The stars were fine Why does every rating system have to be

I don't know what you're talking about, but star based systems have been subject to "(full - 1/2) stars is good, half or less is shit, anything between those is mediocre, and full stars is paid off shilling" for decades. There's no reason to have ratings other than "This is fucking radical" and "Shit, right?"

>>16843111
And now there's no way to rate the work negatively at all.

>>16843133
Just don't like it. It's like with 4chan. When you like a thread you bump it. When you don't like it, you don't bump it.

>>16843136
This works fine in a small setting but once you get to a place with enough people it's just atrocious clickbait that rises to the top.

Did anyone really ever not rate the full rating or the min

>>16843111
A binary system like this means okay gets tossed in with shit while good still gets all the points.
Before you could say people were just too lazy to bother rating but this will make people think even less.
Also having the options is nice

>>16843086
Because sensitive FAGGOTS can't handle ratings... because that could mean someone might give them a 1/10, and that might Hurt their FeeFees. So Everyone either WINS or gets NOTHING. Self-esteem movement in a nutshell, and what led us to our current world.... shit. Success and Quality are meaningless without the possibility of Failure and Critique. I knew we weren't above this, but I thought Japan sure would be...

>>16843133
Stars didn't even work like rating averages. They're all cumulative so the only way you could tell someone autismed is if you go out of the way to do the math.

Doesn't even make sense to have it be a rating system if you have to open the image to look at the rating.

I never looked at or used those ratings. All I ever went off was the favorites count, which I guess is basically what this is.

>>16843229
>A binary system like this means okay gets tossed in with shit while good still gets all the points.
This is what happened with star systems too. Why would you look at something with a less than 80% score? If you're willing to look at low score images, why not low liked images?

>>16843136
>When you like a thread you bump it. When you don't like it, you don't bump it.
Has /jp/ really fallen this far?

>>16843230
To be fair, if you ever look at low view count videos or other media, that's where I've usually seen most of the downvoters--and while sometimes it might be due to the video being of poor quality, other times the video is actually not bad and still receives downvotes--often to the point where the amount of downvotes matches with the upvotes, making it difficult for these media to get anywhere. If you've ever been on Imgur, there's even a blanket term for the phenomena, the downvote faeries; it's a meme how difficult it can be to get out of the user submitted forum. Somehow, it seems like there are people out who are legitimately grumpy and petty enough to leave downvotes on unpopular things simply because they know it could prevent something from getting any views, and perhaps because they know that downvoting a popular video is equivalent to pissing in the wind.

>>16843375
>Fallen
/jp/ is the home of old posters. I was saging posts I didn't like before people were even spamming touhou. Don't even pretend every sage on /jp/ was due to proper netiquette.

>>16843086
From my experience on Pixiv no one ever rated stuff anything less than ten stars anyway.

More annoying is the English site translating some tags, I know enough Japanese to make my way around.

>>16843418
>Don't even pretend every sage on /jp/ was due to proper netiquette
No, but many were.

>>16843136
>When you like a thread you bump it. When you don't like it, you don't bump it.
I should feel angry, and yet, somehow, I don't feel anything at all.

>>16843086
The only thing that bothers me about this change is that previously given one-star ratings now count as a "like" instead of being removed. Like if you gave some faggot a one-star, it now basically counts as 10.

>>16843479
Remember visible sage was removed because people would use it as a downvote. You're not even allowed to say you're saging a post because of that. You can't even put sage in every field and submit a post.

>>16843375
You're supposed to sage every post! Remember, /jp/ is a slow board!

Pixiv just can't stop doing useless things.

I still sage by default if I feel my comment isn't worth bumping the thread. For instance, if I'm only posting about a tangential topic. Like I'm doing right now.

>>16843779
>previously given one-star ratings now count as a "like" instead of being removed. Like if you gave some faggot a one-star, it now basically counts as 10.
That is immensely fucked.

>>16843086
>Why does every rating system have to be "Like!" these days?

Because no one ever actually rates things fairly, people just click either 10 or 0. Every site that uses ratings has this problem. If people are going to treat it as an upvote/downvote button, they might as well turn it into an actual one.

>>16844857
Well, now it's an upvote/upvote button.

>>16845511
Because downvoting art is useless.

The stars were dumb. If you spent any time on Pixiv you may have noticed that nearly every rating was a 10 star, or if you clicked on "view detailed information" it would have told you that. Giving anything less than that was considered rude by most artists, so hopefully you weren't doing that thinking you were somehow being nice by giving something a 9. A 1 star was just a "fuck you", if you still want to leave a fuck you do it in the comments.

Everything moves away from a number system because the masses suck at actually giving ratings. Whenever Popular New Game comes out people who haven't even bought it spam metacritic with zero scores just because they think it's over rated. Yeah great system, typical of user ratings.

>>16843230
Are you legitimately autistic?

>>16843086
That was like that for ages. If you like the thing you rate it 10 stars, if you don't you just don't rate it at all.
They just made it obvious.

>>16846595
But I want to bully low self-esteem newbies with 1 star ratings, man

>>16846616
What if the newbie of today will turn into your favourite artist in 5 years? No bully, man.

>>16846595
I never used it like that. And now for those of us that used the scale properly we're left with nothing.

>>16846633
My favorite thing on pixiv is following newbie artists who are obviously putting a lot of effort in. Except when they improve for 4 years, then kind of regress and start drawing inexplicably bad art as though they've found some kind of niche for brain-damaged artists.