Plans for Expanding Workshop & Offering "Instant Upload/Feedback" Functionality to OC ReMix

[djpretzel]

I think this is my only concern. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea, so long as you keep the OCR-level stuff separate from the WIP-level stuff...

On the other hand, I think it's vitally important to keep the two databases as clearly defined and separate as possible, because if they start to run into each other, some of the impetus to strive for track perfection and bettering oneself as an artist gets lost. I'd fear that some people would take the attitude of "I got lots of likes in the Workshop and it's in OCR's database somewhere, that's close enough for me."

Well, people already do this... with YouTube. i.e. "I got tons of views on YT, screw OCR!" - just because there's a barrier to entry doesn't necessarily guarantee people will strive to meet it & refine their work. Some will, some won't. However, I completely agree that a major challenge will be clearly & cleanly delineating "featured" (i.e. judged) mixes from "workshop" (wip, finished, submitted). I'd love to use the word "official" instead of "featured" for the judged mixes, but we run into major problems with copyright owners when we refer to fan arrangements as being "official" in any way, shape, or form.

If people have ideas about a better word to use ("certified" has the same problem as "official") than "featured" - I'm all ears!

I feel like this would betray both the workshop and OCR's long-standing rule of not adding a rating system for posted remixes. Granted, these would not be "posted remixes" as far as being on the front page of the site, but rating would be just as damaging to them as it would to a front page mix.

That remains to be seen; generally speaking, we've felt that ratings would cause drama and deter people from checking out mixes from lesser-known games, in lesser-known genres. For workshop mixes, though, it could actually INCREASE attention above the current baseline such that the overall level of traffic/interest was higher on average, even for mixes of obscure games, with fewer reviews. As for drama - making ratings optional on a per-mix basis I think would really help address this.

How about instead of ratings, make it a thumbs up or thumbs down system that only a workshop moderator can add to a workshop mix? This would denote whether they think the mix is ready for prime time or not. Changing the system in the way described would make workshop moderators obsolete when it is their opinions that matter in the workshop. Excuse my french but I don't give a darn what XxssjGoku69xX thinks of my mix, whether he rates it a 2 or a 10. If I'm posting a mix in the workshop, I'm posting it there to get help, and feedback from someone who is at least on par with myself musically such as a workshop mod. I've personally seen horrible advice going out over the workshop and it's really discouraging, and I feel that is a more important thing to address than adding ratings which would more or less be akin to making the situation worse. I don't think OCR has to have VGMIX functionality, OCR was always better than VGMIX, and it was better for a reason.

Well, first off, thanks. However, I think you might be underselling the community a bit - while I'm sure there will be those who abuse such a system, I feel like the overall reaction would be positive and supportive. Making ratings optional again is a key component here. As for likes/dislikes - I don't want dislikes or thumbs down on the site, period. I kinda feel like they're more insulting and less helpful than even a 1-star review.

Besides, I think OCR should support vgmix right now, not go into competition with it. Beyond how much that would hurt OCR's systems, it wouldn't be particularly kind to vgmix.

This is a weird sentiment; if there's one thing you can count on, it's that I'll do what I think is best for the site & community, regardless of whoever else is doing whatever else. There have been several non-OCR attempts at making something like this work, now, and I think we should give it a shot ourselves and see what we can do. And as a side note, we've been considering something like this far before the resuscitation and re-resuscitation of vgmix/vgremix. It's not unkind for us to make long-term plans for the future of OCR and eventually act on them, and in my mind we're primarily in competition with ourselves first, and YouTube/SoundCloud/BandCamp second, as we have to make a cogent argument as to the value-added that we bring to the table.

If this is something you really need to add then I will support that, and might even use it, depending on how it works out. But like I said, if all I get are reviews and ratings from XxssjGoku69xX then I'd be less likely to ever use the workshop. IMO the more important functionality change would be to emphasize workshop moderators and their input on that forum. Have their responses highlighted or something. Maybe change responses from people who aren't posted remixers to be greyed out and only visible if you click it. In the interest of receiving quality information rather than quantity information.

Highlighting staff reviews and potentially also reviews from featured artists (composer or mixers) is an excellent idea. Agreed that it has tremendous value.

Stop picking on XxssjGoku69xX, I love that kid

Lastly I would not want works in progress on my artist profile. I do not currently have a lot of threads in the workshop because I am against releasing incomplete material. This new system sounds like it'd be a way to highlight unfinished works and I'm not cool with that as an artist.

