MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
...

Comment History73 in total

This shows all comments by the user Rating Orb β Sunflower:
Blog: Vulpin Adventure  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
6 years ago | (1)
I know that 8th is for unlocking all the paints (in each land you can encounter a brushbeast which has a map to secret location; in each of these there's paint you can use on vulpin and unlock its colour), and 9th is for maxing out all your stats. I don't know about others, though. ^^'
Poll: If you have this website bookmarked, which page sp...  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
6 years ago | (6)
I selected "home page". Although it's not literally in "bookmarks" or so, but I have it in my "Speed Dial" window, which I use way more often than bookmarks themselves. I just hope that the hidden meaning behind Pseudo's poll wasn't to check if people use bookmarks feature nowadays. ^^'
Blog: How about this?  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (9)
...
...
Quote from the end of blog entry:
Note: Whatever the person chose, it wouldn't *prevent* you from rating or anything, so if a troll wrote spam and asked for no ratings, you should still give his posts the negative ratings that they deserve.
Could you people please read whole entries sometimes? ^^'
Blog: UFELTA  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (0)
Hey, I like this idea! I mean, the one with starting positive and negative ratings. Actually, the more I think about it, the better it seems to me!

First of all, it prevent newcomers to get the maximum rating very quickly. They get "weighted down" by this default rating, but it's neither negative or positive; it's something which makes things more balanced and difficult to change in one way or another. After all, I think that new users wouldn't like to be unstable either (or be treated improperly by other users because they happened to get a single negative rating which made their ratio equal to 0,0%).

However, this negative rating thingy doesn't sound good; it's almost like original sin or something. Does it mean that this system isn't that good after all? No, it's just that maybe it would need renaming. Maybe instead of "green-to-red ratio" (or rather green-to-all)) it would be called something which doesn't imply anything connected with ratings, neither positive or negative. I just don't know how to call it ("Performance Meter"? Meh, I don't think it's really catchy or something >_<), but in my opinion it should be something which doesn't refer only to the ratings aspect, but also overall number of ratings (or neither of them :P).

But yes, I think that idea of getting at the beginning these "anchor" ratings (that's how I called it, because them being positive or negative isn't important; the stabilizing aspect is the point here) is very good. Actually, I think that maybe it shouldn't be limited to two anchor ratings (because it's still pretty easy to go out of this zone, IMHO), but some more, maybe for example ten (40 green and only green ratings is quite a lot positive contribution, while it isn't something absurdally high).

Also, there's one more advantage of this system: you never can reach ideal 100%! One could say that it's what's wrong, but I don't agree: if you don't have 100%, you never have perfect score, so you can always do better! And how can you do better? By contributing more! I'm not sure if it'll work like that, but I suppose that relying on the unanchored green-to-all wouldn't do better at this matter. ^^'

(and it's easy to implement: Pseudo won't even need to add any "if" check; all he would need to do would be changing formula a bit; instead of G/(G+R) it would be (G+A)/(G+R+2A), where A is half the number of anchor ratings; for ten of them it would be (G+5)/(G+R+10) )
Blog: UFELTA  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (2)
During a talk on the chat there were some things mentioned:

1. '90% or greater green-to-red ratio' - it would make reaching the top orb waay too easy. :P Didn't you rather mean "green-to-all ratio"?
Simple example: in the system you described 10 greens and 10 reds would make a top orb, because 10:10 = 100% > 90%. Such ratings could be achieved by user who isn't horrible, but their behavior is often questionable.
In the system you probably meant 10 green to 10 reds wouldn't give you the top orb. However, 10 greens to 1 red would make; 10:(10+1) = 10:11 = about 91% > 90%. So, it could be get by an user who is writing valuable posts often and misbehaviors are really rare.

(also, one more thing: would this be counted by gathering all ratings together and getting their ratio, or rather counting the ratio for each post and then get arithmetical mean of all posts ratio? O.o)

2. Also, having a number ratings threshold for high orbs was proposed, so that new user who've just written a nice comment wouldn't get green at the very beginning. They would rather need to gather up some ratings for getting higher and higher orb, so that this rating would be getting more accurate; also, it would be harder to manipulate new users' orb and their situation would be more stable.
However, another user mentioned that being able to get the top orb from the very beginning would be much more appealing to new users. I personally think that he has a point, but it can work in reversed way: when someone already has a top orb, they don't feel the need to contribute more, or they may even be discouraged (hopefully, not, but it's still possible).

So yes, that's what we concluded at the chat that time. It's up to you if you're going to make any use of it! ^^
Blog: UFELTA  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (1)
-E votes would discourage long walls of text and pretentious rambling.
YES, do add it!
I mean, I don't have something in particular against large walls of text, but sometimes it was kind of a struggle for me to read through some longer posts (not every, but there were some; I can't give examples, though ^^').

And yes, I love the idea of this system, since it's way more informative than the current one and makes all criteria clear, so they don't need to think of their own. Also, I hope that people won't complain like they did when similar system was on Newgrounds (according to Scinti), because it actually allows neutral votes. Having Agree/Disagree separately also isn't bad; it doesn't affect the overall rating of post quality, yet it shows what people think of certain idea.

Also, does more orbs to show the overall score mean that there'll be also fuchsia one (to show that this post is loved)? :D
By the way: I think that having 3 overall negative orbs is quite enough; after all, trollish posts will most likely get only or mainly negative criteria, anyway, while lacking, but not written with malicious intent, will probably get less than e.g. 4 negatives. O.o

I must admit that UFELTA sounds kinda... SPECIAL. ^_^
(yes, this is reference directed to fans of a certain game; what was it's name? Something like... FALEUT? O.o)
Blog: Weekly Update  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (0)
If I remember, with this 40% threshold there are a few people who could reach it, like CtG. Maybe there are not many of them, but still it makes green appear as not-so-impossible. But yes, this idea was supposed to go along with the weighted vote idea, which was proposed by you, or rather its modified version proposed by CtG. ^^'
Blog: Weekly Update  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (1)
Oh, OK. Maybe it's also because there are not that many PMs on Fighunter. Probably this feeling came also from the fact that on some sites there's actually a *limit* of PMs in box, but there are also much more users. ^^'

But if you ever *wanted* to add this messages deleting system, the thing I can think of would be adding two boolean fields in database: "Sender removed" and "Recipient Removed". If sender decides to remove the message, the "Sender removed" field becomes true (same goes for recipient and "Recipient removed" field). If both fields are true, message magically disappears from database (unless you want to keep it as logs). Then again, it's only if you actually wanted to do it.
Blog: Weekly Update  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (2)
Uh, spell-check system? I don't think that Pseudo would like to do quite a lot of effort for something which many browsers have already built-in (my browser included).

About orbs system: I have some doubts about it. When it's about posts, as Pseudo mentioned, it's difficult to rate just everything you read, especially if you don't really know how to rate it. I wouldn't mind keeping orb system in personal ratings, though. The thing which worries me the most here is that some people seem to care about their orbs too much. O.o
Blog: Weekly Update  
Sunflower`s Avatar
Rating Orb β Sunflower 19 Poland PhlegmaticSanguine 73C 22F
7 years ago | (2)
Thing definitely to add: removing read/sent PMs. Your Poor Database agrees with this idea, too!

Also, this would sort of solve the problem of saving long forum posts to later use; user would just send a PM to self and after posting the whole version, delete it from the PM box. This way they wouldn't have problem with being on different computer, and they wouldn't need to log in to their e-mail or so.
Page 1 of 8: