Well, I have one idea about trusted raters organisation, inspired by newest facts of unfair, or one-star ratings, and based on existing badge system, common for TS. We have five member badges and I suggest to add one budge more, a Trusted Rater badge. But this sign have to have additional sense - it must be automatically influenced from summary ratings, given by owner. Maybe, it was a color range, say black if the person give most 1 or 2 **, yellow if 3&4** and green for 4&5**, or somewhat other way. The principle is everybody want to know, who are the TR and what rating they give. So, it can help resolve the problem of anonymous raters.
What do you think?
I'll bet once people see who gives lower ratings, they will want the ability to block those people from rating their work. I also think people will start directly soliciting ratings from the people with GREEN badges, which could be both awkward and time-consuming. I don't always have time to rate even the best of models.
EDIT: I also image most trusted raters would prefer to have green badges, which could discourage people from giving honest ratings.What I would like to see is a way for trusted raters to give text feedback to people on the product page that only the artist could see, in addition to being able to give stars for the buying audience to see. EDIT: the hidden text feedback could include the rater's screen name by default, to discourage flaming and other abuse. That would give the artist a chance to correct or respond to problems, which could raise the overall quality of work and listings on the site. I know there have been a LOT of models I would have liked to rate that I've passed over simply because they didn't put the polycount or show wires. Also, I would like to see 1-star ratings REQUIRE justification from the rater. I don't think this gets abused often, but it does happen, and there currently seems no way to address the problem.
That's another reason to have some kind of documented guideline. It should be common sense for the most part but everyone has their own reasons for the ratings... Often they're spot on with a rounding up.
Sometimes I can see how it might be difficult to be objective... Some things may be taken into consideration that really should not impact the rating, perhaps things like lighting and camera angle, etc.
But it depends on the asset as well. And lack of information should definitely be a strike against the artist... there is no reason for it. The same goes for no thumbnails for visual assets.
Just my 2 cents...;)
It would be helpful if selecting "Polygons" in the product manager automatically forced people to put something in the polygons field; likewise, the system should refuse to publish an asset that has Type: 3D or Texure selected unless there is at least one thumbnail. There could also be a drop-down menu at price, where you could select "free." Then, any 3d model not listed as "free" could automatically be priced at a minimum of $15, and the product manager could refuse to accept a lower dollar value. That wouldn't make the system perfect, but it would be an improvement--and one that didn't require a lot of human oversight.
Oh, yes... and people using warez or uploading stolen models should get a nasty shock from their keyboard and a virus that totally demolishes their harddrive. (okay, that last bit was pure fantasy). ;)
Some offtopic from you side, Hystoria :) Now we tell about Trusred Ruters. Continue... :)
Additional information with ratings from Trusted Rates is not good way. Don't blame me :) I believe, this abiltity must remain as buyers prerogative only, because they have real touch to product. A trusted rater can be mistaken by some hidden facts, which can't be viewed from his position, and wrong review follow. It is worst, than bad rating, because owner of product can't reply him, to point to inaccurate view. Otherwise, there would kind of forum, open for buyer, rater and owner. Also in this case TS will forced open new forum, called "book of complaints to trusted raters", where every time, when I or you, Hystoria, give low rating (even 3*) we should explain, why we did it. I believe, after dozen times we prefer don't give low rating anymore. Rater havn't to explain, why he rate it. Some things are evidence.
OK. How about two color? :) Range from 1-3 to 3-5. It's only tool against unadequate low ratings, not prompt how to make product better. I think, if somebody rate only with 1-3** without 4 and 5, that man can't be a trusted rater. And if that man realise, that he open for everybody now, he will rate not only with bad rating. Isn't good?
Yes, I skip assets without necessary information also. And I think, a potential buyer do the same, or who want to buy a pig in a poke? So, that man punish himself. I didn't think, that black rater(s) chase for certain members - too wide range, from newbie to oldtimers - but here rather a psychologycal factor, anonymous. If some part of trust will expose, it can help reduce unadequate ratings, because if rater have more than 50% of bad ratings, it isn't normal. And I don't believe, if some Black Jack rate with 1* excellent things, he will rate somewhat with 5*.
