[Lormyr]

Then I guess it is a damn good thing that I am, and never have, told anyone how they should feel about Shadowrun Sixth World.

Isn't it?  Hmmm?

Fair, I did not choose my words carefully enough. My bad there.

But can you see how even though didn't say it directly, one could draw the correlation? That is how I took the statement. "This thing should have this rating, and anyone who didn't rate it that way should feel the same way I do about it.". If you meant something else, then once again, my bad.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

My point is, as I stated, that the rating on DriveThruRPG mostly reflect the raters agenda, rather than a true representation of the product.

Read the 1 Star reviews.  It is easy to guess they come from people trying to "burn down the house" one way or another.
I'd say to read the 5 Star reviews, but...  Since half of the 5 Star ratings appeared within 30ish hours of this thread going live, it isn't difficult to imagine some of the Catalyst Crusaders from these forums rushing over to DriveThruRPG to fight the injustice as they see it.
Reading the 4 Star reviews show most of those posters don't give much weight to the continuing quality issues from CGL.

Taken as a whole, this means that the exact ratings aren't weighed properly to make any real judgements toward the actual rating of the Sixth World Core Book.

Now, I didn't touch on the posters feelings at all.  They are all perfectly valid.  The criticisms are valid.  The ratings are off, and not particularly "fair."

Where do I get this notion of fair?  From these very forums, of course.  (It doesn't start until around page 8, or so.)

I'm just following forum procedure.  In that thread, it was meant to shut down / cancel the critiques coming from Roll4It, and when I bring it up here on DriveThruRPGs ratings, I'm (essentially) accused of conspiracy theories when applied to 5 Star ratings only (even though I applied it to 1 Stars as well).

And that is the real point.

[FastJack]

I'm just following forum procedure.  In that thread, it was meant to shut down / cancel the critiques coming from Roll4It, and when I bring it up here on DriveThruRPGs ratings, I'm (essentially) accused of conspiracy theories when applied to 5 Star ratings only (even though I applied it to 1 Stars as well).

The thread wasn't closed to shut down critiques (god, if we wanted to shut down critiques, there's this nice "delete" feature on the posts). The thread was shut down because it was caught up in circular arguments and flame baiting. On BOTH sides of the argument.

[Michael Chandra]

If he without sin were to throw the first rock, we'd never have a decent riot at our hands around here. If dril were a forum member here, this is what he'd say about us: "blocked. blocked. blocked. youre all blocked. none of you are free of sin"

[Lormyr]

If he without sin were to throw the first rock, we'd never have a decent riot at our hands around here. If dril were a forum member here, this is what he'd say about us: "blocked. blocked. blocked. youre all blocked. none of you are free of sin"

Oh! Oh! I have the perfect rebuttal quote for this! Ahem:

"Mister Chandra, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.".

- The Principal, Billy Madison

[Lormyr]

My point is, as I stated, that the rating on DriveThruRPG mostly reflect the raters agenda, rather than a true representation of the product.

That is certainly possible. That is also something that I don't think anyone can actually know and state as fact, though.

As far as that thread, both sides swung pretty hard at each other. With a few notable exceptions, I also thought Roll4it's critique was largely fair.

The thread wasn't closed to shut down critiques (god, if we wanted to shut down critiques, there's this nice "delete" feature on the posts). The thread was shut down because it was caught up in circular arguments and flame baiting. On BOTH sides of the argument.

There has been some heat and a lot of disagreement, but I personally have not noticed anyone's opinion being censored. For what that is worth.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

I'm just following forum procedure.  In that thread, it was meant to shut down / cancel the critiques coming from Roll4It, and when I bring it up here on DriveThruRPGs ratings, I'm (essentially) accused of conspiracy theories when applied to 5 Star ratings only (even though I applied it to 1 Stars as well).

The thread wasn't closed to shut down critiques (god, if we wanted to shut down critiques, there's this nice "delete" feature on the posts). The thread was shut down because it was caught up in circular arguments and flame baiting. On BOTH sides of the argument.

There you go twisting other people's posts to advance your agenda...  Yet again.

Even if you are a firm believer that Occam's razor is nothing but a work of fiction, it takes effort - actual deliberate effort - to translate "the cries that Roll4It was too biased was being used to counter Roll4It's critiques" into anything about "the thread being locked."

I would challenge you to explain how you came to that as the conclusion, as I would like everyone to see how far you have to bend over backwards to make that jump.

My point is, as I stated, that the rating on DriveThruRPG mostly reflect the raters agenda, rather than a true representation of the product.

That is certainly possible. That is also something that I don't think anyone can actually know and state as fact, though.

Fair.  I am pretty sure I never presented it as fact, though.  I did not say "the ratings are wrong," or "the ratings are false."

All I did was present my opinions.  I'll admit I didn't put a big. bold. disclaimer in there...  But neither did I make claims that ratings were demonstrateably incorrect.

