User Review Requests Archive Discussion!

I like the ideas in the OP. Especially increasing the word minimum from 100. Too many people write very simple, content-free reviews that are just barely long enough to be posted.

I;d also like to be able to rate in increments of 0.1 instead of 0.5 Could that come back?

Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection#1 Ask the Mods discussion | #2

JodyR

Wow, there are a lot of good ideas flowing around. As the leader of one of the reviewer unions, I approve of a lot of these ideas (most of them discussed by members/top 100 and 500 reviewers too) and also see a lot of issues with others. First, the good:

1 - ADD COMMENTS PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!! I'm sick and tired of getting thumbed this way and that... without knowing why.

2 - The sorting is a superb idea. Among the things I would like to see in the sorting dropdown would be (top 100 reviewers, top 500 reviewers, most thumbed up)

3 - I like the ideas of having a little icon next to my name similar to the Mods and GS crew. I think that would be just peaches and cream/bees knees/creme de creme!!!!

And, the not so good:

1 - As for the Raptr and other linked app ideas - while it is good keep in mind that it is only current gen and PC ready. Any game that does not have that capability (Atari 1600 - PS2/Xbox) it really does not have quite the same impact as it would for the current gen, and it could potentially create some big issues. Also, Raptr doesn't auto track all games that it supports the achievements for. I know the PS3 is not a real-time feed like it is for the 360, and sometimes it doesn't work for all PC games either (has been hit/miss with my SCII account). I feel the pain of @DaavPuke on this matter - so while it COULD be a good feature for supported games, do not make it a necessity.

2 - To "track" or own the game in order to review doesn't necessarily apply. For example, what if the user borrows the game via GameFly... or one day trades it in? This is all part of the process of "building" your game library. I do this in order to keep economics in check and can see that my "collection" as it exists now is in no sense a reflection of the games I have played over the past 20 years.

There are my thoughts on the matter. Thanks to Jody for the thread and continuous improvement and community, and thanks to the members of the GRU for sounding in, you make me proud!!!

Also, anyone interested in getting some feedback and critiques as a reviewer make sure to check out our union here!!! Always accepting applications!!!

I like the ideas in the OP. Especially increasing the word minimum from 100. Too many people write very simple, content-free reviews that are just barely long enough to be posted.

I;d also like to be able to rate in increments of 0.1 instead of 0.5 Could that come back?

BuryMe

Bury, I'm with you on this one... I have a TON of 9.5's in my ratings currently because of the system and it makes me look like a floozy of a reviewer - always giving it up!!! I'm not about giving it all up, but these games were clearly above a 9.0, but under a 9.5. This makes me sad :(gdw0908

If they'd still end up in the 9.0 range, then why is the current system a problem? They all mean the same thing, basically, regardless of which sort of increments your using. It's not like re-adding .1 increments would change that image your worried about (not that that's something that need be a concern) seeing as those scores would still carry the same meanings behind them. All they would do is make the scoring process needlessly complex.

[QUOTE="gdw0908"]Bury, I'm with you on this one... I have a TON of 9.5's in my ratings currently because of the system and it makes me look like a floozy of a reviewer - always giving it up!!! I'm not about giving it all up, but these games were clearly above a 9.0, but under a 9.5. This makes me sad :(c_rake

If they'd still end up in the 9.0 range, then why is the current system a problem? They all mean the same thing, basically, regardless of which sort of increments your using. It's not like re-adding .1 increments would change that image your worried about (not that that's something that need be a concern) seeing as those scores would still carry the same meanings behind them. All they would do is make the scoring process needlessly complex.

I don't see how it would make anything too complicated. I think most people can understand that 9.7 is better than 9.5.

I don't see how it would make anything too complicated. I think most people can understand that 9.7 is better than 9.5.

