One doesn't discover new lands without losing sight of the shore!
My philosophy is, if you disable comments, a 1 you get.
I rate logs according to its poster, and I agree with Dalkar: since it's Tlaloc it's a pure 6!
I rate logs in which displayed skills and bravey result in a dead corpse. Or if I see something spectacular.
Baby Jesus does!
Who seriously cares about ratings anyway. :p
If I remember correctly I had less than 10 hp when I left. Interesting to know that I probably would have died there.
I'd say a log is rated based on the enjoyment one receives from reading it. Therefore you're more likely to enjoy seeing an average kill on someone you dislike than someone you do like. There's no point in viewing logs with a sense of detachment, we're not a fucking jury. I think the detachment can only occur when both the killer(s) and the victim(s) are liked/disliked.
But a really good log can be enjoyable regardless of who killed/died, but there's no clear cut line that defines when a log becomes that good.
Omg... it's posted by Tlaloc! Pure 6.
I could have sworn that I saw Feyd bitching up a storm on the comments section of a log where he died....he can whine, but no one else can?
Korgan, did I imply that you did?
I'm just stating the obvious, I don't really care either way but it is a rather immature way to handle the ratings depending on the poster whereas you have Tryptophan on the other end.
I just want to comment on the criteria for rating logs:
Jaron,I totally agree with you that a lot ot people rate logs depending only on the poster/victim.(i don't have anyone in particular in mind).
There is a tendancy that ERs rate high logs in which FRs die by evil hands and the opposite.
On the other hand site,there have been some nice exceptions - logs that were rated high by ERs although ERs died, simply because the logs and the playerkill were a masterpiece. Think the opposite has happened, too. This is admirable.
My next point: it is called a log page, we are talking about logs and so on. So my personal way to rate a log starts by estimating the log itself -as layout and outter appearance : color comes frist,and all the other things you are familiar with. I don't thing that any log without color should be rated more that 3,even if the content is interesting. You know -it's not only the information that matters but the way it is presented.
Length is important,maybe I am a nervous person and just can't stand reading very long logs but...anyway,it's my personal opinion that a good log should have a limited length. Too short logs ain't good either.
So next comes the content of a log- if it is a totally unremarkable pk/theft - 4.
Ok,enougth. Just wanted to point out that a nice log with colors should get at least 4, a good playerkill with no color - im my opinion- 3 : simply because it is not an enjoyable reading.
Probably a lot of people will not agree.As long as they have their own criteria not dependable on who gets killed, it's fine :)
Jump ip!Jump ip!Jump ip!
Jaron, did I rate this log?
I don't rate logs. Sorry.
Unlike yourself, right whiner?
My conclusion would be that you are rating the logs depending on the poster/victim instead of the content. I guess Hellflame isn't the only douche.
Jaron, that'd be because we like Tlaloc, and Hellflame is a douche. :D
Ooh I like a good mystery!
I enjoyed the log because of the lag bubble in the middle. It's so quintessentially Tlaloc. :)
I bet the guards got him.
I don't agree with Jaron there. This log had brief mode and colors and not that much spam, etc...
Interesting observation, now draw the right conclusions.
If this log was posted by Hellflame or any other ER with pretty much the same content and the corpse of a random FR in the end, it would probably have a rating around 1 with complaints on comments. Way to go.
Cool log!
Jump ip!
And yeah, lag or not,new or old,one is dead the other is not!
this was like so old so there was no point in loging it, and i lagged out thats the only reason of how i died, so i dont know why you would log this
hehe owned
:)