Subject: Why can't I rate quizzes?
Posted by: daydodo
Date: Jun 15 10
Because I've reached my free limit, my rating of quizzes no longer counts-why? There is no advantage to me, but quiz author ranks depend on ratings.There are so many good perks for gold members, would this one be missed if it were to be extended to all?
Posted by: daydodo
Date: Jun 15 10
Because I've reached my free limit, my rating of quizzes no longer counts-why? There is no advantage to me, but quiz author ranks depend on ratings.There are so many good perks for gold members, would this one be missed if it were to be extended to all?
10 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
lesley153
|
I agree, the ability to rate is hardly a perk; just feedback for quizwriters. Perhaps it's regarded as a perk because it counts towards the raters' badge, which requires more ratings than you can give with normal membership. Reply #1. Jun 15 10, 5:04 PM |
daydodo
|
I take your point about the badge, but I'm sure a lot stop rating once they've got it and move on to the next trophy they can grab. For those of us who appreciate the hard work and ingenuity that go into making quizzes though, it's hard not to be able to show our appreciation in a concrete way like rating. Reply #2. Jun 15 10, 5:12 PM |
| lesley153
|
True. But you get used to it. :) Reply #3. Jun 15 10, 5:46 PM |
Hermit007 
|
Now I can understand why the Quiz Rater badge is gold only, ( Gold members bring in much needed income and if you really want the badge...go gold!) but I can't really see why non gold members can't rate quizzes (without earning the badge). Ah well. If you really like the quiz, send the author a note! Reply #4. Jun 15 10, 6:10 PM |
| darthrevan89
|
I believe it mainly has to do with how quiz records are kept. For a gold member, the system keeps track of every quiz they play and, by extension, the ratings. No records are kept for non-gold members past those initial 100 quizzes, so it wouldn't be feasible to store their ratings. Reply #5. Jun 15 10, 6:12 PM |
agony
|
Yes, that's it. We don't keep track of your quizzes played, so can't tell if you have already played and rated the quiz. If we allowed unlimited non-gold rating, you could conceivably play your friend's quiz 100 times, rating it "excellent" each time. Reply #6. Jun 15 10, 8:32 PM |
| Terry
Head Honcho 
|
Actually, it's entirely to do with how the system is built rather than any conscious decision to not allow players to rate quizzes. In effect, we only want to store ratings if we KNOW that a player is playing a quiz for the first time. Otherwise, players would cheat and rate the same quiz over and over. At the same time, we only keep unlimited "quizzes played" records for GMs, mostly because we're talking about hundreds of millions of records over a 10 year period if we're storing every quiz played for millions of players. So I actually agree with your original contention -- I would like nothing better than to have all players rating unlimited quizzes. It's just not practical given our current system design. Hope this makes sense! Reply #7. Jun 15 10, 8:55 PM |
| Terry
Head Honcho
|
"Now I can understand why the Quiz Rater badge is gold only, ( Gold members bring in much needed income and if you really want the badge...go gold!) but I can't really see why non gold members can't rate quizzes (without earning the badge). Ah well. If you really like the quiz, send the author a note!" The same holds true here. Quiz Rater is gold only because the # of records we allocate to GMs is unlimited, and the # of records regular players can maintain in our database is limited. It's not really a conscious desire to prohibit non GMs from participating -- it's just the way things were built. Keep in mind that when I first built this website, it was designed for a couple of hundred people. It was never even really intended to be a big, public site. I never, EVER imagined that it would grow to 2 million users. As you can probably imagine, a system originally designed for 200 works a little differently with 2 million :) Reply #8. Jun 15 10, 8:58 PM |
| Hermit007
|
And now I know! I can only imagine the headaches you can possibly get with the 'size' of FT! I was a sysop on a wee chat room many years ago..that sucker cost us around $ 500 a month on a semi stable server. And it was a quite a bit smaller than FT is! Reply #9. Jun 15 10, 10:08 PM |
| daydodo
|
Thanks Agony and Terry, I can now see why:) I've started sending a direct message to the authors whom I would have rated anyway. Reply #10. Jun 15 10, 11:36 PM |
10 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: