• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Negative Reputation

101 posts in this topic

What always confuses me about something as simple as a "like" button is that I don't know on which "scale" I'm supposed to rate the post. Do I "like" the way it is presented? Was the content useful to me? do I agree with what was written?

So for example when I'm reading a thread in the more technical forums I "like" posts that I learn something from. Generally posts that explain something in a understandable way ("was this helpful?"-button) or even ones that just point me into the right direction. Posts I'd vote down would be the ones that I know are incorrect, in which case I'd also try to answer and address the issue.
But then when I open my own thread with a question I suddenly feel like I should thank everyone who tried to help me, even if he misread my question. So now I'm treating the button like a "thank you" button. In the lounge I'd want to "like" stuff that has an entertainment value to me, like a post in a funny picture thread or an interesting point in a discussion (even if I don't fully agree). Someone else will probably rate the same post in the discussion based on whether he agrees or not.

So by using something as generic as a "like" button you just end up rating arbitrary (and maybe orthogonal) properties on an arbitrary scale and then somehow represent them in a single number.

For the technical forums I'd just go with a "this was helpful"-button and a "disagree/incorrect"-button for which you somehow have to give a reason (basically a variant of the quote button). If you really want it to be fancy you could weight the "disagree" post based on how many people disagree with the disagree :D. In the more off-topic forums I'd go with no rating at all since you'd have to either make a very complicated tagging system or end up with another meaningless number since there is no way to enforce or even suggest a unique scale to rate on.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1313030826' post='4847471']
With 2,321 posts you really got the short end of the stick with 56 rep points then. As a technical point. if one starts an account and posts one post.. two people can vote that post up, thus allowing their reputation to exceed the total number of posts. The actual ceiling is infinite, which makes 56 look even smaller.[/quote]
The lounge kills reputation if you are even a little bit controversial. Being a libertarian catholic, I was doomed from the start.

[quote]What always confuses me about something as simple as a "like" button is that I don't know on which "scale" I'm supposed to rate the post. Do I "like" the way it is presented? Was the content useful to me? do I agree with what was written?[/quote]
This is kind of the best argument against a like/dislike button for me. It's very ambiguous and makes the reputation kind of useless. Someone can be a helpful asshole and have low rep. Someone can also be a non-controversial asshole and get high rep. Someone could be unhelpful but very nice and even bow out after they've been corrected and have low rep. Even more of the problem is that you have to factor in the type of people that will generally vote and how frequently they will vote. For example, I only ever vote on things that make me laugh or things that have a huge correct information density, I'm sure some people vote on everything, and others probably don't vote period. Others will just vote for people they like/don't like every time they see them regardless of post content (vocal minority problem).

The disagree/agree vs unhelpful/helpful ambiguity hurts it the most though imo. It would almost make sense to have 2 different rep systems.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0