What Is Everyone's Criteria for Rating Mods?

[jeremyj621]

I see a lot of mods on the FS mod hub, and most have 4-star ratings or higher. I'm just curious what everyone's criteria for rating mods is. I tend to be a bit critical when rating mods. I only give 5-star ratings to mods that are truly exceptional in some way compared to base game content or similar mods. If the mod is average in comparison, I give a 3-star rating, 4 if slightly above average. If the mod is functional but below average in my opinion, 2 stars. And if the mod is bugged or isn't as described, 1 star.

[Zero76Gaming]

And if the mod is bugged

To be fair here, if the mod is bugged Giants are getting 1 star and not the author of the mod.
There shouldn't be bugged mods on modhub so that is on giants and not on the modder.

[ASOLANDRI]

3-5 stars if the mod is not too buggy, more detailed than base game vehicles, and not a stolen mod from the original modder itself.

[humbe]

I see a lot of mods on the FS mod hub, and most have 4-star ratings or higher. I'm just curious what everyone's criteria for rating mods is. I tend to be a bit critical when rating mods. I only give 5-star ratings to mods that are truly exceptional in some way compared to base game content or similar mods. If the mod is average in comparison, I give a 3-star rating, 4 if slightly above average. If the mod is functional but below average in my opinion, 2 stars. And if the mod is bugged or isn't as described, 1 star.

I was thinking kind of like you, though I never really rated mods as I need to do it outside of the game, so I forgot about it once I felt I'd used it enough to rate it..

But then I hear modders are payed (a small amount) by the download and penalized if the score is below 4, and I want to give incentive to make mods, good or not, so now I'm rating all the mods I like 5 and not rating the rest..

And everyone probably have different criteria's for their ratings..

[LittleWatt]

Like I rate anything on the weak 5 point system. There aren’t any 5 stars. That would be perfect in every regard. After that the rating is based more on function over form. I honestly can’t care about opening windows, or automatic lights, or functioning hoses. To me these things just take up unnecessary space. Maps that aren’t AI friendly, have little to no spare building space, don’t support all base game items, typically won’t get any rating over 3, regardless of how appealing they are to the eye. Again function over form. Also, the 5 point rating system cripples both the rater and ratee. In perspective 3 out of 5 is only 60%. It seems harsh to say a glorious map is only 60% but you use the tools you’re saddled with, a result of only having 5 points to use for evaluation.

[BulletBill]

Personally I will only rate a mod that I like and has excellent quality and function. If I like it I give it 5*, if I don't like it I don't rate it.
I dislike damaging a mods ratings purely on my own personal opinion, nor do I want to take away from the time and effort that modder took, regardless of whether I like that mod personally.

I will always favour quality of looks and the amount of effort that has been put into a mod over functionality, as if you take some mod maps on Modhub for example, that cater only for functionality, those have generally been made with far less skill and effort than the realistic scenery maps so it seems unfair to view them even in the same light or to rate them against each other.

I do think the rating system is utterly useless and completely flawed though. The average rating can so easily be skewed by how popular a modder is or how many friends they have, not to mention how many people dislike that modder.

You get people who say "top quality mod, no flaws...." and then give it 3 stars...
You get lots who will deliberately rate a mod 1* just to lower the rating.
Others who will always rate a particular modders mods 5* regardless of quality.

Personal preference is so subjective... some players care little for model and texture quality so will rate a poorly made mod high. Others will go for function over form on maps as has been commented previously.

The problem is what is the point of Modhub mods? Is it quality, functionality or just popularity?

Modhub, as far as I can tell, is trying to find a way to help the player work out which mods to try first over others or at least that's how it seems.

Personally I reckon they should show the number of downloads of each mod instead of any rating. While not a perfect way, the amount of downloads generally indicates more accurately whether the mod is worth downloading, as poorly made mods won't get recommended by people to there friends and communities, thereby lowering how many times it gets downloaded.

To be fair here, if the mod is bugged Giants are getting 1 star and not the author of the mod.
There shouldn't be bugged mods on modhub so that is on giants and not on the modder.

Actually that's not true... even the most amateur modder is more than capable of checking an error log as well as using the GIANTS test tool. If a mod has been uploaded with and still contains errors, it's not good that GIANTS didn't pick up on that, but the onus is definitely on the modder for not checking there mod first properly before uploading it. Every modder on Modhub has access to the Modhub guidelines as well as testing criteria. There isn't any excuse.

[Jimbob0704]

I agree fully on the maps issue, majority of the maps all look the same and I’ve found myself lately having to go back to fs17 just to get a grass roots farming feel as Calmsden to me with all the effort put into the ground textures is the only map that stands out and feels real, even trees on the maps all look the same with each tree being identical size and width which also feels a bit unrealistic to me which is a pity when you consider the time and effort that would have went into these maps that an extra day or 2 making these few changes would have made a huge difference

[FarmerJohn89]

I generally don't rate mods as I always forget to do it.
It would be nice to have a tab in the game itself that you could rate the mods while playing without the need of having to come out to the main menu to do so.

[Preble 818]

5 or nothing. As far as I’m concerned if I’m using a mod that somebody has taken the time to put the console it’s worth 5. I’m certainly not interested in a low rating I think that’s stuff

Edit. “Stuff” ok

[Decriptus]

The rating systems needs a comment section so if you give it a bad rating you can explain why. This would give valuable feedback to the modders. Even if it's just a multiple choice option

[eric21]

And if the mod is bugged

To be fair here, if the mod is bugged Giants are getting 1 star and not the author of the mod.
There shouldn't be bugged mods on modhub so that is on giants and not on the modder.

There are bugs that do pop up after testing

[ShabaFS]

I don't normally play much, most of my time is spent creating my maps and the odd mod, but when I do, I always check out new mods and only download what catches my eye. At first glance, I mainly look at the quality of the details of the mod in the screenshots. After testing it, I only rate it 5 stars if that mod lives up to the expectations I created from the start; otherwise I will not rate it.

What has always caught my attention are the numbers that appear next to the ratings of the mods, those that appear in parentheses, on the official website, I can't relate them to anything.

[CoreyTr]

And if the mod is bugged

To be fair here, if the mod is bugged Giants are getting 1 star and not the author of the mod.
There shouldn't be bugged mods on modhub so that is on giants and not on the modder.

Do you think it'd be fair to blame Steam, Sony and MS for Giants continued buggy releases?

[LMoonlight]

I don't normally play much, most of my time is spent creating my maps and the odd mod, but when I do, I always check out new mods and only download what catches my eye. At first glance, I mainly look at the quality of the details of the mod in the screenshots. After testing it, I only rate it 5 stars if that mod lives up to the expectations I created from the start; otherwise I will not rate it.

That's how I do it when I rate a mod. Completely or noting.

What has always caught my attention are the numbers that appear next to the ratings of the mods, those that appear in parentheses, on the official website, I can't relate them to anything.

Do you mean those numbers next to the stars in ModHub?
4.2 (539) -> 4.2 stars on average with 539 reviews submitted

[Aholz89]

I rate mods with either 5 stars or none. I value mods that are different and are well made with both quality, details, sound and functionality.

If a mod gets uninstalled because I don't like it, then I just leave it and thats it. Somebody spent a lot of time making it and I don't see the need to rate it 1 star.