Another side: if TS put that system right now, we would see that person immediately :)
colored badges showing what kind of person you are....///CENSORED///....bad idea... makes no sense
then people would be giving assests that don't deserve 5 stars 5 stars just to look good to public opinion.
Grab Magnifier:
The single thing that would serve the trusted rater system the best is a forced option that clicks in when you are going to rate something with 1 star that makes it so the trusted rater can fill in a message (without the name of rater)about the 1 star product! this will help the marketplace and the vendors bruised ego
(And for the record if I stumble across any obvious and blantant copyright infringments they ALWAYS get a FAT 1 star from me.)
I agree with the 1-star forced text thing. The only question I have is whether giving 1-star ratings rewards people by causing their product to show up higher in the sort than unrated products? That's one of the reasons I skip things I would otherwise maybe give low ratings to.
It might be helpful if TS added some hidden check boxes on the product page that only they and trusted raters could see that would allow us at least to flag products with common problems, like no thumbnail, no wires, no polycount, questionable content, etc. Then TS could decide whether to pull the product, or allow an automatic email to go out to the artist (or both) explaining the problem with the product. That way, we're not giving out low ratings (see how I tied this back in, Alex? :)) to artists where they can't possibly know the reason why.
On the copyright/trademark issue that has come up many times... Have we ever heard anything definitive about whether modeling current products is actually an infringement or is still a grey area? I know that in my product photography, I often use trademarked products as props, as do most photographers, and I can't recall anyone ever getting in trouble for this practice. They key is how the product is used (not to endorse another product, not to claim direct ties to the product), not whether it's used. Since TS policy has been hands-off except where the copyright or trademark holder specifically prohibits use of their product or logo, I usually don't rate those items, either.
I think we could use a little more guidance from TS on some of these issues.
How about a Pending rating...
Let's say a trusted rater looks at an asset, some info is missing and no thumbnail. The might get a "Reason" drop box where they can check normal reasons such as "Missing stats", "Missing description", "No thumbnails", "Poor thumbnails", "Low model quality", etc.
Some of these reasons are objective and can be checked by software, such as the presence of non-zero poly and vertex count... the presence of thumbnails, etc. Other things need to be looked at and judged by people.
A rating of perhaps 2 is given by the trusted rater with a pending 4 if the corrections are made. The artist is notified that there are deficiencies and is given the opportunity to fix them. He publishes the model with an "Submit Asset Corrections" (or something) button.
The raters who submitted Pending are notified and receive the asset link. They can deactivate any of the deficiency boxes they had earlier if they haven't automatically been cleared... If only the items which were cleared were the automated type the rater need not receive notification. Clearing all the deficiencies upgrades the rating from 2 to the pending 4.
Slightly involved, but just an idea to get the trusted raters more involved and including some justification for ratings.
I do think TS should try to identify anyone abusing the rating system; I just think it's something better done behind the scenes, than out in front for the world to see. (Note that I prefer our quiet and mostly friendly forums. ;))
As you wish. Early morning for one, the dead of night for other... ;)
To all. Well, maybe the idea with color badge isn't good. I had only one aim: it is a time to give to trusted raters not only right to vote, but responsibility for voting also. If no, black raters will attack us again and again. They give 1* not for incomplete date or infringenment, and even not for bad quality, but only because they can do it.
OK and what aabout a public rating?
So we could have the turster rater ratings, and the public rating, where everyone can give an opinioan, and rate the work of others.? i think this one sounds good.
Yes, I remember it too, Hystoria, maybe TS find out solution for responsible voting, it would be great! Say, rate with 5* and get 5 cents more :) rate with 1* - only one cent :(
Joke! :))
Ånd I see LumaxArt has now replaced his big red type with tiny red type. So now I am blind, as well. Hey, thanks, Lumax! ;)
wasn't intended to hurt any feelings....just making too harsh of a parallel early in the morning
Alex , dear, how do you know Iam young on ts? :S IM here since Oct 2004, i don't know if im young ( depends on your young scale) . Anyway, i bet there are younger people than me on here.
