[X] My Assistant

Completely in support of removing ratings from a top list score.

Why not just have a like button and go the full social media. So its relatively how many likes but you don't get directly negative feedback lols.

I think "favorites" already serves that purpose, more or less. You see galleries with very high ratings but few favorites (usually ones that serve a niche fetish), and galleries with 1000+ favorites but a relatively low rating. When I try to evaluate if one of my galleries did well, I only pay attention to the number of favorites and visits.

Going "social media" seems more efficient both for gallery rating and comments.
If people like the gallery then it can get a positive feedback based on how much is liked rather than how many starts gets, let's be real, people just want to hate and look for something/someone to hate based on their taste going as far as to go multiple accounts to achieve such goals.

If you take away their "countermeasures" then they have no other option than just ignore it.


Same for comment section, if the comment comes as smart, helpful and contributes then get a well deserved like.
If someone spams or vandalizes comments sections it can be reported to properly qualified mods/janitors.
Meanwhile the normal user is allowed to hideto themselvesa post they don't like or agree with rather than nuking with negative voting.

This post has been edited by Wilfriback: Jan 5 2016, 20:26

Going "social media" seems more efficient both for gallery rating and comments.
If people like the gallery then it can get a positive feedback based on how much is liked rather than how many starts gets, let's be real, people just want to hate and look for something/someone to hate based on their taste going as far as to go multiple accounts to achieve such goals.

If you take away their "countermeasures" then they have no other option than just ignore it.
Same for comment section, if the comment comes as smart, helpful and contributes then get a well deserved like.
If someone spams or vandalizes comments sections it can be reported to properly qualified mods/janitors.
Meanwhile the normal user is allowed to hideto themselvesa post they don't like or agree with rather than nuking with negative voting.

Something I would suggest for an improved comment section: Just like with downvoting tags, the value of comment downvotes should be reduced to mod power/2. So someone with a mod power of 10 can only give -5 with a comment downvote. Or make it independent from mod power completely and make every up or downvote count equally as +1 or -1. That way people with high mod power can't nuke comments almost by themselves.
Also, you shouldn't be able to up or downvote if you never comment yourself. There are some guys who downvote and try to nuke pretty much every comment they see just because they can without ever commenting or contributing something themselves.

This post has been edited by Vivi1993: Jan 7 2016, 00:57

That way people with high mod power can't nuke comments almost by themselves.

So it would require 50 users to handle every instance of spam?

Also, you shouldn't be able to up or downvote if you never comment yourself.

So they leave a comment on some random gallery then start spam voting?

Also, you shouldn't be able to up or downvote if you never comment yourself. There are some guys who downvote and try to nuke pretty much every comment they see just because they can without ever commenting or contributing something themselves.

In addition to what Joe says, you can't currently vote at all if you have commented, this prevents too much circle jerking, making a change like you suggested would just lead to a lot more nonsense or one word comments from the downvoters just so that would be allowed to vote. At least with the way it is now, those nonsense comments can be downed whereas the person who is voting everyone down, if they suddenly decide to make a comment, all their downvotes get wiped.

In addition to what Joe says, you can't currently vote at all if you have commented, this prevents too much circle jerking, making a change like you suggested would just lead to a lot more nonsense or one word comments from the downvoters just so that would be allowed to vote. At least with the way it is now, those nonsense comments can be downed whereas the person who is voting everyone down, if they suddenly decide to make a comment, all their downvotes get wiped.

So you would rather have a handful of users that nuke comments by themselves just because they're salty? Many of the comments which get downvoted can hardly be called spam, they're just unpopular opinions which get downvoted instead of giving some kind of counterargument.
Just take a look at pretty much every NTR doujin. It wasn't that bad a few years ago in galleries like Otomedori, but nowadays you can hardly say anything other than "This is awesome" in these galleries without being nuked by the same handful of people.

So you would rather have a handful of users that nuke comments by themselves just because they're salty? Many of the comments which get downvoted can hardly be called spam, they're just unpopular opinions which get downvoted instead of giving some kind of counterargument.
Just take a look at pretty much every NTR doujin. It wasn't that bad a few years ago in galleries like Otomedori, but nowadays you can hardly say anything other than "This is awesome" in these galleries without being nuked by the same handful of people.

Considering that there is absolutely no negative consequences for you if your comment gets downvoted, yes, I would much rather that happen than people being forced to make a comment to then be able to vote, which they would, they would just make a one word comment or something then start downvoting. All that would change is that the gallery now has a lot more comments than before, the people who like to down things would still do so. There is just no good reason for your suggestion to be implemented, it wouldnt stop downvoting nor would it force people to come up with a counter argument, not that they should need to, if someone simply disagrees they disagree, they don't need to explain themselves. As can be seen from some galleries recently, if someone is consistently downvoting the same people, their votes actually don't count against the running total.

This post has been edited by Mrsuperhappy: Jan 7 2016, 01:12

So you would rather have a handful of users that nuke comments by themselves just because they're salty?

Ummm... Yes.

Considering that there is absolutely no negative consequences for you if your comment gets downvoted, yes, I would much rather that happen than people being forced to make a comment to then be able to vote, which they would, they would just make a one word comment or something then start downvoting. All that would change is that the gallery now has a lot more comments than before, the people who like to down things would still do so. There is just no good reason for your suggestion to be implemented, it wouldnt stop downvoting nor would it force people to come up with a counter argument, not that they should need to, if someone simply disagrees they disagree, they don't need to explain themselves. As can be seen from some galleries recently, if someone is consistently downvoting the same people, their votes actually don't count against the running total.