Hmmm. Well, I'm going to consider that a feature request for an opt-out artist profile flag "List Works-in-Progress on Artist Page" - but I'm not sure how many others feel that way, and it somewhat defeats the purpose, so it might not end up as a high-priority feature request.

I'm going to second this for obvious reasons.

and this. I wouldn't want people to say "Oh yeah! I got posted on OCR! I'm official now!" if they've literally just posted something in the Workshop forums and it actually wasn't judged/dped or approved at all. Getting a mixpost is an honor, and you know, just posting something that wasn't evaluated isn't really an honor. You'd just liked what you'd done and had wanted to share it, but that'd be about it.

I know WE think of it as an honor - and it should be - but I think a good cross-section of the public are completely unaware one way or another. I'm hoping that by differentiating between "featured" mixes and "featured" artists vs. workshop mixes and forum members, we can still emphasize this difference, and it will still be meaningful. This is indeed a risk, but I think it seems like more of a risk to those of us "inside the fishbowl" looking at OCR with a great deal of familiarity and/or baggage.

and this. Except I would agree with Argle that "Likes" would be more friendly than star ratings. I'd add that perhaps we could just have Likes, but no Dislikes. Then it'd be just the number of Likes you have, rather than the ratio of Likes/Dislikes you have. It would at least make me feel better if I were a beginner than in a star rating system or something like that.

As mentioned to Brandon, I'm pretty strongly against dislikes. What I'm currently thinking is this:

• Likes (only - no dislikes) enabled for ALL workshop mixes, period
  
• 5-star ratings optional on a per-mix basis
  

I'm still unsure how best to handle versions. Some have proposed that only mixes marked as "Finished" should allow ratings, but that does make things a bit more complicated, especially if artists can toggle a mix BACK from being finished into WIP state...

Emotionally, I'm leaning towards that as well (as i said, ratings can be useful but are evil)....but the disadvantages of having just a purely "Likes" based system have to be considered:

It'd be way more prone to hype of individual mixes (and individual games). Once a mix reaches a critical amount of likes it'll just keep on generating more exponentially cause of improved exposure. So popularity gaps are increased.

Having a separate, more informative measure for voicing (dis)approval lends itself better to people discovering hidden gems that only have few likes, reviews and ratings, though very enthusiastic ones.

I believe the best possible system requires the inclusion of this controversial feature, the challenge is making it neutral enough, minimizing the negative impact on the community. Compromises are in order.

Well, again, this is JUST for the workshop. Featured mixes will continue to work in their normal fashion, although likes may be enabled for them as well (without ratings).

Another thought: i think it might be best if the (still optional) ratings were coupled with a mandatory review. Nothing too detailed necessarily, but with a moderately low word minimum.

Just to pull back on the newgrounds "blam this piece of crap!" factor, yknow.

I think that should be doable; it's definitely a decision point to be considered.

Cool, sounding pretty good! I was actually thinking some of those would be direct "nah". Promising.

I already link youtube videos to the wip posts. Can the system keep track if other people have posted the same source and offer that? Or will OCR end up in court for that?

You're so demanding In a perfect world, association at the song level would bring back existing YT previews of the source tune. Initially, manual entry might be much cleaner & more flexible.

Being able to enter the source link in some separate manner than in the message might be good. It'll highlight to posters that it is good to include the source, at least. And people who give feedback might find the link to the source in a standardized place.

Agreed.

One additional thing that came to mind regarding this synergy is making changes to a submitted mix. I do this since I am still poor at determining if a piece is good/finished/etc.

It'd be cool if I could make changes to a submitted track that isn't in panel yet, at the cost of bumping the track back to the end of the queue, which I would find reasonable. The thing is if I try to send in an update in an "unofficial" manner (sorry Larry) I worry which version will end up in the panel/etc. I suppose the same goes for approved pieces too - the system would support an update and there would be some appropriate evaluation process (I would find complete re-evaluation reasonable actually - serves me right but the staff would know what would be reasonable for them).

Very fancy. Sounds like a "Phase 2" sort of thing, but I get what you're saying.

