Found 36 posts - Go to Last Post


Planned
Status changed to 'Planned' - This will be on it's way later this year following the GTN 7.0 release.
Status changed to 'Planned' - This will be on it's way later this year following the GTN 7.0 release.
Originally Posted by GTN Eric
LETS GOOOO
https://giphy.com/gifs/metal-gear-so...i-OrFmkOFx7PVK
Status changed to 'Planned' - This will be on it's way later this year following the GTN 7.0 release.
Originally Posted by GTN Eric
Woot woot!
Nice! Sessions would be great. I also agree that the way psnp has it is better. Also up for a reputation system since i'd prefer to filter out the bads that way.
This site should "copy" everything good from the other "Achievement Tracking" sites and it would be THE BEST OF THE BEST!

In the time that I have been here I have seen that the Staff is not toxic like the other sites lol
I would avoid any type of reputation/feedback rating on sessions. I have never seen one of those not be abused. Usually, word of mouth gets around that certain people are bad actors, and the system naturally weeds them out. Putting a numeric ranking on it allows the bad apples to retaliate with negative feedback to anyone that gave them bad feedback.

At most, I would say allow a "Thumbs Up" for a positive experience. Nothing else, no negative, just nothing.

This would allow excellent partners to shine, while giving no method of retaliation to anyone.

Example:
futiles has 300 sessions, and has received 150 Thumbs. (OK, most people are not going to rate someone, so, half of all his partners thumbed him, that seems solid)

dacoto has 450 sessions, and has 10 Thumbs. (Wow, that guy seems like he might be problematic, at least 10% of people should have given him a thumbs up...)

Hotdogmcgee as 15 sessions, and 0 Thumbs. (OK, he doesn't do sessions often, so, we can take a chance here...)

So, no retaliation, and the system naturally defines itself.

Also, I like calling dacoto a douche...
Very excited to see this!

Also, I agree with futiles’ suggestion for feedback

Only modification I might make is to do it like “has been in sessions with ___ number of people and has got ___ thumbs up” rather than do the number of sessions

Otherwise a good session with 10 people is “worth” 10 times as much towards someone’s perceived reputation as 10 bad sessions with one person each when IMO they should be weighed equally (at best)
Very excited to see this!

Also, I agree with futiles’ suggestion for feedback

Only modification I might make is to do it like “has been in sessions with ___ number of people and has got ___ thumbs up” rather than do the number of sessions

Otherwise a good session with 10 people is “worth” 10 times as much towards someone’s perceived reputation as 10 bad sessions with one person each when IMO they should be weighed equally (at best)
Originally Posted by zoidberg1339
That's a fair tweak. I wasn't really thinking about groups of people so much as the general a session was good or not.
You need a reputation system otherwise people are just going to no show or be trolls in sessions without consequence
I would avoid any type of reputation/feedback rating on sessions. I have never seen one of those not be abused. Usually, word of mouth gets around that certain people are bad actors, and the system naturally weeds them out. Putting a numeric ranking on it allows the bad apples to retaliate with negative feedback to anyone that gave them bad feedback.

At most, I would say allow a "Thumbs Up" for a positive experience. Nothing else, no negative, just nothing.

This would allow excellent partners to shine, while giving no method of retaliation to anyone.

Example:
futiles has 300 sessions, and has received 150 Thumbs. (OK, most people are not going to rate someone, so, half of all his partners thumbed him, that seems solid)

dacoto has 450 sessions, and has 10 Thumbs. (Wow, that guy seems like he might be problematic, at least 10% of people should have given him a thumbs up...)

Hotdogmcgee as 15 sessions, and 0 Thumbs. (OK, he doesn't do sessions often, so, we can take a chance here...)

So, no retaliation, and the system naturally defines itself.

Also, I like calling dacoto a douche...
Originally Posted by futiles
I both like and dislike the idea of a reputation system. If used properly, it allows for a good indication of repeated behavior in sessions (no-shows, leaving early, refusing to help others in session, etc.), but sadly, it can also be abused. I have 3 negs on the other site, 2 are retaliatory for no show players, while the third was somebody calling me a no-show despite them never sending me an invite (I sat in the lobby for 30 minutes waiting for one), admittedly, this was still early on for me with boosting, so I didn't think to message them about the session, particularly since the session itself didn't say I needed to and every session prior to that the host sent me a friend request and/or session/party invite before the start time.

The simple thumbs up % is not a bad idea at all. It simplifies feedback, but if a lot of people don't actually use it (like suggested above) then the feedback won't be very accurate either. I doubt that there's an easy or perfect solution, but I'm sure we'll end up with something useful Smile
I both like and dislike the idea of a reputation system. If used properly, it allows for a good indication of repeated behavior in sessions (no-shows, leaving early, refusing to help others in session, etc.), but sadly, it can also be abused. I have 3 negs on the other site, 2 are retaliatory for no show players, while the third was somebody calling me a no-show despite them never sending me an invite (I sat in the lobby for 30 minutes waiting for one), admittedly, this was still early on for me with boosting, so I didn't think to message them about the session, particularly since the session itself didn't say I needed to and every session prior to that the host sent me a friend request and/or session/party invite before the start time.

The simple thumbs up % is not a bad idea at all. It simplifies feedback, but if a lot of people don't actually use it (like suggested above) then the feedback won't be very accurate either. I doubt that there's an easy or perfect solution, but I'm sure we'll end up with something useful Smile
Originally Posted by HyruleBalverine
You always have the same percentage of people use a system (legitimately) no matter what it is, positive/negative feedback, thumbs up, star rankings. A certain percentage use it legit, a certain percentage don't care and don't use it, and a certain percentage only use it retaliatory. That's just a thing.

If people truly want a positive/negative feedback system, then the only way to limit MOST forms of abuse are to make feedback on a session secret until you post yours. And, feedback cannot be changed without a support ticket. So, you have a session, and someone no-shows. They cannot see any feedback left for them until they post their own.

This doesn't eliminate someone going in and just bashing anyone/everyone in a session, but, it does provide against a user seeing themselves get a negative review, and then posting a negative in return. Also, once you post review, good or bad, it is locked in. You can submit a ticket to change/update it, but, that will QUICKLY identify who is using the system in bad faith (but, will also be a potential drain on staff resources).
You need a reputation system otherwise people are just going to no show or be trolls in sessions without consequence
Originally Posted by TerraTanium
Do you, though? I have never seen a reputation system not be abused, and, plenty of forums without rep systems discover their own natural way to police it themselves.
[quote=futiles;67283]You always have the same percentage of people use a system (legitimately) no matter what it is, positive/negative
If people truly want a positive/negative feedback system, then the only way to limit MOST forms of abuse are to make feedback on a session secret until you post yours. And, feedback cannot be changed without a support ticket. So, you have a session, and someone no-shows. They cannot see any feedback left for them until they post their own.
Originally Posted by futiles
People will just no show then not leave feedback because they know they'll receive bad feedback. Would need a timer as well in that case.

Sign up for a new account. It's free and easy!

Sign up for an account

Already have an account? Login here

Login to your account