200 Characters for Rating a Resource?
- Thread starter ogirginc
- Start date
- Status
ogirginc
Active member
I think this would be the best way to decide if minimum characters work or not.
I would expect some decline, but I don't expect it would be one that does any harm. I'd be happier with slightly less reviews with more substance, than more reviews with less substance.
I recently said "quantity over quality is never a good thing" and I think that applies here too. If it is a dramatic decrease, then maybe a similar amount of time should pass with 200 characters and check again and go from there.
I recently said "quantity over quality is never a good thing" and I think that applies here too. If it is a dramatic decrease, then maybe a similar amount of time should pass with 200 characters and check again and go from there.
ogirginc
Active member
A challenge to @Mike @Brogan @Slavik @Jeremy
Write a 200 character review for my little add-on found here: https://xenforo.com/community/resources/icewind-visitors-tab.3559/
It does what it states, and that is probably all you are going to be able to say about it.
However; if it didn't, or if it messes up ones style (ie: the visitors tab went missing, or when the visitors avatar appears in the visitors tab, the search bar pops up in the footer, it would be very easy to write a not-so-flattering 200 character review. My point being, that add-on will never receive reviews because of the character limitation, and for the same reason the majority of resources will not as well.
Write a 200 character review for my little add-on found here: https://xenforo.com/community/resources/icewind-visitors-tab.3559/
It does what it states, and that is probably all you are going to be able to say about it.
However; if it didn't, or if it messes up ones style (ie: the visitors tab went missing, or when the visitors avatar appears in the visitors tab, the search bar pops up in the footer, it would be very easy to write a not-so-flattering 200 character review. My point being, that add-on will never receive reviews because of the character limitation, and for the same reason the majority of resources will not as well.
Shelley
Well-known member
That's not a challenge at all. They could review based on the add-on and then follow up with a review about your great support along with your professionalism (I could go on). The challenge is reviewing again when you make updates without regurgitating the same bloated review.
I have no issue with the 200 minimum but feel valid points were made throughout this thread which have been overlooked such as non english speakers, minor update reviews etc etc and so forth.
I know I wasn't asked, but I'll write one here as I haven't downloaded it myself:
I could probably write double that, but I'll stop there. It's not difficult. REALLY not difficult. Just as Shelley says, there's a lot more that could be said.
Picking up on your points, Shelley, I think repeated reviews are nice, but actually, if you're a resource author purely from a statistics point of view, a repeated review that is the same score as the last actually has little relevance. Obviously from a personal aspect, of course I love it if someone tells me every single time I do an update that it's 5* but it doesn't change the overall rating of the add-on. What I want more than anything is for people to re-review who previously gave it below 5*.
The language barrier, yeah fine. It's the only part of the argument I truly understand. But they are in the minority here. Allan is just being stubborn because we all know damn well he could easily write a 200 character review and I think that applies to most users here whose English is not their first language.
I could probably write double that, but I'll stop there. It's not difficult. REALLY not difficult. Just as Shelley says, there's a lot more that could be said.
Picking up on your points, Shelley, I think repeated reviews are nice, but actually, if you're a resource author purely from a statistics point of view, a repeated review that is the same score as the last actually has little relevance. Obviously from a personal aspect, of course I love it if someone tells me every single time I do an update that it's 5* but it doesn't change the overall rating of the add-on. What I want more than anything is for people to re-review who previously gave it below 5*.
The language barrier, yeah fine. It's the only part of the argument I truly understand. But they are in the minority here. Allan is just being stubborn because we all know damn well he could easily write a 200 character review and I think that applies to most users here whose English is not their first language.
Why not leave the minimum character reviews up to the add-on author? Lets face it, it you release a simple add-on you are not going to expect a review beyond "hey, great, what I was looking for".
I'm going to be releasing a much larger add-on in the future, and I do not want reviews like I mentioned above, but meaningful ones that will help me improve the product. So why not let the author decide if he/she wants a minimum character review? When you add a resource, two options appear: one to set the minimum characters for the initial review, and one for updates if a member had already reviewed the resource.
I'm going to be releasing a much larger add-on in the future, and I do not want reviews like I mentioned above, but meaningful ones that will help me improve the product. So why not let the author decide if he/she wants a minimum character review? When you add a resource, two options appear: one to set the minimum characters for the initial review, and one for updates if a member had already reviewed the resource.
So @Chris D already did the example review, though I did one as well in about a minute after looking at the screenshots:
To comment on some of the points:
To comment on some of the points:
- Clearly it is something we're evaluating based on the change that has been made thus far. This isn't something you can change and then know the effects of in 5 minutes. Statistically, you can't know the effects in a day either. Changes have to made over time as we see what the actual reaction is (that's not the reaction in this thread).
- The purpose of a review is not to say thanks to the author; it's primary purpose is to provide information to other consumers. Obviously the author can take the information on board, but if you're giving a 5 out of 5, there probably isn't much actionable from the author's perspective.
- While I understand the point of the second language element, saying that "if we can't write a review in French..." is a strawman argument. XenForo.com is an English website (aside from the language packs) so everything is in English. Some English skill is going to be necessary to write a "critical appraisal" of a resource. There's nothing to say that you couldn't use Google translate to help get your thoughts across.