Okay, final->submit satisfies in-site submitting and the opt-out satisfies seeing if the artist is aiming for an OCR submission. The latter would be useful when you give feedback, since if they do aim for OCR, one can try to give feedback that would help them fulfill the submission standards. If they don't, you can keep the feedback more general. I quite often wonder about this when I give feedback. To fulfill that role though, the opt-out should be considered when the thread is created (of course the artist is free to change their mind about that any time).

Welllllll... at ANY time? If a couple judges have already weighed in, we won't want to interrupt that process, as it'll introduce chaos and redundant work. Needs to be considered - there's really a workflow/lifecycle here, with business rules that need to be fleshed out.

I do think marking the piece as finished should be clearly separate from submitting, the latter should be a process clearly in itself so that the user knows it's important (this might be obvious but it's not clear from the above). So the opt-out above shouldn't control if the mix ends up in the panel queue, it should just be informational.

Right now workshop has three categories for ReMixes: Work-in-progress, Finished, Mod Review. I could imagine using: Work-in-progress, Release candidate, Mod review, Finished, Submit(ted).

The way I've used the current categories "Finished" means a release candidate where I think it's finished, but am taking in more feedback (and usually end up changing the piece quite a bit). "Release candidate" is of course a software term, not a musical term.. could be better. It might be useful to differentiate "finished" from "release candidate", the latter meaning almost/possibly finished, but the artist is still willing to incorporate feedback, useful for both those who give and want feedback.

--Eino

Again, good stuff. This will all be very useful when we spec out what it is we can actually achieve

Edited March 20, 2014 by djpretzel

[SuperiorX]

I haven't read this whole thread in THAT much detail, but in general I'm LOVING all the suggestions here. I know I've often personally been curious about "hey is there a remix of X song from X game" and I'll search the database and come up empty-handed, but almost certainly there would be something in the Workshop forums if I dug long enough. Having an easy way to integrate the Workshop into the main OCR database (searchable by artist, track, game, etc.) sounds amazing. I do like the important distinction of having "FEATURED" mixes that passed the judges panel and then having just "WORKSHOP" songs. I know sometimes I just don't feel like polishing up a mix enough to sub it, or with compo tracks (e.g., SZRC, WCRG), I could post em' up in the Workshop and get feedback and still have it be integrated into my Artist page. Plus I feel like the Workshop forums have dropped off a bit lately; there just seem to be less people using them and less people giving feedback, so maybe this will help revitalize them a bit!

I'm excited to see how OCR continues to evolve and expand! Keep at it!

[Cash]

As mentioned to Brandon, I'm pretty strongly against dislikes. What I'm currently thinking is this:

• Likes (only - no dislikes) enabled for ALL workshop mixes, period
  
• 5-star ratings optional on a per-mix basis
  

I'm down with likes and optional ratings.

[Kenogu Labz]

I almost wonder if adding five-star ratings would cause less useful feedback to be provided. "I gave a rating, that's sufficient."

In terms of 'Featured' terminology substitutions, perhaps something like 'Promising', 'On the Rise', etc. would be more appropriate? Terms that imply that there is interest in the item, but not that the item is in any way a part of the official OCR library.

[djpretzel]

I almost wonder if adding five-star ratings would cause less useful feedback to be provided. "I gave a rating, that's sufficient."

In terms of 'Featured' terminology substitutions, perhaps something like 'Promising', 'On the Rise', etc. would be more appropriate? Terms that imply that there is interest in the item, but not that the item is in any way a part of the official OCR library.

Nah, perhaps I wasn't clear: FEATURED will be the actual, judged, canonized mixes - like what we have now. WORKSHOP will be everything else, including WIPs, Finished, Submitted, etc.

So the replacement term for FEATURED wouldn't be "promising" it would be BADASS

[Brandon Strader]

All I ever wanted, all I ever needed is here, in your code-typing arms: an EXP and leveling up system within the OCR site. You gain EXP for posting, maybe a little more for posting WIPs, for reviewing posted mixes, maybe a whole bunch of other things you can do to get EXP.

And when you level up, you get some neat perk. Like you can change the color of your name or something. I dunno I haven't thought of the perks I just like to grind

Maybe a bunch of quirky achievements too

[MindWanderer]

Lots of great ideas here.

Regarding "mix status," I'm thinking along the following lines:

1. WIP: Unfinished, actively soliciting feedback. Cannot be rated.
   
2. What we currently call "finished" in the WIP forum, probably needs a new name ("complete?"): Is a complete song, but feedback is still actively solicited. Can be rated, however, it can also be updated! If updated, you could use an algorithm that would weight post-update ratings more highly than pre-update ones, to the point where after a few new ratings have been made, the old ones don't contribute at all.
   
