Originally posted by sloth
Showing 2999 rates on my account now. 2931 in the forums.
That's if you're on a mobile. Mine is showing 1475 rates on my profile, however on my laptop it's showing 1061 ratings and 414 [old] ticks.
|
Originally posted by BeardedAvenger
Originally posted by sloth
Showing 2999 rates on my account now. 2931 in the forums.
That's if you're on a mobile. Mine is showing 1475 rates on my profile, however on my laptop it's showing 1061 ratings and 414 [old] ticks.
Appears so for now. Growing pains i guess.
|
So, if i delete all my ticks will my numbers return to normal? I gotta do something, driving me nuts.
|
|
We need 3 separate folders: Ratings (reviews ticks), Reviews only and Ticks only
|
Originally posted by Viper666 We need 3 separate folders: Ratings (reviews ticks), Reviews only and Ticks only No, we don't. We need text to be optional, and everything counts the same. Then we get user volume, which gets us a more current database, more active forums, more trading, maybe more premium fees to give us more tech support, more reviews (yes, many will be ticks - that's okay). When you search for a beer, list the ones with 75 characters or whatever first so we can easily see the text we want to see, and put the tick-only scores below those. Honestly, who has time to read more than 5-10 full reviews anyway (in typical settings) - we don't need to be batting 1.000 on reviews with 75 characters. Most of them read pretty similarly anyway, after you've read a handful. No, that doesn't make us Untappd. It makes us better, because 1) we still have a history of doing full reviews and many still will, 2) we have stats and maps, and 3) we have forums. With more user volume, this would give us a chance to compete on database completeness vs. UT, and extend our advantages on the stats (vs. both UT and BA), and compete (vs. BA) / extend (vs. UT) on the forums front. In crowd-sourced amateur reviews, volume matters. A lot. We need it.
|
Originally posted by BVery
Originally posted by Viper666 We need 3 separate folders: Ratings (reviews ticks), Reviews only and Ticks only No, we don't. We need text to be optional, and everything counts the same. Then we get user volume, which gets us a more current database, more active forums, more trading, maybe more premium fees to give us more tech support, more reviews (yes, many will be ticks - that's okay). When you search for a beer, list the ones with 75 characters or whatever first so we can easily see the text we want to see, and put the tick-only scores below those. Honestly, who has time to read more than 5-10 full reviews anyway (in typical settings) - we don't need to be batting 1.000 on reviews with 75 characters. Most of them read pretty similarly anyway, after you've read a handful. No, that doesn't make us Untappd. It makes us better, because 1) we still have a history of doing full reviews and many still will, 2) we have stats and maps, and 3) we have forums. With more user volume, this would give us a chance to compete on database completeness vs. UT, and extend our advantages on the stats (vs. both UT and BA), and compete (vs. BA) / extend (vs. UT) on the forums front. In crowd-sourced amateur reviews, volume matters. A lot. We need it.
Nicely put
|
Originally posted by cgarvieuk
Originally posted by BVery
Originally posted by Viper666 We need 3 separate folders: Ratings (reviews ticks), Reviews only and Ticks only No, we don't. We need text to be optional, and everything counts the same. Then we get user volume, which gets us a more current database, more active forums, more trading, maybe more premium fees to give us more tech support, more reviews (yes, many will be ticks - that's okay). When you search for a beer, list the ones with 75 characters or whatever first so we can easily see the text we want to see, and put the tick-only scores below those. Honestly, who has time to read more than 5-10 full reviews anyway (in typical settings) - we don't need to be batting 1.000 on reviews with 75 characters. Most of them read pretty similarly anyway, after you've read a handful. No, that doesn't make us Untappd. It makes us better, because 1) we still have a history of doing full reviews and many still will, 2) we have stats and maps, and 3) we have forums. With more user volume, this would give us a chance to compete on database completeness vs. UT, and extend our advantages on the stats (vs. both UT and BA), and compete (vs. BA) / extend (vs. UT) on the forums front. In crowd-sourced amateur reviews, volume matters. A lot. We need it.
Nicely put
I'd rather see Viper666's idea come to life but I think that -unfortunately- BVery is right and the only way to get the volume we need is to say that thoughtless ticks are equal of thought through ratings / reviews. A sad thing to conclude but it appears there's no other way.
|
|
Benzai, I don't love my conclusion either, but it is my conclusion based on what I'm observing. I think the upside outweighs the downside.
|
Originally posted by BVery
Benzai, I don't love my conclusion either, but it is my conclusion based on what I'm observing. I think the upside outweighs the downside.
Yes I agree.
|
Originally posted by Benzai
I'd rather see Viper666's idea come to life but I think that -unfortunately- BVery is right and the only way to get the volume we need is to say that thoughtless ticks are equal of thought through ratings / reviews. A sad thing to conclude but it appears there's no other way.
Why do you assume a Tick is thoughtless, many may be, but many others may not be
There many things that can be critisised looked down on.
What you rated a beer while eating
Oh you rated a pale lager after a stout
what you rated from a 2oz pour
oh you rated more than 10 beers
Its easy to pick holes in other
|