79,231
edits
Project:General Discussions: Difference between revisions
→Ratings Changes
(→Ratings Changes: I guess the non-updated ratings report provides that to some degree) |
|||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
: I'm generally OK with rehashing the definitions, but it will be a big job to re-align existing rankings. It looks like anything that was a 1 or 2 becomes a 1, which we could automate and 5 would stay 5 but all the 3/4 rankings would likely need investigation. We'll need some way to flag ratings that have been checked, perhaps we can script adding a comment/category into ratings pages to indicate ratings need review. | : I'm generally OK with rehashing the definitions, but it will be a big job to re-align existing rankings. It looks like anything that was a 1 or 2 becomes a 1, which we could automate and 5 would stay 5 but all the 3/4 rankings would likely need investigation. We'll need some way to flag ratings that have been checked, perhaps we can script adding a comment/category into ratings pages to indicate ratings need review. | ||
:I'm a bit concerned regarding the "Perfect with the right settings" description for 5 stars though. I'd prefer to keep that as "Perfect with default settings", since if special settings are needed we likely should be looking at updating game ini's to provide more appropriate defaults.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (CEST) | :I'm a bit concerned regarding the "Perfect with the right settings" description for 5 stars though. I'd prefer to keep that as "Perfect with default settings", since if special settings are needed we likely should be looking at updating game ini's to provide more appropriate defaults. Such aligns with current page handling as well since: config entries should generally have related Problem entries explaining why a settings is needed, and games with problems aren't perfect. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (CEST) | ||
===DB Error=== | ===DB Error=== | ||