3. Mod Review: Same as #2 but flagged for a workshop mod's attention. Maybe needs a new name b/c of #5 below. Workshop mods can knock this back to #2.
   
4. Submitted: Timestamped and queued into the "inbox." Can be updated, but doing so resets the timestamp.
   
5. Under Review: At least one judge has placed a vote, but the votes are hidden. Once judging is complete, it gets knocked back to #2 or promoted to #6.
   
6. I don't like "Featured," personally. Other websites use "featured" to represent a small, rotating list of items, and that's what they'll assume we mean it to mean. (And we could "feature" mixes as well: recent mixposts, hot discussions, recent updates to hot WIPs, etc.) I agree that "Passed" and "Approved" are problematic as well, though. You could just use an "OCR Seal of Recognition" logo, I suppose--sometimes actual words aren't necessary. Or the more tongue-in-cheek "OCR OK" or "Blessings of the Judges."
   

Special bonus: OCRemoved would become unnecessary. Mixes could get demoted from #6 and remain on the site at #2.

Edit: Just thought of another bonus to using a "seal": Mixes can be updated any time until they get the "seal." So the forums would be able to use the word "sealed" as an apt double entendre.

Edited March 21, 2014 by MindWanderer

[Brandon Strader]

Maybe the forum for posting finished remixes and posting WIPs should be separated into 2 separate subforums, one with rating, and one without.

[Kenogu Labz]

Nah, perhaps I wasn't clear: FEATURED will be the actual, judged, canonized mixes - like what we have now. WORKSHOP will be everything else, including WIPs, Finished, Submitted, etc.

So the replacement term for FEATURED wouldn't be "promising" it would be BADASS

D'oh, that was my bad reading.

'Certified' is probably too close to 'Official', I'd guess. 'Showcased'?

You could always use DJP'd. Then the judges really would djp.

[MindWanderer]

Just had some thoughts on how compos could be integrated into this system.

In general, there should be a system for tagging mixes with various attributes, but with compos, you could do it like this:

Participants upload their entries but mark them as private, and PM the compo organizer with the link. The organizer would have the ability to un-hide the mixes and flag them with the compo name, round, bracket, season, etc.

Another use of tags would be that producers of official albums could tag remixes as belonging to an album. Or this privilege could be reserved for the OCR team and applied only when an album is released.

Speaking of albums and compos, another consideration is versioning. Sometimes the album version or compo version of a mix aren't the ones that get posted. Having multiple versions is handy to see the progress of WIPs, too. This could be as complex as a full VCS-like system, or as simple as a tag saying "Other versions of this remix: A B C"

[HoboKa]

D'oh, that was my bad reading.

'Certified' is probably too close to 'Official', I'd guess. 'Showcased'?

You could always use DJP'd. Then the judges really would djp.

What about 'bona-fied'...or is it 'bonafied'?

Also, I'm not sure if it's mentioned, but just to be clear...people who have difficulty getting posted can still get plenty of exposure right??

[Mirby]

I believe it would be "bonafide"

Also, question. Would these changes have any effect on #ocrwip?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Mirby

[Nase]

Well, again, this is JUST for the workshop. Featured mixes will continue to work in their normal fashion, although likes may be enabled for them as well (without ratings).

that's completely clear dude. and again, i think it's necessary to make it work as intended. my point was you either need none of the two (likes&rating) or BOTH.

i guess i could live with the featured mixes having likes, they're featured after all so exposure is already there.

a little idea that i expect to not be very popular with you, but i'll post it anyway:

one thing that was fun about Overlooked Remix was the personal top 11 every user could make to feature his most beloved mixes.

the fact that it was an ordered list isn't important at all;

if you view it as a way for everyone to do a little feature list of especially noteworthy mixes of a limited number, in no particular order, i could see it being a nice enhancement. it might even be a valid alternative to extending the 'likes' system to featured mixes.

think of it as a mixtape that every user can compile in his profile, and you can click on it and stream through his picks like an actual album.

note how i went to great lengths to not use the word "favorite" lol

[Brandon Strader]

Not a fan of likes for "featured" mixes. Not a fan of popularity contest systems. I never thought I'd see the day something like that would be added

The only way I could see it working is if it added the mix to the user's list of liked mixes rather than being a part of public data.