[FastJack]

I'm just following forum procedure.  In that thread, it was meant to shut down / cancel the critiques coming from Roll4It, and when I bring it up here on DriveThruRPGs ratings, I'm (essentially) accused of conspiracy theories when applied to 5 Star ratings only (even though I applied it to 1 Stars as well).

The thread wasn't closed to shut down critiques (god, if we wanted to shut down critiques, there's this nice "delete" feature on the posts). The thread was shut down because it was caught up in circular arguments and flame baiting. On BOTH sides of the argument.

There you go twisting other people's posts to advance your agenda...  Yet again.

Even if you are a firm believer that Occam's razor is nothing but a work of fiction, it takes effort - actual deliberate effort - to translate "the cries that Roll4It was too biased was being used to counter Roll4It's critiques" into anything about "the thread being locked."

I would challenge you to explain how you came to that as the conclusion, as I would like everyone to see how far you have to bend over backwards to make that jump.

My point is, as I stated, that the rating on DriveThruRPG mostly reflect the raters agenda, rather than a true representation of the product.

That is certainly possible. That is also something that I don't think anyone can actually know and state as fact, though.

Fair.  I am pretty sure I never presented it as fact, though.  I did not say "the ratings are wrong," or "the ratings are false."

All I did was present my opinions.  I'll admit I didn't put a big. bold. disclaimer in there...  But neither did I make claims that ratings were demonstrateably incorrect.

Luckily antipathy and my own self-confidence means I don't have to do anything. You post, claim I crucify you for your beliefs, yet you're still here proselytizing. The only times I respond to your posts is when you're trying to paint things to prove your opinion is more than just your opinion.

[0B]

My point is, as I stated, that the rating on DriveThruRPG mostly reflect the raters agenda, rather than a true representation of the product.

Although it's true that the quality of a product correlates with the rating on sites like this rather than causes it, I'm awful curious about the whole agenda thing.

I rated SR: Anarchy, a book that was not well-received, with 5 stars. Many people might argue that this does not reflect the "actual quality" of the book. And you know, they're right, both for them, and for a lot of people. For me, I think it's 5 stars.

Because my rating is different than the "actual" quality of the book, does this mean I'm biased or that I have an agenda? Sure- because it's a biased opinion (I like playing it), and because everyone has an agenda (I want more people to look at the book so that I can play it with anyone who likes it). Does it mean I'm under corporate orders, or that I'm shilling for CGL, or that I've been paid to rate it 5 stars? Uh, no. CGL doesn't even pay the errata team, why would they pay people to rate their product higher?^{Yes, I know nobody works in the RPG industry so that they can eat, but TTRPG writer pay is still remarkably below average for the writing industry... unionize...}

Is it possible that a lot of people rated it right away because it showed up in the "new titles" section on DTRPG, which is on the front page of DTRPG? Perhaps, there were some people who were interested in it, either due to QSR or the leaked PDF, and were waiting for it to come out so they could buy it right away.

Why should I rate a product differently than how I feel about it? Giving a product a rating based on what I think the average opinion of its quality is in the community is prone to error and useless in the long run.

[Iron Serpent Prince]

Although it's true that the quality of a product correlates with the rating on sites like this rather than causes it, I'm awful curious about the whole agenda thing.

Skalchemist presented the idea that Shadowrun Sixth World was polarizing instead of mediocre (by his/her definition receives mostly 2 or 3 Star ratings).

I presented the idea that it was both at the same time, rather than mutually exclusive.

The agenda only comes in when trying to weight the submitted ratings to a "more appropriate" level.  "More appropriate," is obviously very subjective.
There are a number of 1 Star ratings that are being submitted purely to tank the Overall Raring of Shadowrun Sixth World.  That is their agenda.  Make it look worse than it is, just for that point alone.
There are likewise 5 Star ratings that aren't made for any real opinion about Shadowrun Sixth World, but to raise the ratings to make it look better than it is prior to those submitted ratings.

Much like you said, you had an agenda when rating Anarchy at 5 Stars.

That is all that I posted about.

I made no claim about corporate backing, or that people should rate things any differently, regardless of conspiracy theories otherwise.

[0B]

Oh, that's fine, I just got the impression that you thought an agenda was bad, in this case. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume why someone voted a particular way, when there's pretty much nothing to back these statements:

There are a number of 1 Star ratings that are being submitted purely to tank the Overall Raring of Shadowrun Sixth World.  That is their agenda.  Make it look worse than it is, just for that point alone.
There are likewise 5 Star ratings that aren't made for any real opinion about Shadowrun Sixth World, but to raise the ratings to make it look better than it is prior to those submitted ratings.

