ekla said: guys, please go to the veronin's review section, u can clearly see that after not helpful option omitted, there is a sharp decrease in the no. of people find his reviews are helpful. This is the case of every reviewer. Veronin said that he was also affected by downvote trolls, and I can imagine that mass upvotes have been a case too. So now we just see the numbers that are usual for non-seasonal reviews; numbers which would be normal for most other reviews on this site too if they hadn't been affected in the past. That at least reviews to seasonal anime still gather lots of votes can be seen e.g. here. |
| And so the complaint is simply how can your review be on the top if the not helpful review is remove making way for the older reviews to reach the top because of the votes it accumulated over the years is huge. This makes newer reviews harder to compete since people who read reviews are less and some only reads the first page of the review section for the particular media for the obvious reason. Having your review on the top is not bad but the most important thing is you made reviews to help people know whether the anime, manga and novel are good or bad and help them decide if they should or not watch it. It's just a matter pointing out your opinion with necessary excuses. |
Xiaraith said: That at least reviews to seasonal anime still gather lots of votes can be seen e.g. here. Xiaraith, I think you're misattributing a popular reviewer with much new readership. You assume that your friends and people who have read your work in the past will continue to do so. If you have 25 friends on here who will read your stuff, you can pretty well assume that's 25 votes. If you look at Zeph's other reviews from before the change, you'll see that his overall change in votes has not diminished much if any. HOWEVER- for many other persons like myself, 10 votes on anything post-change is a miracle. I've only eclipsed that mark twice out of seven reviews written since the change, and by one and two votes. Frequently before the change, (and I'm no popular reviewer by any means) I was getting at least 30 or more on season ending show reviews. Piegoose said: Veronin said: Most helpful overall, most recent, critical reviews, positive reviews and a few other tabs were considered, but nothing is final yet. How would “critical” and “positive” reviews be chosen? Will those be hand-picked? I, personally, don't really like the idea of having people hand-pick reviews. It's not exactly incentivizing to write a review to have specific people choose if it's worthy for a certain label, like “critical”. With only helpful button, I have no idea how a “positive reviews” section would work. This is a lot more simple than you think Piegoose- and I've addressed this much earlier in the thread. The way this is done would be thusly: Any score the user assigns is split into two (or three is better) categories: Positive, Mixed, and Negative. For scores 8-10, that would designate a positive review For scores 5-7, that would designate a mixed review For scores 1-4, negative. If this were just two categories, then 1-5 critical, 6-10 positive. This would be a behind the scenes means of categorizing them, and then you'd assign the most helpful or most helpful % of each of the three categories to top review slots. I guess if you want 4 slots, then the 4th would be just the overall best voted one. Mod Edit: Merged duplicated posts; please use the edit button. |
_Ghost_Sep 26, 2015 8:06 AM
| 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. |
| Yeah how is the most critical review determined? Wouldn't it be based on the "Not Helpful" votes? Oh wait, you killed it. If Mods hand-picked it, MAL be fucked over. Thanks Mods. EDIT: go to this thread to continue venting out the frustration of a corrupted system! http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1421879 |
OppaiSugoiSep 27, 2015 6:30 PM
 |
OppaiSugoi said: Yeah how is the most critical review determined? Wouldn't it be based on the "Not Helpful" votes? Oh wait, you killed it. If Mods hand-picked it, MAL be fucked over. Thanks Mods. The "how" this is going to be done isn't set in stone, as Veronin said. He is referring to positive and negative reviews. Which would be set by users. In essence the idea behind it would be a sorting of "I liked...." vs. "I disliked...." reviews. As most reviewers/readers know negative reviews tend to fall back if the majority of users like a series. This would make it easier for people to find dissenting reviews which they found helpful. Edit: As lawlmartz said there is also the option of doing it by score. Edit2: Piegoose said: This system also assumes that great reviews are being written for every anime/manga every 3 months. From my perspective, that certainty isn't the case for everything. And sadly you can't combat that by keeping some of the good ones up there as, with having no downvote, continued exposure of a review will simply give it more and more of an unfair advantage. People aren't all going to be digging into the review section for good reviews and are going to assume the ones listed are the community's picks. The updating would be by votes, not the time a review was posted. Meaning, older reviews would be shown too. |
