It's a yes or no question. A shrug is an unhelpful response.

works well as an overall metric. The text box is where we're able to talk about the nuances of a game and why we have scored it the way we have. I don't understand how some of us think a neutral vote would work, as it would only dilute the overall metric.

Publicado originalmente por Ettanin:

It's a yes or no question. A shrug is an unhelpful response.

Neutral settings are also possible in the curation.

Yes/No ratings are often based solely on the subjective opinions of users, whose content usually has nothing to do with the term “review”. There are also factually based product reviews without subjective evaluations and opinions. So why should it not be possible to implement a neutral rating?

Especially when the function already exists and just need to be displayed elsewhere. In other words, the existing system is simply inconsistent and poorly thought out.

Publicado originalmente por ペンギン:

Publicado originalmente por Ettanin:

It's a yes or no question. A shrug is an unhelpful response.

Neutral settings are also possible in the curation.

Yes/No ratings are often based solely on the subjective opinions of users, whose content usually has nothing to do with the term “review”. There are also factually based product reviews without subjective evaluations and opinions. So why should it not be possible to implement a neutral rating?

Especially when the function already exists and just need to be displayed elsewhere. In other words, the existing system is simply inconsistent and poorly thought out.

Neutral for curators makes sense because not all curators are building lists based on opinion. There are several that curate lists of common games and leave the opinions to their followers.

For the reviews, I want an informed opinion based on whether that user can answer the yes/no question of "Do you recommend this game?" If one cannot form enough of an opinion to answer that simple question, they have no business offering a review of the game.

Publicado originalmente por rawWwRrr:

Publicado originalmente por ペンギン:

Neutral settings are also possible in the curation.

Yes/No ratings are often based solely on the subjective opinions of users, whose content usually has nothing to do with the term “review”. There are also factually based product reviews without subjective evaluations and opinions. So why should it not be possible to implement a neutral rating?

Especially when the function already exists and just need to be displayed elsewhere. In other words, the existing system is simply inconsistent and poorly thought out.

Neutral for curators makes sense because not all curators are building lists based on opinion. There are several that curate lists of common games and leave the opinions to their followers.

For the reviews, I want an informed opinion based on whether that user can answer the yes/no question of "Do you recommend this game?" If one cannot form enough of an opinion to answer that simple question, they have no business offering a review of the game.

The world isn't so black and white, hence why reviews often work on a score based scale.

There are numerous games in my library I can think of that I would or would not recommend with caveats. It's this nuance that makes the difference. Perhaps the simple answer would be an additional middle ground to have option to conceal "neutral" recommendations.

I opted for the word "neutral" as no alternative sprang to mind when drafting the idea. I think the ability to provide a middle ground offers increased flexibility in feedback, something I've often seen mentioned in various reviews.

I agree that at face value it's a simple "yes/no question", however, things quickly enter the grey when caveats come into play.

When you don't say yes, you are saying no.
So when you shrug your shoulders, you are saying you don't recommend it.

It is asking you DO YOU or DO YOU NOT recommend the game?
YES or NO
An "I don't know" is not an answer.

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

Publicado originalmente por rawWwRrr:

Neutral for curators makes sense because not all curators are building lists based on opinion. There are several that curate lists of common games and leave the opinions to their followers.

For the reviews, I want an informed opinion based on whether that user can answer the yes/no question of "Do you recommend this game?" If one cannot form enough of an opinion to answer that simple question, they have no business offering a review of the game.

The world isn't so black and white, hence why reviews often work on a score based scale.

There are numerous games in my library I can think of that I would or would not recommend with caveats. It's this nuance that makes the difference. Perhaps the simple answer would be an additional middle ground to have option to conceal "neutral" recommendations.

I opted for the word "neutral" as no alternative sprang to mind when drafting the idea. I think the ability to provide a middle ground offers increased flexibility in feedback, something I've often seen mentioned in various reviews.

I agree that at face value it's a simple "yes/no question", however, things quickly enter the grey when caveats come into play.

That's why you are provided a text box to provide your reasoning for your decision. There is nothing preventing you from not recommending a game and still provide feedback showing that it has some aspects that others may find favorable, and vice versa.

The standard should remain on whether you can answer the question. If you can't then you haven't formed enough of an opinion to share.

I don't support this suggestion, but I am also not against it.

Publicado originalmente por Mr. Smiles:

I don't support this suggestion, but I am also not against it.

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

Publicado originalmente por rawWwRrr:

Neutral for curators makes sense because not all curators are building lists based on opinion. There are several that curate lists of common games and leave the opinions to their followers.

For the reviews, I want an informed opinion based on whether that user can answer the yes/no question of "Do you recommend this game?" If one cannot form enough of an opinion to answer that simple question, they have no business offering a review of the game.

The world isn't so black and white, hence why reviews often work on a score based scale.

There are numerous games in my library I can think of that I would or would not recommend with caveats. It's this nuance that makes the difference. Perhaps the simple answer would be an additional middle ground to have option to conceal "neutral" recommendations.

I opted for the word "neutral" as no alternative sprang to mind when drafting the idea. I think the ability to provide a middle ground offers increased flexibility in feedback, something I've often seen mentioned in various reviews.

I agree that at face value it's a simple "yes/no question", however, things quickly enter the grey when caveats come into play.

Problem is that the "nuance" isn't universal.

I also personally don't see now a neutral would help. The way I see it, it will take away reviews from negative and positive reviews. I'm only interested in the negative stuff. Feels like I will lose easy access to part of the information.

It's exactly why sites with scaled ratings don't work for me. Too much effort to find the info I want.

Publicado originalmente por ペンギン:

Publicado originalmente por Ettanin:

It's a yes or no question. A shrug is an unhelpful response.

Neutral settings are also possible in the curation.

It's also possible in curation to review games you have neither owned or played.
Curation is meant more as a highlight for games. Not so much a review.

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

The world isn't so black and white, hence why reviews often work on a score based scale.

Many reviews echew score based systems. Siskel and Ebert famosly opted not to use it and you'll find no shortage of reviewers that don't and we are talking people who get paid to do reviews.

The reason many sites that do use scorses do so is because, another site is using it, and that site did it because another site did it, etc, etc, etc... it's basically copying something without understanding

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

There are numerous games in my library I can think of that I would or would not recommend with caveats. It's this nuance that makes the difference. Perhaps the simple answer would be an additional middle ground to have option to conceal "neutral" recommendations.

And you have an entire 8000 character text box to go with that recommendation to express all the nuance you are liguistically and grammatically capable of.

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

I opted for the word "neutral" as no alternative sprang to mind when drafting the idea. I think the ability to provide a middle ground offers increased flexibility in feedback, something I've often seen mentioned in various reviews.

No matter what you call it the issue is the same. The system doesn't need a superfluous No.

Publicado originalmente por KillingJoke:

I agree that at face value it's a simple "yes/no question", however, things quickly enter the grey when caveats come into play.

Caveats where they apply can be duly listed. but if you have to allow for more than 3 caveats...then you're gonna come off as a paid-shill or mudslinger.