Rating Costs

Hi, Ive been in secondlife for roughly 3 years, i feel that secondlife has changed a lot, but i am proud to say i have grown with it, i have never posted before but have been thinking about about the future of secondlife and wanting to give back to the community,

I feel that the cost of rating 25L$ per point, is too high, ratings once gave a stipend bonus, so people would have such things as rating parties, where everyone would come and just rate everyone, in the long run it gave you more money, the lindens however, well in their right felt it wasnt a good secondlife spirit and took away from the experience of others, there was a rating roll back, everyones rating dropped from an equation i dont really know, i went from about 400 to 40, i feel that it was a justified action, also to help enforce this, the rating price fluttered around for a while untill the current day 25L$, today rating stipends are gone and done with, so a rating is valuable only as a rating, how ever it is still extremely expensive, it was rumored that you were returned your money on stipend day spent rating others, and for those in question i asked a linden and you dont, just to clarify,

with the rating being worth only a rating, should people be able to rate those they feel worthy, with secondlife prices of land, buying L$, ect, the cost of secondlife is increasing for most, and few would be willing to rate a stranger that 25-75L$, also for new players and players on basic, who in their right little avatars mind would spend half or all of their stipend of 50L$ rating one person?

I am unable to see how the system functions properly, given that it is ment to value only a rating, but at a cost worth far more then a pat on the back, i have found myself having to give people to money to rate me when they saw fit

i feel it would greater enhance the rating system and overall secondlife expeirence with one of two solutions

the first being simply lower the price,

and or

we could make that rumor true, if in fact you were returned your money on stipend day, one would still have to be priaseful enough to hold out for at least a week, but still be more willing inside to rate one who deserved it, this option would keep the same strength and value of a true rating and not just a wimless rating as the high prices, but at a more humane expense,

please respond to this how ever you feel, feel free to ad comments thoughts ect. also your welcome to im me anytime inworld - Michael Delorean -

If you are returned your rating fee on stipend day that still equates to you never having paid for anything so the rating doesnt 'mean' anything. It also means that a group of greifers could coordinate to boost each others ratings to give a false impression of their merits.

No the price needs to remain where it is. Its needed in order to keep the value of rating someone. I've spent roughly 5000$L in rating other people in the year i've been here. Thats roughly 10 weeks allowance.

Then take into account that I've always been a BASIC and the value of those ratings increases even higher. I personally never hesitate to give a rating where i think it is truely deserved. The price is NOT inhibitive. I merely high enough so that ratings given out are more likely to be deserved.

Ratings are extremely rare but then the system was meant to be replaced. It might randomly happen like the groups update is but don't hold your breath.

I strongly believe that ratings should produce a higher stipend for the recipient if they're going to cost real money. The stipend increment should not ever add up to more than the cost of the rating, and should probably be gradual... so you get L$8 on the first stipend after the rating was given, L$4 on the next, then L$2, L$1, and nothing. So you pay $25 and they get back $15, with L$10 going into the ether.

That means that a rating is worth something to the recipient, and it would encourage people to use ratings more, and would probably end up providing a better "money sink" than the current once-in-a-blue-moon-because-who-cares system.

Damn good idea - we can have ratings that both mean something and which provide a money sink.

I'd suggest:
# Ratings $ Stipend Increase
1 L$2
2 L$4
3 L$8
4 L$16
5 L$24
6 L$28
7 L$30
8+ L$31

This method offers a increasing curve as you get more ratings up to a point, then falls off again (need not be this exact curve). This method allows any number of ratings to cost more than the benifit gained by either giving the rating or getting the rating (say if by giving a rating your "given" goes up and also gets you a stipend bonus).
The cost of 8 ratings is L$200, whereas the benifit (lets include the "given" rating bonus as well) the benifit is L$62. Heck, we could make it a rolling 2 weeks thing (meaning you get the stipend bonus twice), benifit: L$124. Still less than the L$200 cost. No way to abuse the system as any ratings per week above 8 are essentially non-existent (assume you did L$0.5 then 0.25, 0.125, etc. the max would still be L$32 as the number of ratings approaches infinity).