BuryMe

Perhaps, but I'm more talking from the reviewer side. I'm one who likes to ensure that the score matches up perfectly with what I've wrote. The current system makes that easy because it's simple. I can just read the work, determine a score baseline, then decide whether or not I should add the .5 or not. With the other system, it becomes a matter of "how do I justify that slight difference in score?" The answer to which is always you can't. That's the problem with the system. The complexity just comes from trying to assign a score when those .1 differences rarely present themselves within any part of the text. At least with the .5 the differences are usually stark enough for them to become readily apparent.

Limit review writing to those who are higher level?#1JodyR

Remove negative (thumbs down) as an option for readers of user reviewsJodyR

Increase 100 minimum word requirementJodyR

Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collectionJodyR

Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits (review emblems)JodyR

- Sort User Reviews [most recent/username/recommended reviews/user review scores/users with top 100 or top 500 emblem/ if the review badges get added, sort by badge]JodyR

-Enable HTML/wysiwyg editorJodyR

Oh yeah, and the ability to put pictures with captions in a review. Often I will have certain points to make but they wont fit well in the body of the review, caption's allow this and break up the potential wall of text.

I know this didn't make it to the list - perhaps it wasn't proposed at all, but Gamespot would be well served to update reviews based on game changes such as fixes and updates. There are some games that were bad because they were buggy, and became better after hotfixes were applied. Much too often are reviews posted and then left as is no matter what changes are made for a game. A more dynamic review system would paint a more accurate picture of the game's CURRENT state and score, as well as keep Gamespot fresh and relevant. For users it would help to have a reminder that the game has been updated and a suggestion to revise their review based on the change.

While a lot of the suggestions and opinions seem wonderful to make more efficient and accurate reviews - much of it can make the system too complex. Too complex as in not "kid friendly". We must remember that the majority of gamers are children, and forcing a 10 year old to producing a journalistic, web design standard, introspective 1000 word review is being very inconsiderate. Much of these complaints are coming from older folks who think they are going to get some benefit if they acquire enough badges and prestige on the site - maybe Gamespot will hire them if they make enough "professional" reviews (yeah right...lol). While i am an older person and I can appreciate more mature writing and systems, I have to think of the little ones and we need not make it so restrictive that the children on Gamespot cannot participate. Leave the professional reviews to the professionals and keep ours more end user friendly and light hearted (forgiving) - even if that end user is an 8 year old... The only people who should be sweating bullets when writing a review is the ones getting paid for it.

While a lot of the suggestions and opinions seem wonderful to make more efficient and accurate reviews - much of it can make the system too complex. Too complex as in not "kid friendly". We must remember that the majority of gamers are children, and forcing a 10 year old to producing a journalistic, web design standard, introspective 1000 word review is being very inconsiderate. Much of these complaints are coming from older folks who think they are going to get some benefit if they acquire enough badges and prestige on the site - maybe Gamespot will hire them if they make enough "professional" reviews (yeah right...lol). While i am an older person and I can appreciate more mature writing and systems, I have to think of the little ones and we need not make it so restrictive that the children on Gamespot cannot participate. Leave the professional reviews to the professionals and keep ours more end user friendly and light hearted (forgiving) - even if that end user is an 8 year old... The only people who should be sweating bullets when writing a review is the ones getting paid for it.

magusat999

- Sort User Reviews

Definitely something that would be useful.

- Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits
- Allow users feature images
- Enable HTML/wysiwyg editor
- More Clasifications by adding a negative and positive drop down list

These features would be great, it would make user reviews look like GS reviews. And maybe for the medals users could also either send submissions (like emblem creation contests) or upload custom ones.

- Feedback field to share with review writer

A comment field like in any GS news might be useful, but yeah, you might need an option to set the viewing to private/public.

- Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection

People would probably just add it if they wanted to, but I guess those who just want to rate random games might find it lazy to do so (?).

- Add a video to review

Would be useful to those who actually post video reviews.

