I don't understand what criteria drives this list. Can someone explain it to me?

Thank you 🙂

Received reviews per time frame?

 

Received reviews per time frame?

So the logic is simply a sum of total reviews received? Thus, even if they are all bad (1 star) reviews, one could make the top of the list?

\applications\downloads\widgets\topSubmitters.php

Order by

'files DESC, rating DESC',

where

files is COUNT(file_id) AS files

rating is AVG(file_rating) as rating

 

\applications\downloads\widgets\topSubmitters.php

Order by

'files DESC, rating DESC',

where

files is COUNT(file_id) AS files

rating is AVG(file_rating) as rating

So to translate this into plain english, Does this mean it sorts first on file count and second on average rating?

Means my statement above cannot be true? low ratings would not enter into the top?

 

Does this mean it sorts first on file count

Files with reviews

Example

user1 has uploaded 2 files and got 2 reviews (1 star for 1st and 1 star for 2nd)

user2 has uploaded 2 files and got 1 review (4 stars)

Result

 

Files with reviews

Example

user1 has uploaded 2 files and got 2 reviews (1 star for 1st and 1 star for 2nd)

user2 has uploaded 2 files and got 1 review (4 stars)

Result

Well on the one hand, My question was answered well. Thank you.

 

Now that it's clear what is happening, I object to the logic.  IPS.. come on, a top submitter should never be a member with lousy reviews above a member with GREAT reviews.

This is failed logic being applied here.

Just look at the optics of this.  The average user doesn't have access to read the SQL nor does the average user understand it even if they could.

The customer sees:  user1 with crap ratings ABOVE user2 with good ratings.

I can't possibly be the only one who notices how ridiculous this is.

My users are asking about this all the time.  Is there any interest in getting this fixed?

 

I can't possibly be the only one who notices how ridiculous this is.

It’s just a matter of what you want to show. The ordering is apparently based on “most contributions”, which is by no means ridiculous. “Top Contributors” = most-active. Nothing wrong with showing “most” of something. Most-viewed, most-liked, most posts in the forums. Whatever. 

Overall rating is of course also interesting, but that makes little sense in a time-based view. “Best-rated this week” would be rather meaningless. For time-based lists, counting the files does actually make sense. Maybe the easiest fix is to change the language string for the headline, so people don’t confuse “top” with “quality” and understand that it is about “quantity”. 

But it isn't clearly about Quantity either.  It's just plain confusing! @opentype

Look at this example

I think rating would make sense over time. Highest rated this week/month/year  would actually be perfectly fine metrics in my opinion.

This still makes no sense. I hope this can be addressed. Nobody understands it and I get asked to explain it all the time and can’t. 

Look above @Adriano Faria has more stars and more files than anyone else, yet he’s 3rd? 

How can I even explain that to someone?

 

 

It’s just a matter of what you want to show. The ordering is apparently based on “most contributions”, which is by no means ridiculous. “Top Contributors” = most-active. Nothing wrong with showing “most” of something. Most-viewed, most-liked, most posts in the forums. Whatever. 

Then don’t put stars, put count of files submitted. Putting stars indicates that the ranking is based on stars. Seeing less star rated author over a higher rated author is ridiculous and confusing. 

If it really is most active show the relevant supporting data so people know what they are supposed to do to enter the list. Otherwise what is the point? I don’t need useless space fillers. My site real-estate is valuable.