let me tell you, database isn't used frequently. there are a ton of new maps but most of them dont get downloaded at all or at most get 2 clicks. the reason is that nobody trusts these maps & most fear that they are waste of time.
the rating system is not so useful. it doesn't show in search, so it's hassle to click each maps to see the rating, only to find out that it's received very few ratings & little downloads (sometimes none...how could ppl know how good the maps were?) many of the "reviews" are probably written by the authors of the maps themselves, using sock puppet accounts, in order to promote those maps. and, there's no link between the reviews & the maps, so sometimes you don't even know there was a review & it's impractical system because if there will be more reviews, it will be very hard to search for them. also, every review is different. this inconsistency confuses ppl & it's very hard to see what to expect of a good & comprehensive review.
staredit.net must transform itself from not mere group of map makers trying to showcase their creations but a more useful database & coalition of reliable map reviewers.
we must model our review system on that of notebookreview.com. Only if we branch out the review factors can we review maps more accurately & without less sentimental biases. the review rating & anonymous rating should be kept separate but they should be displayed right below map title on search & browse pages.
we must introduce reviewing as a forum activity, where you get points for writing reviews that get approved by admins. people must be able to comment on the reviews to complain biases & mischaracterizations, & also rate on reviewers themselves so time will build or break their reputation & their user rating will be assurance to others who want to try new maps.
the reality is, really, people are tired of old maps & they want new ones but they are hesitant because they fear that they will waste a lot of time in doing so. if staredit.net offers people ways to constantly feed themselves with new & fun maps, it will become big & significant.
as for reviewing categories, i suggest division of points like this:
fairness 10 pts (glitch, cheats, balance, etc)
visual design 10 pts (terrain, color, unit names, etc)
play interface 15pts (special fx, player-game interaction, flow, etc)
gameplay 10pts (lv of competition, pace of game, concept/idea)
again this is similar to notebookreview.com's reviews.... http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3869http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3869
review should indicate how many times the reviewer has tried the map.
2-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16+. that way ppl can know reliability of that review & also reviewers themselves will be more honest regarding this... than if they were to tell the exact number of times they have tried the map (always # will be inflated), they can just give a range of # of tries.
None.