some more for your "to do list"? ^_^

i feel like i post in this section more than anyone, not that i'm picky or anything... heh ^_^o. my suggestion was to see if maybe there could be an option to reset your gallery rating counter? i've got 40-some-odd votes that were all made a couple months ago, and i was wanting to know if it would be a plausible idea to be able to erase those votes and start clean?

i also had something else in mind, but i forget now -_-o...

Is this really a common thing? I guess it's not really hard to do.

Oh wait, I just read that again. You wanted the rating counter not the hit counter. Fair enough. Er.... for now just e-mail me if you still want me to do this and I'll do it by hand. I can do it in like 10 seconds by hand but it'll take 15 minutes to make it into a clicky thing.

And *more people* should leave suggestions. I can't promise I'll get to any of them with any speed or particular priority, but it's good to know what people are waiting on.

Perhaps a warning to the users who have rating a gallery 4/5 months ago is useful, they can make a new rating ?

Sulian

Since galleries, hypothetically, should improve over time and with the increase of artwork, (think of a curve that rises over time) then probably ratings should reflect this too, in some way.

An example could be that if ratings are turned on when a curator has 5 mediocre cels and a very simple stock gallery design on display, she/he will most likely recieve a mediocre rating. But, if over this same period this gallery owner increases, changes, or exchanges cels and designs to a higher quality, and keeps his/her ratings on, then the "old ratings" probably won't coincide with the "new and now better" quality gallery and cels (hypothetically again). They'd receive a "de facto rating penalty" for not having come out with better cels (in the first place, so to speak) then when they first started turning their ratings on. So, the actual resulting reward would be a lower average rating than expected, although the impression is far greater than the feedback. (Does this make sense to you?)

How can this be adjusted? Heck, I'm not the numbers type guy at all, far from it but, maybe there might be a way to set dates periodically. At least it could be considered. Just resetting the counter to zero seems to discount the whole rating system at a whim, keeping in mind the people that took the time to review and rate galleries in the first place. Those people that have rated scores get discounted all together, along with their time and energy. Maybe there is a way to balance the situation. Maybe setting ratings on a schedule could be done. But, I am not the wizard of code here, Jason is. So, anyway I suggest, that ratings, if possible, be adjusted on a quarterly or semi-annual basis, or with some other degree of measurement. This suggests a fair balance for the both "ratee and rater" =)

I'll just make a button that you can use to vaporize ratings older than 60 days. That seems like a good compromise. The ratings system still needs real statistics applied to the formulas, but I haven't had time to program an actual weighting system. This will have to do for now.