- Regarding minor releases: I would say that a review is still going to be for the resource as a whole. Reviews aren't linked between them anywhere, so if you're reviewing multiple times, then I would say that each should have the same scope. (I would also suggest that doing a new review for a bug fix release wouldn't be necessary in general, but I can understand the reasoning behind doing it.)
- I don't like the idea of letting resource authors control review lengths. I would say that it's the site admin's choice to control the type of content on the site and the scope of how it's approached. I would also note that we have had various cases of resource authors attempting to use both social and technical approaches to hide negative reviews.
I'm for minimum character reviews; but I would still like to see the character length set by the author, it is their resource after-all. The first person writing a review has it far easier than the rest who may write one. "Couldn't have said it better, myself", "ditto" and most likely not put the effort in to re-write what was already said about a resource that doesn't leave much room to review it, but still wants to rate it.
If the limit is going to stay as an admin option, then at least allow a resource author to have the option to allow ratings or not. If a resource does not live up to expectations, especially paid ones, and the author elected to have reviews turned off, there is always the discussion thread to leave the criticism, so the point will be made.
I'd rather not have ratings for a resource displayed (when not rated), then to see a resource listed with no ratings.
Besides, having a blanketed character limit just won't work with some resources and categories. For example, writing a 200 character review for a portal add-on, or what ever add-on, will be far easier to write for than an icon pack, or a template modification. These type of resources still deserve to be rated, but now with a character limit most likely won't be, and is not fair to the author. The author most likely expects this, and should be allowed to turn ratings off and rely on the discussion thread for feedback.
xenCrazyIcons.zip: downloads 12287; reviews, none (or maybe one or two); discussion replies: 124 pages of "wow, great work, you are the best" or "doesn't look good on a dark style".*
*disclaimer, just speculation on my part. However, endorsed by 1 goat, 4 sheep, and 6 tree squirrels. The jury is still out for the 2 ground squirrels, whom are too busy fighting over a peanut, to think about it.
If the limit is going to stay as an admin option, then at least allow a resource author to have the option to allow ratings or not. If a resource does not live up to expectations, especially paid ones, and the author elected to have reviews turned off, there is always the discussion thread to leave the criticism, so the point will be made.
I'd rather not have ratings for a resource displayed (when not rated), then to see a resource listed with no ratings.
Besides, having a blanketed character limit just won't work with some resources and categories. For example, writing a 200 character review for a portal add-on, or what ever add-on, will be far easier to write for than an icon pack, or a template modification. These type of resources still deserve to be rated, but now with a character limit most likely won't be, and is not fair to the author. The author most likely expects this, and should be allowed to turn ratings off and rely on the discussion thread for feedback.
xenCrazyIcons.zip: downloads 12287; reviews, none (or maybe one or two); discussion replies: 124 pages of "wow, great work, you are the best" or "doesn't look good on a dark style".*
*disclaimer, just speculation on my part. However, endorsed by 1 goat, 4 sheep, and 6 tree squirrels. The jury is still out for the 2 ground squirrels, whom are too busy fighting over a peanut, to think about it.
lightbox
Active member
I think the biggest mistake is to combine rating and review. These should be handled seperately, they are different things. If I want to just add a rating, how can I be forced to write a meaningful text review?
It's not a good idea, seriously, to tell me "we give a **** about your rating as long as you don't provide a review."
And I'm sure, authors would get far more motivating ratings if it was easier to do so.
PS: I very much dislike the fact that my threads get closed (although I didn't write anything forbidden) within a minute. Holy moly, isn't it possible to just let me answer once if I feel I need to ... instead of trying to make me shutup?
Don't like that AT ALL
It's not a good idea, seriously, to tell me "we give a **** about your rating as long as you don't provide a review."
And I'm sure, authors would get far more motivating ratings if it was easier to do so.
PS: I very much dislike the fact that my threads get closed (although I didn't write anything forbidden) within a minute. Holy moly, isn't it possible to just let me answer once if I feel I need to ... instead of trying to make me shutup?
Don't like that AT ALL
Shelley
Well-known member
So let's say a separation of the rating and review functions happened. What benefits would this have to potential customers of said add-on/resource that want to get some information of the history of the resource from independent sources? A rating alone doesn't really say alot, infact, it's tells you nothing.
lightbox
Active member
It tells you much less if I'm forced to write up some pointless stuff just to fulfill the given character requirement.
Xenforo.com (Resoure Manager) currently lacks features to motivate authors. You can't see how often your resource has been viewed, you don't get a decent number of ratings, you probably get some pointless reviews from those who want to rate but can't without typing 200 characters of (non-)sense. So that's better in your eyes than just allow simple ratings? Don't get this, sorry.
Xenforo.com (Resoure Manager) currently lacks features to motivate authors. You can't see how often your resource has been viewed, you don't get a decent number of ratings, you probably get some pointless reviews from those who want to rate but can't without typing 200 characters of (non-)sense. So that's better in your eyes than just allow simple ratings? Don't get this, sorry.
Shelley
Well-known member
Just as I predicted what you would say. This alone could be argued that you just can't be bothered to review and provide an informative review, which is not a feature issue, but something you will need to come to terms with. If you need motivated to review a resource chances are you probably shouldn't try to review that resource. It's all about a little give and take, provide something back to the author and community for providing a resource you liked. It's not too much to ask for a quality review that you need to play Eye of the Tiger in the background and get yourself motivated. You should be happily willing to review or just not review at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