This would be a PER WEEK calculation, that is Rating_at_last_stipend - Rating_this_stipend -> chart.

How do ratings actually work anymore? I thought they were supposed to drop to nothing after six months but I still have a ratings given of 473. I don't think I've given ratings to more than, oh, 10 people in the last six months.

On another note, thank god LL got rid of negative ratings. It took them long enough but good riddance. I only got down to -3 but they were an awful idea.

I'm not sure I understand what the logic of this is. What's the purpose of making ratings worth different amounts, and capping them? I honestly don't see the the advantage over simply paying out a fixed amount per point, either in a lump sum or as a series of payments. Capping it in particular would cntinue the current situation where there's almost no incentive to rate people, since if they'd managed to accumulate even a few ratings that week you'd be throwing your money completely away.

Back when ratings were worth something, even after they'd been priced to the current level and effectively nerfed, people still gave them on a regular basis. That pretty much went away when they became worthless.

I don't look at peoples ratings and I don't rate anyone anymore. I used to rate people when it would increase their income.

The rating system currently seems pretty meaningless to me.

For rewarding good content I'd like a system that would let you pay people money, and allow you to include a note explaining what you are paying them for. The amount would be determined by the person making the payment, and small amounts would be considered by custom to be perfectly fine. So if you are at a build you like you could bring up the owner or creator's profile and click a Reward button - enter the amount of your reward, write a note that says 'your build at suchandsuch rocks - loves the textures" . You can accomplish the same thing now but the payment and the notice of what you like aren't connected.

That would be cool, too, for all kinds of things. But I'm not sure it'll help here.

I got a lot more ratings than I've ever gotten tips, people think about tipping differently, and wrapping the tipping up as "rating" changes the context of the exchange and makes it less obtrusive.

I like that idea VERY VERY much. I dont like the alternate idea with the reduced return on investment for greater numbers of ratings. 15/10 for reward/sink makes me happy enough.

I stopped rating people after the price changed. When it was 1-3 linden i had no problems with it. Then the stipend bonus went shortly after... I just see no reason to even have this rating system anymore. I encourage people not to rate me since all they will do is lose money. Since i find it meaningless, They shouldn't bother.

My 2cts...

As it is, why even bother? There is no real plus or min to it.
Neither in giving, nor receiving. It's only a Linden sink for nothing.

So I'd say, remove it completely or give it some meaning.
The proposal of diminishing returns is a good one. However, for who?
The one that gives the ratings or the one receiving. Or both.

Speaking of which: why only posititive comments (yes, I can hear it already, the grievers giving everyone a negative rating)... Well, apply reverse logic too... If a negative rating is given, for recipient/giver the reward diminishes in the same way it would increase for positive ratings.

Because there are some people out there that deserve negative ratings for several things in my opinion: selling free items (repackaged), seling noob stuff, behaving like a**h*l*s and so on.

If I find someone selling freebies for any price I'd like to give a negative rating and a comment why. But that's just me.

It makes perfect sense to either revamp the rating system or kill it. The way it is now it definatly is a money sink.

1.) It costs L$25 a point. You could use that money to buy something real nice for yourself or you could just give them that money so they can.

2.) Points decay after time. Any points you add are not perminent.

3.) It has no use beyond their visability on your profile (no stipend bonus, and no hall of fame (i miss that), you gain nothing from it).

4.) I prefer material rewards for my good deeds.

5.) It makes Gor Jesus Cry.

Points have no decay. There was a 1-time 'adjustment'. Thats it.

The rating system needs to be completely redone imo. Ratings shouldn't even involve $L.

I have left school - I dont need or use any ratings.... I dont look at peoples ratings I talk to them or/and look at what they have done...made...

/Tina