 4? http://myanimelist.net/editprofile.php?go=panelsettings |
 |
Crazy_Cofee_Cat said: Paul said: Random question that's probably been asked but is there a way to set the default of the 4? http://myanimelist.net/editprofile.php?go=panelsettings Not the panel settings, the review sorting. Unless I'm blind, I'm pretty sure it's not in the panel settings. When I go to any anime/manga entry, the default is set as Most Helpful (weighted), which is horrible. I want to set it so it's Most Helpful (All Time). Though just a quick browse, which I was to lazy to do before says there isn't a way atm. |
Paul said: Not the panel settings, the review sorting. Unless I'm blind, I'm pretty sure it's not in the panel settings. When I go to any anime/manga entry, the default is set as Most Helpful (weighted), which is horrible. I want to set it so it's Most Helpful (All Time). Though just a quick browse, which I was to lazy to do before says there isn't a way atm. My bad, I assumed you meant review default in fault. |
|
| Did you mean this? I just changed default to Most Hepful (All Times) without a problem. |
|
Paul said: Random question that's probably been asked but is there a way to set the default of the 4? The system memorizes your last sorting style and sets it on default for future use automatically. |
Subpyro said: Except it does this only for "more reviews" page and does so with a cookie that expires as soon as you close your browser, just like with new anime search view.Paul said: Random question that's probably been asked but is there a way to set the default of the 4? The system memorizes your last sorting style and sets it on default for future use automatically. |
More topics from this board
» New Site Update: Peak Anime 🗻 ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Kineta - Mar 31 |
213 |
by Destinesia
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» [Challenge] You Should Read This Manga 2024 ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Kineta - Feb 23 |
200 |
by BasilZero
»»
12 hours ago |
|
» Heavenly Easter Delusion: Devil and Dolce ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kineta - Mar 27 |
3341 |
by Terra_strong
»»
Apr 17, 8:26 PM |
|
» MAL Game "Fantasy Anime League" Opens for Spring 2024 ( 1 2 3 )Kineta - Mar 17 |
144 |
by The_real_maomao
»»
Apr 9, 4:26 PM |
|
» English Titles Added to Desktop; Moving Towards a Romanized/English Toggle ( 1 2 3 )Kineta - Feb 12, 2020 |
121 |
by Vaturna
»»
Apr 4, 5:31 AM |