Mapraider 2.0

So the next version of Mapraider.com will have a simplified rating system. Great. What about rating moderation?

Well, if you've spent any time reading this blog, you probably remember the great suggestion for improving the moderation system made by Virgo47 that I blogged about.

So of course I have to ask...

With the simplified rating system, is moderation necessary?

In Virgo47's defense, at the time he made those suggestions I hadn't revealed that Mapraider would officially have a different rating system moving forward.

Obviously, you could have a good debate with whichever side you may choose. My gut is telling me that having moderations for a 5-star rating system is overkill just in terms of the difference in rating scales. That is to say, it's already confusing for some members on how to moderate on a 10-point scale (as evident in the Mapraider forums). I imagine that it will be even more challenging to do it fairly on the new 5-point scale.

Speaking of scale, and economies of... if you look at the history of the site in terms of ratings and moderations, there are two other arguments for removing the moderation system that really jump out at me:

• At any given time, there are thousands of ratings waiting to get moderated and most of them simply "time out" and get moderated as fair by default (as I write this, there are 4,000+ ratings pending moderation)
  
  This essentially means that most members don't bother moderating ratings, aren't logging in often enough to do so, or are simply not rating enough to see the pending moderations.
  
  I've already pointed out in a previous post that the number of members actively rating maps is low.
• The amount of database storage space to store the ratings, the moderation status and their multiple moderations, along with the CPU power required to access all that data increases exponetially as the site grows
  
  Granted, we're not talking huge amounts (yet) for the current, but the return on investment for this allocation seems minimal and since I do pay for the hosting out of my own pocket, size matters

Over the years I've become a firm believer in forcing features to prove their worth before implementing them, and the rating moderation system seems like a good candidate for the chopping block. In the many years of running the site, it simply hasn't shown itself to be of significant value.

Am I wrong? Perhaps. I welcome any thoughts on the subject.

Comments ported from original blog:

• At 3:12 PM, Doug said…
  From 3 moderated ten-point ratings to 5 unmoderated stars. There won't be any ones and fives, so that gives us maps rated 2-4. What's the point?
  
  
• At 3:14 PM, Doug said…
  Well, ok, now that I think about it there probably will be some ones. Those will belong to mappers without friends.
  
  
• At 11:20 PM, John said…
  Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with that assumption. Members give ratings in whole numbers of 1-5, but the tallys will be decimal values -- an average taken across x ratings isn't always going to be a whole number.

Categories: