User 'boosting session' reputation/rating

[Eternal21]

I love the Gaming Session section of this website.  It's extremely useful, and very easy to set up a boosting session, as opposed to me having to post on the PS3Trophies forum trying to put a group together.  What I think would make it better, is if we added some sort of rating for users.  For example I hosted a boosting session for GTAIV (AWP) today, where half the people that signed up didn't show up.  Luckily we only needed 4, so I was still able to put a successful group together, but the other 4 people that signed up, weren't even online, and couldn't give a single f**k they screw with other people's time/plans.

 

Is it so hard to let me know ahead of time, so I can either cancel the session, or possibly find replacements.  This is where I would like a simple UP/DOWN vote option on the Gaming Session screen.  If a player showed up, I give him an UP vote.  If the player didn't show up, or was a douche that quit after getting whatever he needed without helping the rest, I give him a DOWN vote.  That way people would build a reputation rating over time, that could be used to see whether you can trust the person to join your boosting session, or if you should reject them, and find a better candiate. 

 

It would be analogous to e-Bay's buyer/seller rating.  In fact that's a perfect example, as you could get fancy with it, and leave little comments in the users's boosting profile, similar to: "item arrived as promised, would do business again", except it would be something like: "great boosting partner, would boost again :)", or "never showed up, without notyfing me", or "quit after getting their trophy, without helping others".  The user would be able to respond to negative comments, but if you see someone with a bunch of negatives, you know to avoid them.  It would improve the boosting sessions overall, as users would have an extra incentive to stay around and help, or even just show up.

 

Again, I know this is a lot, and probably won't get implemented, but as I said - I like the Gaming Session functionality, and it would be great to see it advance to the next level.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Eternal21

[Pipsqweek]

I like the concept, however, I think you should leave out the negative voting as it's a tool that will just be abused (sad to say, but I've seen it done on other sites).

Just like the "like" system on the forum, you can either give a thumbs up or nothing at all, that way the trolls have nothing to abuse.

Also, be careful you don't end up alienating people that have genuine real-life reasons for not turning up and were unable to let you know ahead of time.

[Vercrios]

I actually like this idea aswell, I personally keep a record of everyone I boost with on an excel worksheet and record what they behaved like ect, that way I can refuse them for later sessions or if I join one with people in, I can pre warn them of anyone that isn't a good booster, but in reply to pipsqueak, I think a negative vote should be allowable as long as it can be appealed, ofcourse there will always be trolls, but a way to let bad boosters get a bad reputation so they cant mess up anyone elses sessions is a good idea in my book

[Dragon-Archon]

I also like the gaming session section on this website and I think that giving a 'like' is a good idea. But a negative vote would unfortunately attract mostly trolls.

[Faust]

Negative voting is a recipe for disaster, but I like the idea of a user boosting rating, similar to an eBay rating.

[Memnoch]

Yep negative is never a good idea, too many 'domestics' could happen - but good idea for a plus rating for boosters

[Paulie1313]

Well I think this would be an excellent idea as I joined an RDR session, sent friend request and was set up, ready to go and I can only assume Host is not following through.

[Christopher]

I like this idea!

I suggest that you get one vote from each session, decided by how a majority of users in your session voted you did.

[Fetus138]

This is a great idea a rating system but, the system should include having a text box for leaving specifics of what a user did or did not do. I have and I am sure others have as well, joined sessions where the host has not responeded via PSProfiles od PSN. Other sessions where half the players do not show or respond. This will bring a better level of organization to the site.

[Legend]

I think this is a phenomenal idea.

[Arkthur]

I can also see the negative vote being abused, maybe it can be set up so only the session creator can vote.

[ghilus]

this is a good idea!!! ^^

[Simpo]

I like the concept, however, I think you should leave out the negative voting as it's a tool that will just be abused (sad to say, but I've seen it done on other sites).

Just like the "like" system on the forum, you can either give a thumbs up or nothing at all, that way the trolls have nothing to abuse.

Also, be careful you don't end up alienating people that have genuine real-life reasons for not turning up and were unable to let you know ahead of time.

 

 

If this was to be implemented this is definitely the best way to do it, the negative rating will be abused way to much. Maybe the have a number of how many gaming session they have been involved with so you can tally that against their up votes or 'likes'.

 

I agree that the Gaming Sessions are great and although it hasn't happened to me I understand how some people could make it unpleasant so I'm not against this idea if Sly was to look into it any further.

[Apex Predator]

I'd like there to be a downvote too. A little bit of chaos is always nice.

 

If you can only upvote, you can only know for sure who the good boosters are and you can't tell who the bad boosters are.

People with 0 votes could either be people who never boosted before or people who just didn't cooperate as expected.

And judging by the topic starter's post, his main priority seems to be to root out the naughty boys. 