_Ghost_Sep 26, 2015 8:13 AM
lawlmartz said: This is a lot more simple than you think True, I don't know how I didn't make connections there lol (Probably because I'm an opposer to forced review scores and idealized them being optional, and if they were optional that sorting method wouldn't work) _Ghost_ said: The updating would be by votes, not the time a review was posted. Meaning, older reviews would be shown too. I don't quite follow. So do you mean the top reviews would be managed by votes and time would't come into play at all for them - basically how it is now? |
| Side note: I still want to know why the mods did an instawipe on old reviews on the Rokka no Yuusha page but not with the same speed for anything else? You guys got my hopes up with that. It was really awesome to see. |
 |
| Shimoneta ended over a week ago and it's still unwiped :/ |
  |
Piegoose said: lawlmartz said: This is a lot more simple than you think True, I don't know how I didn't make connections there lol (Probably because I'm an opposer to forced review scores and idealized them being optional, and if they were optional that sorting method wouldn't work) _Ghost_ said: The updating would be by votes, not the time a review was posted. Meaning, older reviews would be shown too. I don't quite follow. So do you mean the top reviews would be managed by votes and time would't come into play at all for them - basically how it is now? It means that it would be sorted by the highest voted in a 3-month time-frame. For example an older review that has a high overall amount of helpful votes, wouldn't show up if it didn't receive a vote in the last 3 months. It's basically like what other users in this thread proposed of using a vote-over-time sorting. Instead of using the time written as the base time-frame, it's limited to 3 months. Though the time-frame is prone to be changed, depending if 3 months is too long, or maybe too short to give newer reviews a decent show time. At least that is the idea behind it. |
| Nice fix I guess. I wasnt really bothered about the helpful or not helpful thing. I just read the reviews and see if they convince me or not. Or just test it out myself. |
| My Manga List My Anime List Shabada shabadabadaba I am DjG545 aka Dj Fo Fo aka The Mutha Fkn Name I'm Usin Now |
_Ghost_ said: It means that it would be sorted by the highest voted in a 3-month time-frame. For example an older review that has a high overall amount of helpful votes, wouldn't show up if it didn't receive a vote in the last 3 months. It's basically like what other users in this thread proposed of using a vote-over-time sorting. Instead of using the time written as the base time-frame, it's limited to 3 months. Though the time-frame is prone to be changed, depending if 3 months is too long, or maybe too short to give newer reviews a decent show time. At least that is the idea behind it. What's wrong with my proposal of having set sorting characteristics? We've seen what happens when you do it on votes over time- because that's how it is right now. It'll still just accumulate, and then fall off until people quit writing for it, then will there be no reviews? Or will it default to whatever the most voted review was? That's WAAY too complicated for not much gain. Nobody wants that. What people want is some simple ways of sorting through reviews that doesn't require slogging through 16 pages of them. Sorting by score, since the management is so intent on keeping the overall score rating to submit a review, makes the most sense here. It also fixes the issue of how the top reviews are distributed- a positive review will be spotlit, a negative one, and a mixed one. The 4th spot can be the true-most upvoted review. This should be simple to implement, unlike a "by time" setup, and it allows the helpful vs not helpful ratio to be put to use again, since this is not going too well without it. but above all, any changes that come about should be extremely transparent, instead of just being handed down from above and leaving you mods and us users to clean up the mess. EDIT: Lol i just noticed that the reviews for Comical Psychosomatic Medicine NEVER got wiped. There are previews from February still on there hahahaha |
lawlmartzSep 27, 2015 9:02 AM
| 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. |
| If I understood you correctly you mean you want to have several sorting/filtering options? Like Veronin and I already mentioned in our previous posts, different sorting/filtering methods were already proposed. Like most bigger changes, the changes will be announced with details of the changes. So there shouldn't be a lack of transparency. |