- Increase 100 minimum word requirement

Good to keep out those who post short reviews.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

I don't see how it would make anything too complicated. I think most people can understand that 9.7 is better than 9.5.

c_rake

Perhaps, but I'm more talking from the reviewer side. I'm one who likes to ensure that the score matches up perfectly with what I've wrote. The current system makes that easy because it's simple. I can just read the work, determine a score baseline, then decide whether or not I should add the .5 or not. With the other system, it becomes a matter of "how do I justify that slight difference in score?" The answer to which is always you can't. That's the problem with the system. The complexity just comes from trying to assign a score when those .1 differences rarely present themselves within any part of the text. At least with the .5 the differences are usually stark enough for them to become readily apparent.

I think the .1 increments should come back also, its so annoying having like 20 games with the exact same score. How is it hard to justify the difference in score if one has inferior graphics to another version? In the text you just explain why the graphics are worse which takes away from the overall experience giving a slightly lower score. On the current .5 increments this is not possible to show this. Its not like bringing .1 increments back would be a big deal given people who prefer .5 increments would still be able to rate/review games that way still. Bringing it back would make everyone happy in my opinion.

[QUOTE="JodyR"]Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection#1 Ask the Mods discussion | #2

BuryMe

I like the idea myself - I was online at GS while waiting for Dragon Age 2 to unlock on release day, and I added the game to my collection as soon as the GS server allowed it.:P

I want this. And so do many other people, for a long time now. It seems that the GS staff barely ever seem to pay attention to suggestions about this particular matter. :(

[quote="JodyR"]Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits (review emblems)siberian142

I agree, that would be fantastic. :)

Do any members of the GameSpot staff check this thread anymore? :P Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure there are a few silent observers - so if there are any, let your voices be heard and tell us what you think of these suggestions. :)

Hello,

I can't say that I've been very active on GameSpot in recent years. However, when I was an active review writer and union leader I did feel that there was much to be desired fromGameSpot's user review writing system. I looked over some of the suggestions in the main thread of this topic, and have outlined specific ones which I feel should be implemented.

1. Sort User Reviews - I think this would be a great feature because it would add much needed structure to the review archives.

2. Add User Review Medals - I have always wanted to have this functionality in the user review system. It would give reviewers a chance to share information about which aspects of the game they thought were most impressive or most lacking. I know that when I used to write reviews I would often include a "Pros and Cons" section at the top of my review, but it didn't really stand out or make an impression in the way that medals would.

3. Allow Users to Feature Images - This is probably one of the more important features that should be implemented. Possibly, you could enable users to pull images only from GameSpot's archives for the game they are writing the review for. This wouldaid in theavoidance ofspam images. Sometimes, in writing a review one can only be so descriptive. It would be very helpful to be able to input images in order to highlight points made in the review, especially those concerned with graphics.

4. Feedback Field - This would be a neat idea. It wouldlikelyencourage someintelligent discussion about the reviews and about the games they outline.

5. Featured Reviewers - Maybe in addition to GameSpot's review writing staff, you could select a number of community reviewers to represent the normal GameSpot user. It would be really cool if reviews from the GameSpot staff could be accompanied by a selected community review for the same game. For example, let's say a GameSpot staff member reviews Portal 2 and gives it a 9/10. Then let's say a "selected community reviewer" also wrote a review for Portal 2, yet their opinion on the game is a bit different, and they rate it a 7.5. Such a review could serve as sort of a second opinion to the main review.

6. Limit Review Writing to Certain User Levels - It would be nice if users were required to attain a certain level in order to be able to write reviews. I'm all for everyone sharing their opinions, but employing such a restriction would prevent users who may not yet be familiar with GameSpot's ToS from writing reviews.

