I like the idea of going back to the 1-5 star rating. What I have seen in other forums that rate video games is a way for the general users to cast a vote 1-5 as well. So what you end up with is the Avsim Review Rating and then a user review rating along side it. (You can go to the IGN game review website to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about) I've always found that particularly useful since you get a base review conducted by a staff reviewer + a general users rating to measure it against. So that if one of your staff reviewers rated a product at 5 stars and the average rating of 25 users was 3 stars then you can sort of assume that perhaps the official review was a little more positive than most people think. Just and idea.

This sounds like an outstanding idea to me and if the AVSIM website can handle it, I hope they will consider doing this. The only problem I can see (other than technical ones which I wouldn't know) is that our community probably is a lot smaller than the game site you mention and so just a few trolls could bring the rating way down. There are people on here who have a grudge against particular producers and no matter what that producer does, they will tear it down. So maybe there would be a way to have a list of a couple of hundred readers who have demonstrated by their forum posts that they are serious simmers and reasonable in their opinions and restrict access to the poll to them? Others would still have the ability to respond to reviews in the same way that they can now, so it wouldn't be "censorship" - just a way to keep it fair and representative of the vast majority of AVSIM members who are an incredibly decent group on the wholeBTW, it was the "trolls" who created such a nasty environment that the old rating system got cancelled. All of those old postings are probably gone because of the hack but...............

Yes, I am aware that "Trolls" could taint the average.I would certainly make it so that a registered user could only vote once. I for one would not go to trouble of registering multiple accounts just to try to have more votes in an attempt to lower a rating from a vendor; but sadly I suppose there are people who would.I'm not at all versed in how a website or administrator could control this or prevent it from happening but I imagine there must be a way to reduce the probability or at least make it more troublesome than what it's worth. I still think that even in our smaller community it could work.

I'm leaning towards going back to the 5 star system, with a Gold Star for the top products. I'd also like to see an actual numeric score from the reviewer, with justification as to why the product scored what it did.I'll review your comments and our system with the executive at our next meeting.

I'm In.Ray

Definitely think the 1-5 star rating system is the way forward. Perhaps come up with a number of benchmarks which when added together give you a score. I would also suggest that a review template is created so that reviews are consistent in terms of content. In addition, allowing users to rate is a really good idea. I know they’re in the process of reviewing the site design. They should really allow the ability for users to comment against news, reviews & files (and most other content). This will allow avsim to grow organically and build it’s community. Hopefully the new designer they have onboard will factor this in.

Hello Robert,I wrote six reviews in 2005/06 for AVSIM before I gave up given my professional workload. I never really felt at ease with the 1 to 5 star rating and here is why: I believe it is too rigid a system for very different products. My proposal would be to offer a summary table on which the reviewer would rate different aspects of the product, i.e. for airplanes:1/ Outside model2/ 2D panels3/ 3D cockpit4/ Systems modeling5/ Flight performance6/ Price vs qualityThe result of this is that each "simmer" will look for the rating that matters to him/her, a beginner may not necessarily be looking for a great set of complex system modeling, but would enjoy a wonderful 2D panel with basic easy functionalities, whereas the experienced "simmer" will not accept any compromises on the same item and will pass on a plane where the systems were rated 3. For some of us who never ever "step" out of our cockpit, even if the exterior model is rated 2 (clearly bad), we could not care less if the VC is absolutely great and with full functionalities, etc...For sceneries, we could think of a different grid of evaluation to distinguish and highlight the benefits of a "Blueprint" scenery versus the merits of a "FlyTampa" product (to take an example that all of us are familiar with). This does not mean that a Blueprint product is bad, it may appeal to the casual simmer who will be happy with a scenery better than the stock offer. Some may have older machines for which the former will fit perfectly well the latter will be challenging if not unusable! Trying to split the rating such as 1/ Correct layout2/ Area covered (just the airport or region)3/ Quality of rendition, textures4/ Animations, compatibility with AES5/ Price vs qualityRegarding other products, a different matrix may be used that would fit the product usage.So without being too complex and lengthy, you could use four to five indicators and an overall rating of excellence for those hitting 5 in all categories, this would become your "Gold Star Award" and - certainly - you would have less of them. I would object personally to consolidating these different parameters into one average summary rating, simply because it would defeat the purpose of splitting the evaluated items. Why should we give the same or more importance to some of the rated items since they would appeal to different audiences? Let the reader consolidate the rating on his own according to what matters most to him/her. Of course standards of evaluation would have to be written so that each reviewer starts from the same approach in his/her testing.Good luck!