[Chernabogue]

I thought about this system:

- WIP Workshop subforum (VGM)

- WIP Workshop subforum (originals)

- Showcase (Finished VGM)

- Showcase (Finished originals)

Once again, the problem of the quality would appear, because people have different opinions on what is finished or not. But it'd be simple to avoid this. For instance, posting in a SHOWCASE subforum will engage your own responsability about the quality of your products.

[djpretzel]

All I ever wanted, all I ever needed is here, in your code-typing arms: an EXP and leveling up system within the OCR site. You gain EXP for posting, maybe a little more for posting WIPs, for reviewing posted mixes, maybe a whole bunch of other things you can do to get EXP.

And when you level up, you get some neat perk. Like you can change the color of your name or something. I dunno I haven't thought of the perks I just like to grind

Maybe a bunch of quirky achievements too

Ultimately, while fun, stuff like this is lower priority than simply getting a functional & improved system in place. Once we get our shit in order and the dust settles, I'm not opposed to adding some incentives & achievements/reputation systems that track different activities, but it needs to be secondary to getting the basics working, and working well.

Maybe the forum for posting finished remixes and posting WIPs should be separated into 2 separate subforums, one with rating, and one without.

We want to keep things as simple as possible, for artists AND visitors; I'd prefer to handle this in a single, filterable interface, but we'll see.

D'oh, that was my bad reading.

'Certified' is probably too close to 'Official', I'd guess. 'Showcased'?

You could always use DJP'd. Then the judges really would djp.

"Showcased" isn't bad.

One OTHER idea we had was to refer to approved mixes as "OC ReMixes" and everything else as "Workshop Mixes" but we felt that could get confusing, too.

Just had some thoughts on how compos could be integrated into this system.

In general, there should be a system for tagging mixes with various attributes, but with compos, you could do it like this:

Participants upload their entries but mark them as private, and PM the compo organizer with the link. The organizer would have the ability to un-hide the mixes and flag them with the compo name, round, bracket, season, etc.

Another use of tags would be that producers of official albums could tag remixes as belonging to an album. Or this privilege could be reserved for the OCR team and applied only when an album is released.

Speaking of albums and compos, another consideration is versioning. Sometimes the album version or compo version of a mix aren't the ones that get posted. Having multiple versions is handy to see the progress of WIPs, too. This could be as complex as a full VCS-like system, or as simple as a tag saying "Other versions of this remix: A B C"

At least initially, we want to keep things as simple as we possibly can while people just learn the new system and transition from the status quo. Eventually, I agree the benefit to compos & projects should be considerable, ALTHOUGH, other improvements at the forum level might actually better address some of the stuff you're describing.

I believe it would be "bonafide"

Also, question. Would these changes have any effect on #ocrwip?

Nope. I guess it'd be nice if they had the effect of increasing activity, but nothing beyond that... did you have ideas?

that's completely clear dude. and again, i think it's necessary to make it work as intended. my point was you either need none of the two (likes&rating) or BOTH.

i guess i could live with the featured mixes having likes, they're featured after all so exposure is already there.

a little idea that i expect to not be very popular with you, but i'll post it anyway:

one thing that was fun about Overlooked Remix was the personal top 11 every user could make to feature his most beloved mixes.

the fact that it was an ordered list isn't important at all;

if you view it as a way for everyone to do a little feature list of especially noteworthy mixes of a limited number, in no particular order, i could see it being a nice enhancement. it might even be a valid alternative to extending the 'likes' system to featured mixes.

think of it as a mixtape that every user can compile in his profile, and you can click on it and stream through his picks like an actual album.

note how i went to great lengths to not use the word "favorite" lol

We'd actually already internally discussed PERSONAL top ten lists, or other types of playlists, as being fine. We'll also have blogs, which would provide a less structured way of doing the same thing. The key thing is that we wouldn't aggregate everyone's top ten into an OVERALL top ten. The idea has merit and could increase exposure without devolving into a popularity contest, so we've been considering it and will continue to, but it's also lower priority relative to just getting the workshop off the ground in a more automated/integrated fashion.

Not a fan of likes for "featured" mixes. Not a fan of popularity contest systems. I never thought I'd see the day something like that would be added

The only way I could see it working is if it added the mix to the user's list of liked mixes rather than being a part of public data.

