What if there was an on-site rating system?

Like maybe you could rate individual champs/skins/maps (A.k.a. the topics) with a scale of 0-10 or 1-5 stars? It would allow us to get an even better incentive on who makes great ideas without even looking at them. Then we might find our designs with more needed attention. This would also help the little guys improve by taking examples from the pros.

I have to agree that this would be a good idea. I know of a "Karma" system that allows people to basically give a thumbs up to a post, but I am unsure if there is a rating system out there right now.

It would be nice if there was one though, am I right?
And I'm always one for Karma. (Not the champ. Never got to play her.)

I could probably implement something like that at one point if I were to search for a decent amount of time. Unfortunately I do not have such time today. I'll check into it on saturday

I think that would be cool.

While this is a neat idea, keep in mind that it's also problematic =P

If one adds a ranking system, who decides the ranks? Is everyone really qualified to vote? Probably not. This quickly turns into favouritism where whoever has the greatest reputation gets thumbs up without truly earning them =P

Should one person have the capacity to vote? No, again, since it leads to other messy problems. Does that one person know everything? No. Do they have personal preferences which may cloud their judgement? Yes. A single individual can't be trusted with such either =P

As such, about the only realistic way to do so, is honestly to have a small, respected group of people to do continual reviews and pull things apart with actual in-depth deconstruction of a champion concept to be able to provide a reliable rating.

Even then... what if a champion changes, or gets updated after being put up for review? A group of people all doing reviews takes a long time, and there's honestly no way to realistically expect these individuals to be able to dedicate so much of their time to doing reviews. Once again, this comes down to how do we suggest which champions are worthy of that time to be reviewed in depth in the first place?

There's no really easy or "right" way to implement this feature without it backfiring in some way, shape or form =P

Still, it's a neat idea, just be aware of the potential issues it may cause is all =3

"Better" is an arbitrary, personal standard, not an objective statement in many cases =P

Katsuni wrote:While this is a neat idea, keep in mind that it's also problematic =P

If one adds a ranking system, who decides the ranks? Is everyone really qualified to vote? Probably not. This quickly turns into favouritism where whoever has the greatest reputation gets thumbs up without truly earning them =P

Should one person have the capacity to vote? No, again, since it leads to other messy problems. Does that one person know everything? No. Do they have personal preferences which may cloud their judgement? Yes. A single individual can't be trusted with such either =P

As such, about the only realistic way to do so, is honestly to have a small, respected group of people to do continual reviews and pull things apart with actual in-depth deconstruction of a champion concept to be able to provide a reliable rating.

Even then... what if a champion changes, or gets updated after being put up for review? A group of people all doing reviews takes a long time, and there's honestly no way to realistically expect these individuals to be able to dedicate so much of their time to doing reviews. Once again, this comes down to how do we suggest which champions are worthy of that time to be reviewed in depth in the first place?

There's no really easy or "right" way to implement this feature without it backfiring in some way, shape or form =P

Still, it's a neat idea, just be aware of the potential issues it may cause is all =3

"Better" is an arbitrary, personal standard, not an objective statement in many cases =P

That certainly is one way to think of it. I hadn't really thought of that. I was thinking that everyone would vote, but you bring up a good point.