_Ghost_ said: If I understood you correctly you mean you want to have several sorting/filtering options? Like Veronin and I already mentioned in our previous posts, different sorting/filtering methods were already proposed. Like most bigger changes, the changes will be announced with details of the changes. So there shouldn't be a lack of transparency. You say "were proposed". Am I to take your past tense speaking as "was proposed and swiftly discarded"? This is precisely what I'm talking about with transparency. None of us users know what anyone discusses in your meetings over such topics, if they even occur. Like most bigger changes, the changes will be announced with details of the changes. So there shouldn't be a lack of transparency. And this... this takes the cake. "Will be announced with details of the changes". So you're saying that once again, the changes will just happen, and then be announced after they're in place? We're already seeing how well that works. It doesn't work well |
| 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. |
_Ghost_ said: Like most bigger changes, the changes will be announced with details of the changes. Looking forward to it. Thanks for the update. |
_Ghost_ said: It means that it would be sorted by the highest voted in a 3-month time-frame. For example an older review that has a high overall amount of helpful votes, wouldn't show up if it didn't receive a vote in the last 3 months. It's basically like what other users in this thread proposed of using a vote-over-time sorting. Instead of using the time written as the base time-frame, it's limited to 3 months. Though the time-frame is prone to be changed, depending if 3 months is too long, or maybe too short to give newer reviews a decent show time. At least that is the idea behind it. Actually that way of doing things isn't much like the vote/time sorting people were mentioning before if the time element works individually from the votes. It sounds like the only feature of the time in your system is that each review has a 3-month life-span that it can be presented on the top, the upvotes being the only factor to sorting. The difference with that and what people were bringing up time for was that time being a constant factor would create a ratio sorting system that would more dynamically sort reviews. It sounded like the feature people were explaining was that it would track the average votes per day and use that to sort reviews (while I personally don't think that would work very well either, over a long period of time). But the point to keep in mind to this idea they made is why they chose to make it in that way, being those people want a dynamic way of sorting through reviews, a percentage/ratio sorting system. Having a 3-month timer to an upvote-sorted system wouldn't really fix how things are sorted at the moment that much. The issues I said before are still relevant too. I don't think there would be great reviews in every 3-month-period sitting at the top and I also think that, while that system is an improvement, it's not very motivating to know one's review is destined to sink back down into the others based on it's age. Also, the helpful-only system means that continued exposure of any review for any time gives it an increasingly unfair advantage. So, for example, if someone posted a review and it got to the top in a few days and stayed up for the 3-month-period, he'd still have an unfair advantage over all the other reviews below. It'd be to a lesser extent than it is now since you're limiting the exposure, but it'd still be very much there. Old reviews would also still have the advantage as the few first 3-month-periods would likely have more traffic than later on, and when sorting by "Most Helpful" I'd imagine I'd be seeing a good amount of older reviews sitting comfortably at the top. Also, how do you guys plan on handling re-posting - considering people can edit reviews? |
BlokeTokesSep 27, 2015 11:04 AM
| Thread Locked You can look at it as “forum police” coming to silence the masses, but that is not the case. The feedback that’s been received here has been and will continue to be looked over and considered. There will be a new announcement thread made when there is a new development. There is no ETA on this at the moment, so for now it’s “when it happens.” With some things finally being worked on when they were ignored for so long by MAL’s previous owner, just one month under the knife shouldn’t even be that big of a deal for you guys after toughing it out under Crave. However, with the arguments here becoming circular and the emotional responses/snap judgments continuing to be made when it was clearly stated multiple times that this is a work in progress and not set in stone, not to mention the baiting and flaming in the recent pages, it’s been decided that this thread will be locked down. You may finish any discussions on profiles or in PMs. |
More topics from this board
» [Challenge] You Should Read This Manga 2024 ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Kineta - Feb 23 |
207 |
by Shin_016
»»
12 hours ago |
|
» Try MAL's New Mobile Site! ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Xinil - Feb 15, 2015 |
423 |
by RED-clover12
»»
Yesterday, 10:19 AM |
|
» Planned 5hr Maintenance, Thursday April 25 @ 1am-6am PTKineta - Apr 22 |
0 |
by Kineta
»»
Apr 22, 8:10 PM |
|
» New Site Update: Peak Anime 🗻 ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Kineta - Mar 31 |
213 |
by Lancelot73
»»
Apr 21, 4:28 AM |
|
» Heavenly Easter Delusion: Devil and Dolce ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kineta - Mar 27 |
3331 |
by Terra_strong
»»
Apr 17, 8:26 PM |