Could we please remove the requirement of writting a comment whenever rating a model?

[Blahblah_Blagar]

I get the idea, but it works exactly the opposite as it should. I don't want to come off as rude whenever rating low quality/great but flawed models and so I simply don't rate them instead. If this system stays, we can certainly expect a lot more of 5/5 rated models

 

[General Frank]

We put the system in place so that people have to post to rate.
We had a lot of issues people downrating good resources on mass as revenge or just to be nasty.

In your case, you can always make your post be constructive and rate it low or you can simply not comment and rate it.

As for now, this system will stay.

 

[deepstrasz]

You're lucky you don't have to download the resources before rating them as it should be since that would mean a higher chance for that person to actually have tested said resource than just look at it and rate it.

 

[General Frank]

You're lucky you don't have to download the resources before rating them as it should be since that would mean a higher chance for that person to actually have tested said resource than just look at it and rate it.

That is correct.

 

[Ralle]

I believe I made it so even if you did comment, you don't have to re-comment for the rating. I think it's fair as it is.

But thank you for voicing your opinion

 

[Kyrbi0]

If you are concerned about sounding rude, consider simply thanking the user for the upload (e.g. "Thanks for creating/sharing this model"); it's never out of place & applies whether it's great or ""substandard"".

 

[Murlocologist]

If you are concerned about sounding rude, consider simply thanking the user for the upload (e.g. "Thanks for creating/sharing this model"); it's never out of place & applies whether it's great or ""substandard"".

I don’t agree. Giving a resource 2 star rating alongside with generic one liner ’’thanks for sharing’’ and no extra explanation is even ruder. At one hand you indicate something is bad about resource, but on the other you don’t care to write what.

If you are giving low score to a resource, you really should explain why.

 

[deepstrasz]

If you are giving low score to a resource, you really should explain why.

I guess the reverse should apply as well. Not everything should be considered self-evident only on the high quality side.

 

[KarlKrump]

I prefer the idea of people having to comment when they rate things. This way other people can tell if the person is just being a mule or actually if there is something wrong with the model.

 

[General Frank]

I prefer the idea of people having to comment when they rate things. This way other people can tell if the person is just being a mule or actually if there is something wrong with the model.

The main reason Hive added a mandatory comment is to prevent the mass downrating of resources.
Trust me you don't want to remove hundreds of bad ratings, just because someone is jealous, angry or otherwise had a bad day and want other people to feel as miserable as they do.

 

[KarlKrump]

The main reason Hive added a mandatory comment is to prevent the mass downrating of resources.
Trust me you don't want to remove hundreds of bad ratings, just because someone is jealous, angry or otherwise had a bad day and want other people to feel as miserable as they do.

Absolutely.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I don’t agree. Giving a resource 2 star rating alongside with generic one liner ’’thanks for sharing’’ and no extra explanation is even ruder. At one hand you indicate something is bad about resource, but on the other you don’t care to write what.

It's confusing at best; may be mistaken for sarcasm (but this can be averted by a further comment, or an emoji in the primary comment). I don't think it's inherently rude; if the poster means it sincerely it's not their fault if the creator is of a more-cynical mindset.

If you are giving low score to a resource, you really should explain why.

I know as a creator I definitely would prefer people explain a low score, and as a moderator I would appreciate better communication for community-building. But I'm not sure I can agree that it should be required.

 

[deepstrasz]

It's confusing at best; may be mistaken for sarcasm (but this can be averted by a further comment, or an emoji in the primary comment). I don't think it's inherently rude; if the poster means it sincerely it's not their fault if the creator is of a more-cynical mindset.

While I agree with the way things could get interpreted, why wouldn't we strive for no need for interpretation at all? If everyone would be explanatory even if in few words, why not?