I have two reviews that won Review of the Week/Month, but neither have a star yet. Maybe because they won prior to the current form of Review of the Month?
I wish some users weren't abusing the system. I've noticed some really awful reviews getting stars just because people agree with the score/sentiment as well as poor, near useless FAQs getting stars because of the writer's reputation (even though far superior FAQs below them have no stars). Hopefully as more people take advantage of the system, these undeserving contributions will lose their stars as better work gets rated higher. I'm doing my part, though. I went along and recommended a lot of contributions I found useful and enjoyed. What's so bad about rating every piece by a certain contributor, though? I mean, I understand the potential problems, but if someone is a good writer, then chances are just about everything they've contributed would be of high quality. I wouldn't rate something I haven't read, but I did rate probably 10 or so pieces by certain contributors. I could easily see myself wanting to rate every single piece by a talented writer that isn't so prolific.
Also, is there any chance we will ever get to view information on how our work has been rated? I'd love to see just how many ratings I've received (perhaps even for stuff that doesn't earn a star, assuming more than one rating is needed), and, better yet, it would be great to see the user names of the people doing the rating, assuming they were logged into a GameFAQs account at the time. When we had the previous system for rating site content, I enjoyed seeing who was behind each rating, especially if it was from someone I respected as a writer since then the compliment has even more value to it. --- "I am sexy minority. OH! NO! I wanna be a sexy terminator. Sexy will never die. AH~~~~~!"
urgh i really dislike this new rating... but most of all the split reviews, full detailed and quick.
This is not good because it is encouraging filler. Filler is not good at all, too much is written that doesn't contribute to the review. It downgrades the writing. Every word should contribute to the writing, using this system everyone is encouraged to just write anything until it reaches "full."
i really wish i can go back to '99... my life would be so much better.... --- "If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower." - Adolf
Presumably, because every contribution is admin reviewed and the quality standards for full and detailed reviews are higher than for quick reviews, that potential problem would - or, at least, should - be alleviated.
As for '99, well, I can't speak for your life, but I do know '99 was the year of the review contest, and in terms of quality reviewing that's really not something to be nostalgic about :P Of course, 1999 was the release year of X-Wing Alliance as well, of course, which ran like crap on the PC I had at the time. Took more than a year before I could play it properly.
--- First you draw a circle, then you dot the eyes NP: Castlevania CoD, Atelier Iris 2, Rogue Galaxy