[Snail]

Also, an unweighted scale would probably cause people to vote either 1 or 10 (out of 10) in order to get a greater impact on the results.

[Qent]

Also, an unweighted scale would probably cause people to vote either 1 or 10 (out of 10) in order to get a greater impact on the results.

I disagree. Unless Battuta says people do that. I know I don't.

[TopAce]

Also, an unweighted scale would probably cause people to vote either 1 or 10 (out of 10) in order to get a greater impact on the results.

There'll always be haters and unconditional admirers. If you belong to either group, it's a strong incentive to vote. If you simply played the campaign and found it adequately fun with some glitches, you'll just forget about it and move along.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I am with TopAce.

[Lucika]

[...] if you say that - for instance - a 1 to 10 system wouldn't be accurate enough because people would mostly vote 1s and 10s, how can you argue for a tiered system which is basically just a rebranded 1 to 3 system?

Don't worry, no one will fire up the FS Wiki and go for a campaign that he (or she ) dislikes just to vote it down. Personally I have no problems with the 1-100 scale idea, but if I'd be the one who decides, I'd make more (and longer) "text reviews" - basically expanded player comments on the Wiki page.

My vote went for flat score though.

[Snail]

My assumptions were based on pie graphs of user ratings on gaming sites.

[Black Wolf]

OK, well if these poll figures are accurate, and I suppose they probably are, there seems to be much stronger support against doing this for campaigns, or at least as a standard addition. And while I disagree with the result, I do respect majority opinion... more or less.
So here's how I think I'm going to handle it. I still want to implement the script for mods (i.e. new ships), and this seems to have been a lot less controversial. So, once I get back to my main comp, and once Goober puts the script into the wiki PHP, I'll figure out the best way to apply it there (I'm hoping I can use a template of some kind – that'll make it a hell of a lot easier), and then I'm going to integrate the functionality into the modding portal to try to make that a bit more interesting/useful.

However, the functionality, once it's integrated into the wiki, can't and wont be limited just to mods. Thus, any campaign that chooses to put a rating bar on their page will be able to do so. Admittedly, without full coverage over every campaign it's far less useful, but it can still be used on a per-campaign basis in addition to some kind of text review section.

If, however, enough campaigns do end up opting in, we may want to re-open this discussion at some future point.

[Dilmah G]

I voted yes, but anyway. I think that course of action sounds alright.

I think we could achieve perhaps what the numerical rankings aimed to achieve with campaigns by encouraging people to write reviews for the campaigns; I recall when I first got here and started to find my way around this confusing list of campaigns on the wiki (wasn't that confusing in the end though, after I worked out someone had taken the time out to categorize them), I based a lot of my decision on whether to play a campaign based on the comments on it. Full blown reviews, even if they're only a few paragraphs would probably give people a good idea about the campaign.

You could even front page the better reviews, but that's another can of worms entirely.

[headdie]

I agree that given public consensus an opt in system is best for the community for the time being

[TrashMan]

I'd say Tier rankings + required comments.

[General Battuta]

I would not support an opt-in system. If these ratings are considered diagnostic than the absence of information on a campaign will be taken as a disincentive to play it. Having no rating would be as bad as having a low one.

[Black Wolf]

Well, you're kind of out of luck. If the functionality exists on the wiki then it can be applied on any basis, or on any page that  someone wants to use it. Just like the random flag allows not only the random screenies on the front page but also the application of, for example, a random mods section on the modding portal, or a random campaign-specific screenshot on the page of a given campaign, a rating bar applied to mods can't be limited by any system I know of to just mods.
If someone chooses to put one on their campaign page there's nothing anyone can do about it, and there's nothing anyone should want to do about it. After all, while the wiki as a whole is collaborative, it's really up to the individual campaign authors how they choose to display their campaigns.

What's not going to be happening, given expressed community opinion, will be the applying of the rating bar to all campaign pages. Realistically, the likelihood is that only a relatively small number of people will choose to use it - it'll only become a problem for those not utilizing this feature if a significant majority of campaign pages chucked one up, which, if this poll is accurate, is highly unlikely.

[General Battuta]

I don't believe the individual campaign authors have particular control over their pages. As a wiki they're open to community editing.

The fact that this system apparently cannot be modified or controlled by the user wanting to implement it is a big no-no for me.

If someone chooses to put one on their campaign page there's nothing anyone can do about it

except delete it

and there's nothing anyone should want to do about it

except that the Wiki has community enforced standards, for example the veteran comments policy.

[Rodo]

I say , lots of people come round here asking for advise... which one to play and which one not to, this can only mean one thing: the actual system is not working properly or it's not as helpfull as it should be to newbies.
A simple score will make things easier for them, also they can always go back and play any campaigns left behind because of a poor review ranking.

[General Battuta]

This is not Metacritic. We do not have sufficient N to get powerful, convergent samples.

If the bar could remain hidden until 20 or 50 votes were cast, maybe, but we can't do that.

[Mobius]

I'd say to wait until we get approximately 50 votes.

[NGTM-1R]

Well, you're kind of out of luck.

The poll has a categoric no winning over a qualified no. You're kind of out of luck.

[General Battuta]

Agreed. There's inadequate support for any kind of change from status quo right now.

[Lucika]

Sorry, but the same people who say that we don't have enough votes and voters to "properly" use this feature are the same people who say '23 out of 37 people say no, so the idea is definitely worthless'?

Hypocrisy, good to see you again!

[NGTM-1R]

Sorry, but the same people who say that we don't have enough votes and voters to "properly" use this feature are the same people who say '23 out of 37 people say no, so the idea is definitely worthless'?

Hypocrisy, good to see you again!

See, we actually recognize the possibility that people will check here. Certainly more than actually check the wiki.