[simula67]

I really like this idea, although I am undecided on whether the benefits of having a downvote would outweigh the likely fallout from people abusing it. I think I'm leaning towards no downvotes. I think of it like any typical competitive multiplayer mode - new players start out at level 1, sans upgrades and abilities. You play to earn those things.

[Paulie1313]

The biggest issue right now is that there is no downside to not attending sessions.

 

I joined a session for Saturday but at the start time nobody was online, they were 2 hours later but I didn't join them and that was a breakdown of communication between myself and session creator.

 

On the flipside, I set up a session for yesterday for 4 people and I only had 1 person online at any time, so session was a bust. I didn't even bother with it as what we needed to do couldn't be accomplished.

 

Now apart from just deleting those that don't show from friend list, there is nothing stopping them from joining further sessions.It's only trophies and yes, it is just a video game, but certain things in games require a group and if you can't make it, say so or don't sign up.

 

It doesn't take much to create a chat and set up session, but the challenge is in coordinating it in a way that everyone can try to get what they need. As it stands, I myself will not create anymore sessions as I feel it is a waste of my time, and everyone else who signed up but can't get done what we all thought would be getting done because of the no shows.

 

I will join and hope it is successful, but for right now and until something is done with those that sign up for every game but don't shiow and are allowed to continue hitting every session button they see, I will refrain as it's a let down to me and everyone else.

[Eternal21]

I will join and hope it is successful, but for right now and until something is done with those that sign up for every game but don't shiow and are allowed to continue hitting every session button they see, I will refrain as it's a let down to me and everyone else.

 

Yes - the system is not perfect, but don't give up.  I've put together a dozen of sessions using this site's feature, and so far never had to cancel a single one.  You always want to have extras.  With some games, it's easier than with others.  For example RDR sessions fill up really fast, and even though you need 9 people for Kingpin, you can easily get it done on a few days notice.  If I know a game is not that popular, I also advertise the session inside PS3Trophies.org boosting threads, and if that doesn't have enough takers, I start friending people that post there stating they need MP trophies.  That way I have a pool of backups I can call upon if they happen to be online (the more the better). 

 

From my experience, for the bigger boosts, a 3rd of the people that signed up may simply not show up (and I would love that downvote button for those cases).   Then there's also situations, where some people that showed up can't connect to the server (AC:B, and AC:R are notorious for that).  I'd rather have to turn away extras, than cancel the session, cause we were missing a person.  But usually you can work something out, where you rotate the extras, and everybody helps everybody out.  For the most part, people getting their online trophies are willing to stick around and help others, since they're happy to be finally done with theirs already.

[x_First2Fight_x]

Love the idea of have a "user boost rating," and I definitely agree and love the idea of the boost session leader being the only one that is able to provide the rating and feedback. I've seen other sites try and implement a positive/negative system for other things, and it always turns into a popularity contest.

[Curb]

The way feedback works on TA is that you have the choice of leaving positive, neutral, or negative feedback for everyone else that registered for a session. Everyone can leave feedback, and in addition to that you can leave comments for each individual (which are then viewable by everyone else - ie, if you leave negative feedback you can say "no show" or "extremely uncooperative" to provide future boosters with better info) as well as a paragraph or two describing the overall session.

 

Your own feedback is calculated based on what everyone else leaves you, and is out of a maximum of 1.00. For example, if you're in a session with ten other people, if nine of them give you positive feedback and one gives negative (maybe he was being a troll and everyone else gave him negative anyway), you'd get .9 added to your overall feedback score. Or, (not that this would ever happen, but for the sake of further elucidation) say you were in that same session and got an even five/five split of positive/negative. Your total rating for that session would be 0, so there'd be no overall change to your master score, but folks could still look over each of those ten ratings for that specific session.  People can see your aggregate rating, and look back over each individual rating and session to satisfy any questions or concerns they may have.

 

I think I made it sound more complicated than it is - the fact of the matter is that it's very inuitive, and, even though it has negative feedback, it hardly ever gets abused. And when it does moderators are ready and willing to help out, and since future boosters are able to sift through all of your feedback and see specific comments/messages in past sessions, it's easy to tell when someone just got bullied or a wrongful negative.

 

I think something like that would work quite well here. I am not in favor of just letting the session creator leave feedback - what if they're the one that doesn't show, or if they don't know what they're doing and they waste everyone's time? Your only recourse would be to try and post their name in the forums calling them out, or hunting down every other session they're in and warning folks. It's not practical.

 

And we definitely need some sort of negative feedback. If there's only positive, when a sesson goes bad people just wouldn't leave feedback at all, and it basically leaves you in the same situation we have now. Unless you can also look back through all their past sessions and see that no one ever gave them feedback, but that seems like more effort than simply seeing a block of ten entirely negative sessions and kicking the person out.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Curb