On a final note, I saw "union overhaul" mentioned in the initial thread. This really got me thinking about why exactly I left GameSpot to begin with. I realized that it was partly because the union interface was just too buggy to deal with at times, and did not offer enough feature in order for me to expand the union in the direction I wanted to take it. If such a union overhaul were to be made possible, I would definitely considering returning to this site to form a new union. I think it's great that GameSpot is finally thinking about revamping this stuff, and it's nice to know that our suggestions did not fall upon deaf ears. Thanks for listening! :)

~OddballTECH

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Thanks for the PM invite, Jody.:)

This is a great thread idea. I definitely agree with not letting a review be posted if you don't have it in your GS Game Collection.

Additionally, place a safeguard on the platform, e.g., if a member has a game on the 360 they can't post a review on the PC by accident.

Definitely increase the word count - nothing irritates me more than to see a one-paragraph "review", it defeats the purpose of writing one.

Jody, please consider setting a time limit on a review of a new game, as I don't believe it's right for a person to post a review on the day of release. Invariably, they post that they have perhaps 10 hours of gameplay, not to mention they haven't finished it.

I would suggest not allowing any player reviews until a week after release. After all, Gamespot editors set the example - they finish a game before they write their reviews, so I think members should be held to the same standard.

topsemag55

The reason I mentioned that as a problem is for uber-games such as Dragon Age: Origins - which is 50 hours minimum.

People were posting reviews on the same day as release - posting 10 hours of gameplay, and even saying they didn't finish.:o:?

My take - no point to writing a review if you haven'tplayed the entire game. You could pick up the game again post-review, and run headlong into a horrendous gamebreaking bug.

I'm feeling a little pissed off by this thread. JodyR started it 6 months ago and a number of us even got private messages inviting us to join in the discussion because Gamespot cared about our thoughts and wanted to let us know they heard us. So I got excited and jumped in and we haven't heard anything from the admins about this in those 6 months. I've been unhappy that Gamespot hasn't listened to us up to this point but what features they want to implement is up to them. But to tell us they care and get a discussion going again and then leave us hanging again feels like a slap in the face.

I'm feeling a little pissed off by this thread. JodyR started it 6 months ago and a number of us even got private messages inviting us to join in the discussion because Gamespot cared about our thoughts and wanted to let us know they heard us. So I got excited and jumped in and we haven't heard anything from the admins about this in those 6 months. I've been unhappy that Gamespot hasn't listened to us up to this point but what features they want to implement is up to them. But to tell us they care and get a discussion going again and then leave us hanging again feels like a slap in the face.TazmanianD

I'm hoping it's just a case where they're working on it but aren't at point where they can say anything. It'd be a real shame if this was being ignored.

Like many have stated earlier, a review system similar to Gamespot's would be great, with all the game emblems and screenshots contained therein. Also, since i'm really into making video reviews a feature to import videos into the review would be fantastic. I would really love to have this type of free reign when making reviews and i really hope that our voices will be heard :)

I would like for you to put up a rating scale on how you rated your video games in sections, also if you can make a site where you could download patches and mods!!!

Reviewing games on here is pointless now, seeing as they took off the user reviews from the main page of the games. Nobody reads them anymore, and that's how Gamespot wants it.

On the review topic, I think League of Legends deserves another review.

What happen to the average user scores?????? This was an important aspect of the site. I like to know how users feel before I consider a game. Not just the average score but the pie chart showing how many users love the game.

why hide the user review score?? is this temporary??

Please bring user reviews and average user scores back!

It was the single most important thing I liked about Gamespot.

You have shared your concerns about user reviews for years now and I wanted to make sure you all knew that these discussions have never been neglected. Staff do know about your user review functionality concerns, and your concerns about union overhaul you have been asking for since 2005. The community team (former staff and current) have continued to pioneer for changes for the past 4 years for both of these features, but it seems like other features have taken higher priority.

In appreciation of your continued efforts in sharing your feedback to many of our community features, I'd like to share your discussions about user reviews over the years to prove that we have been listenng, and we DO care.

Please check out the links I have gathered by doing a keyword search of "user review" or "player review" in this forum. Share if you only read reviews here as well in your feedback. We want those reading the reviews to have a good time as much as we'd like those who write the reviews!