I didn't mean for these people to have to make a comment on the same gallery they vote at, I mean they should at least write one comment once a month or something. The most rampant downvoters never comment themselves and downvote generally everything they see, just like some people rate everything with 0.5 stars the moment it gets uploaded.
Also, add a separate spam button if you want to hide comments, like suggested earlier. Deleted comments because they're deemed unpopular and downvoted by a handful of people lead to comment sections where you can't see the original comment anymore and have no idea what someone else is actually replying to.
Making them only semi-visible if they're downvoted is fine, but completely deleting them leads to messed up comment sections.

Also, your ability to comment is blocked if you get downvoted too much, so there actually are consequences. One of the posters in this thread is blocked from commenting on any gallery because he was downvoted a bit too often.

This post has been edited by Vivi1993: Jan 7 2016, 01:23

I didn't mean for these people to have to make a comment on the same gallery they vote at, I mean they should at least write one comment once a month or something. The most rampant downvoters never comment themselves and downvote generally everything they see, just like some people rate everything with 0.5 stars the moment it gets uploaded.
Also, add a separate spam button if you want to hide comments, like suggested earlier. Deleted comments because they're deemed unpopular and downvoted by a handful of people lead to comment sections where you can't see the original comment anymore and have no idea what someone else is actually replying to.
Making them only semi-visible if they're downvoted is fine, but completely deleting them leads to messed up comment sections.

Also, your ability to comment is blocked if you get downvoted too much, so there actually are consequences. One of the posters in this thread is blocked from commenting on any gallery because he was downvoted a bit too often.

The once a month thing would just mean the same as what I said the outcomne would be, albeit on a smaller scale, the downvoter woud simply make a random comment on a random gallery, then continue as they were for the previous month or whatever timeframe is used for having to make a comment in.

It is very unlikely that a legitimate or useful comment ever gets low enough to be perma hidden, most that do are either spammy, or arguments that have gone off on a tangent and are of no use. More often, the random oddball downvoter is outvoted by upvoters.

I would think that you would only be getting blocked from commenting if your comments were all ending up negative, if thats the case, you should probably take a look at your comments rather than trying to find ways of people being stopped from downvoting, note, I'm not sure if you are speaking from personal experience here or in a general sense.

The most rampant downvoters never comment themselves

And forcing them to comment will change this how exactly?

Just take a look at pretty much every NTR doujin. It wasn't that bad a few years ago in galleries like Otomedori, but nowadays you can hardly say anything other than "This is awesome" in these galleries without being nuked by the same handful of people.

Because those people only want to read comments praising NTR at all times.

This post has been edited by PersonaFan08: Jan 7 2016, 01:35

And forcing them to comment will change this how exactly?

Go social media like others pointed out. Since it prevents others from negative nuking it will force them to speak their minds instead of encouraging them to keep the habit.

Go social media like others pointed out.

That doesn't work when you can leave a comment on a gallery no one views anymore. All you've done is add a step to the spam. Seriously, do you people actually use the systems for which you make suggestions?

I don't know why the rating/reviewing toplist still even exist.

Four years later, and I'm still wondering the same thing.

The cap is now 50 points for rating, instead of 100.

For those who know how to exploit toplist points and are willing to do so - of which there are many - the reward for spamming the system with thoughtless ratings 1 second after joining a gallery is now 50 rather than 100.

IMO that's still 50 too many, and I think pretty much everyone agrees, but it's better than it was.

The cap is now 50 points for rating, instead of 100.

For those who know how to exploit toplist points and are willing to do so - of which there are many - the reward for spamming the system with thoughtless ratings 1 second after joining a gallery is now 50 rather than 100.

IMO that's still 50 too many, and I think pretty much everyone agrees, but it's better than it was.

Wow, that already made a significant difference. I suddenly jumped up to #10 on the daily rating & reviewing list with 71 points after having been ranked #50 or something with a similar amount of points before that. And the rating spammers all have exactly 50 points now.

How exactly are those points calculated? I know that you get one point for each rating, but how do comments play a part here?

Wow, that already made a significant difference. I suddenly jumped up to #10 on the daily rating & reviewing list with 71 points after having been ranked #50 or something with a similar amount of points before that. And the rating spammers all have exactly 50 points now.

How exactly are those points calculated? I know that you get one point for each rating, but how do comments play a part here?

I don't know the calculation but I'm sure that negative ratings take from it, don't think its anything like a 1 for 1 basis but it does count.

Not sure if this is a good idea, but you could reduce to half (probably not good as everything is integer so far) or even completely negate the amount of points one user gets from rating, if his vote deviate too much from the average rating at the next Dawn (like voting 0.5 on a 4 star gallery, or 5 on a 2 star gallery).

The vote would be still valid for the gallery rating itself. Maybe that could reduce a bit the autotune voting.

This post has been edited by elgringo: Jan 8 2016, 15:06

Not sure if this is a good idea, but you could reduce to half (probably not good as everything is integer so far) or even completely negate the amount of points one user gets from rating, if his vote deviate too much from the average rating at the next Dawn (like voting 0.5 on a 4 star gallery, or 5 on a 2 star gallery).

The vote would be still valid for the gallery rating itself. Maybe that could reduce a bit the autotune voting.

I was thinking about suggesting something like that but it's probably way too hard to accurately separate genuine voters from spam voters, at least not without too many false positives. It would also penalize those who genuinely have a different opinion on what constitutes a "good" gallery from the majority. I think that might also cause ratings to somewhat coalesce around the early average by the first couple raters, whatever it happens to be. In other words, more autotune.

Anyway, even though the max points from rating is now 50, we've having the same problem as when it was 100. For today, for example, ranks 4-7 have the majority of their points from rating only, and ranks 8-27 have exactly 50 points, from rating only. People are still rating just to get points, likely, and I think that's not a good thing.