I think # of likes and who liked would be visible/public in some form when looking at the specific mix, but NOT when listing ALL mixes... it's a compromise. We need a balance between the community providing feedback on mixes and enhancing exposure through that feedback, and, as you say, avoiding popularity contests.

I thought about this system:

- WIP Workshop subforum (VGM)

- WIP Workshop subforum (originals)

- Showcase (Finished VGM)

- Showcase (Finished originals)

Once again, the problem of the quality would appear, because people have different opinions on what is finished or not. But it'd be simple to avoid this. For instance, posting in a SHOWCASE subforum will engage your own responsability about the quality of your products.

Not a bad idea. Ultimately, if versioning the mix in place is too complicated, we could do something like this. But wouldn't it be duplicate data entry if you had a WIP and then wanted to mark it as finished to have to post it again? Wouldn't that annoy people?

[Chernabogue]

Not a bad idea. Ultimately, if versioning the mix in place is too complicated, we could do something like this. But wouldn't it be duplicate data entry if you had a WIP and then wanted to mark it as finished to have to post it again? Wouldn't that annoy people?

Having a feature that would allow a thread marked "Finished" to be automatically moved to "Shwocase" would help this system. Else, the Workshop mods can do it too.

[Mirby]

Nope. I guess it'd be nice if they had the effect of increasing activity, but nothing beyond that... did you have ideas?

All I can think of is that being able to upload the mixes and such (even though I think we already had temporary hosting for WIPs or something) would make it easier to be able to link those.

I can't think of any way in which the channel would be improved by this stuff aside from that.

Really though I'd hope that the (hopefully) instant feedback from the channel could pair nicely with the instant upload features.

[timaeus222]

I think # of likes and who liked would be visible/public in some form when looking at the specific mix, but NOT when listing ALL mixes... it's a compromise. We need a balance between the community providing feedback on mixes and [additionally] enhancing exposure through that feedback, and, as you say, avoiding popularity contests.

What if we had Likes only visible by the artist of the remix, and not visible by other remixers or visitors? Then the artist could get private feedback, but it wouldn't have any impact on what remixes appear to be most liked out of all the ones on the site or give hints to visitors on what remixes were more liked than others. Then visitors would be less inclined to view specific remixes just because they have high ratings (since they wouldn't see the ratings!).

e.g. public can like a mix, likes display privately to remixer as "feedback", they don't display publicly in databases or listings, and mix popularities are determined by actually choosing to listen to some random remix that you think you'd like --> all remixes essentially displayed neutrally.

Edited March 21, 2014 by timaeus222

[Brandon Strader]

It's really great that djp is working so hand in hand to answer and explain stuff, very nice, thank you No more questions or concerns just wanted to say that. I'm excited to see how this comes together and it'll probably be good but it better not delay v6! I been waiting for that forever!

[jnWake]

I'm not a big fan of like/rating systems, but every official remix gets posted on YouTube and already receives likes and dislikes, so I don't think adding them to the site would be too damaging. Besides, likes/dislikes on the site would be backed by user's feedback so they could mean a lot more.

[Mirby]

I just realized there's no thread or anything pointing out #ocrwip in the Workshop forum anymore. I could've sworn there used to be.

Perhaps with this revamp we could plug that channel? Since it is a useful asset and all.

[Brandon Strader]

I'm not a big fan of like/rating systems, but every official remix gets posted on YouTube and already receives likes and dislikes, so I don't think adding them to the site would be too damaging.

Have you seen Youtube ratings for more divisive mixes or even vocal mixes?

[jnWake]

Have you seen Youtube ratings for more divisive mixes or even vocal mixes?

I have, that's why I added a second line to my post You may have an occasional user dislike a mix for having vocals, but it shouldn't happen on the site as much as it happens on YouTube.

[Brandon Strader]

I have, that's why I added a second line to my post You may have an occasional user dislike a mix for having vocals, but it shouldn't happen on the site as much as it happens on YouTube.

Hmm yes, you know that's actually interesting, if a rating also required a review, and reviews like "this sucks butt" were moderated and frowned upon, this could end up being a really strong system. Throw in an EXP mechanic and it could be amazing.

Like how Green Man Gaming sometimes pays a quarter or whatever for a published quality review. Incentive for writing a good one.