Some links below have feedback related to a post in the thread rather than what the author posted in the discussion. So, let's get started on your ever growing ideas for user reviews, which might I add blow my socks off!. All of these ideas would probably cause me to write my first review on the site!

- Sort User Reviews [most recent/username/recommended reviews/user review scores/users with top 100 or top 500 emblem/ if the review badges get added, sort by badge]

I agree. Sorting by scores is especially useful since I like to read negative reviews as well and make my own decision.

- Add User Review medals similar to GameSpot's review medals and demerits (review emblems)

Good for trophy collectors.

A brownie point feature that make people feel better.

- Allow users feature images from their image galleries or gamespace

Could be a good thing.

- Enable HTML/wysiwyg editor

I agree.

- Feedback field to share with review writer (maybe this is not something for the public eye, but it can be reported if it's abusive?)

I was thinking this myself.

- Disallow users to review or rate a game if it's not in their tracked, recent played, or game collection

I disagree, anyone should be able to write a review. Why should we have to take time to add a game to a list to review. It's suggestions like this that makes gamespot feel like a nazi camp with little to no freedom of expression.

- Add a video to review

Could be good but leaves more room for trolling, flaming and insults.

- Difficulty Options

I agree.

- Post reviews about hardware or accessories?

I agree.

- Display how many users agreed and disagree with review on the gamespace user reviews page

Keep that info on the actual review written.

- Increase 100 minimum word requirement

I agree.

- More ****fications by adding a negative and positive drop down list

I disagree. Fanboys would go apes*** wthumbing down reviews that go against their favorite game even if the review is sincere.

- Change "rate this review" to "was this review helpful"

Why not have both options?

- Disallow users to review one specific game across all consoles (text shouldn't be exactly the same due to the console or PC/Mac having different capabilities and controls

I disagree. What if the user has the same game for more than one platform and wants to do a comparison review?

- Remove negative (thumbs down) as an option for readers of user reviews

I disagree.

- Add Track Author button to user reviews (place away from the report abuse button to avoid any mistakes)

I agree.

- Add an area for featured (top reviewers emblem writers? (might be resolved if there is a sort by option)

Good for trophy collectors or people who write accuate reviews.

- Allow readers to know more about the writer on the user review page (user level, how many written reviews, etc)

Sounds decent.

- Save a draft

Definitely a good idea.

- Add perks for top reviewers

Why not? More brownie points for trophy collectors.

- Limit review writing to those who are higher level?

Depending on the level cap, this could work.

Again, anyone should be able to write a review.

- Allow a way to import notepad/word documents to post a user review

Good idea.

- Add more report abuse violation options (plot spoiler and plagerism with a field to paste the original content's url)

I disagree. Both silly suggestions, especially the 'spoiler violation'.Instead, have an option for the reviewer to click "This review contains SPOILERS" or "SPOILER FREE review" and give readers a sorting option between reading 'spoiler reviews' and spoiler - free reviews'. Why give more ways for people to be reported with all these click happy readers who exploit violation options and are easily offended because someone wrote about what happens in the 1st stage?People should have freedom to express what they feel, the way they want too. The plagerism violation is understandable but in the end it's just another way for click happy readers to get someone banned.

I can't promise any of these changes will happen, but your interest and feedback on these former ideas will help a great deal.

JodyR

I know this didn't make it to the list - perhaps it wasn't proposed at all, but Gamespot would be well served to update reviews based on game changes such as fixes and updates. There are some games that were bad because they were buggy, and became better after hotfixes were applied. Much too often are reviews posted and then left as is no matter what changes are made for a game. A more dynamic review system would paint a more accurate picture of the game's CURRENT state and score, as well as keep Gamespot fresh and relevant. For users it would help to have a reminder that the game has been updated and a suggestion to revise their review based on the change.

magusat999