The only way to determine why someone left a particular rating is if they tell you why they left the rating. Even then, you might frame it in different ways. Do I rate SR: Anarchy at 5-stars because I like it and want others to play it, or to "make it look better?" Does it have to be one way or the other? Is there anything to actually validate my motives other than my own words? I could have even made this up just to make a point- I don't recall leaving a review, so my rating is anonymous. Someone else might've done the 5-star rating, and I could just be taking credit for this. Speculation is pointless without any sort of grounding.

I think it's perfectly fine that you think the edition is mediocre. I think it's also valid to say that many people believe this. Neither of these things mean that the edition actually is mediocre. Similarly, like you said, something being polarizing does not prove/disprove the quality of an edition.

DTRPG ratings can give an impression about what part of the community thinks about an edition- but I think it's more worthwhile to try to judge the quality of an edition on its content.

[Lormyr]

Fair.  I am pretty sure I never presented it as fact, though.  I did not say "the ratings are wrong," or "the ratings are false."

All I did was present my opinions.  I'll admit I didn't put a big. bold. disclaimer in there...  But neither did I make claims that ratings were demonstrateably incorrect.

Understood. I can chalk that up to taking it the wrong way due to tone being lost via the medium of discussion.

[FastJack]

It's been a couple of weeks so I thought I'd do an update.

This time I've added some data on absolute sales figures. Via here, we see we can arrange the sale "metals" awards badges that DTRGP gives products into tiers, where each tier has outsold the tiers below it. Via this post - which is not official but is not obviously wrong - we can convert the tiers into possible sales numbers. I have added those below.

Position	Title	Score	Number of ratings	Release date	Sales award
1	Cyberpunk Red Jumpstart Kit	4.8/5	47	August 01, 2019	Adamantium (Tier 1 - 5000+)
2	Shadowrun, Sixth World Core Rulebook	2.8/5	34	August 26, 2019	Platinum (Tier 3 - 1000-2000)
3	Cypher System Rulebook	n/a	n/a	September 27, 2019	Copper (Tier 7 - 50-100)
4	WFRP Ubersreik Adventures - Bait and Witch	3.8/5	4	September 26, 2019	Electrum (Tier 5 - 250-500)
5	Eclipse Phase Second Edition	5/5	14	August 09, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
6	Hurricane Dorian Red Cross Charity Bundle Anchor Product	n/a	n/a	September 24, 2019	Copper (Tier 7 - 50-250)
7	The Chronomancer's Guide to the Future	5/5	2	September 28, 2019	Silver (Tier 6 - 100-250)
8	Legend of the Five Rings: Courts of Stone	5/5	4	August 27, 2019	Electrum (Tier 5 - 250-500)
9	Heroic Maps - Storeys: Ragnar's Keep	n/a	n/a	September 26, 2019	Silver (Tier 6 - 100-250)
10	Stars Without Number: Revised Edition	4.9/5	164	December 29, 2017	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)

Some extra comparison points:

Title	Score	Number of ratings	Release date	Sales award
Shadowrun: Sixth World Beginner Box	2.0/5	15	July 09, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
Shadowrun: Fifth Edition Core Rulebook (Master Index Edition)	4.1/5	139	July 11, 2013	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)

DriveThru has updated for the week, here's the new rankings:

Position	Title	Score	Number of ratings	Release date	Sales award
1⮝	Shadowrun, Sixth World Core Rulebook	2.9/5⮝	36	August 26, 2019	Platinum (Tier 3 - 1000-2000)
2⮟	Cyberpunk Red Jumpstart Kit	4.8/5	51	August 1, 2019	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)
3⮝	Eclipse Phase Second Edition	5/5	15	August 9, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
4⮟	Cypher System Rulebook	4.5/5⮝	2	September 27, 2019	Silver (Tier 6 - 100-250)
5⮟	WFRP Ubersreik Adventures - Bait and Witch	3.6/5⮟	5	September 26, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
6⮝	The Chronomancer's Guide to the Future	5/5	3	September 28, 2019	Silver (Tier 6 - 100-250)
7⮝	Legend of the Five Rings: Courts of Stone	4.8/5⮟	5	August 27, 2019	Electrum (Tier 5 - 250-500)
8⮝	Stars Without Number: Revised Edition	4.9/5	167	December 29, 2017	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)
9⮝	Blades in the Dark	4.8/5	145	January 10, 2016	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)
10⮝	Spellcaster: The Frostgrave Magazine #5	n/a	n/a	October 4, 2019	Copper (Tier 7 - 50-100)

And Comparisons:

Title	Score	Number of ratings	Release date	Sales award
Shadowrun: Sixth World Beginner Box	2.3/5⮝	17	July 9, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
The Neo-Anarchist Streetpedia	2.9/5	8	June 12, 2019	Gold (Tier 4 - 500-1000)
Shadowrun: Fifth Edition Core Rulebook (Master Index Edition)	4.1/5	139	July 11, 2013	Adamantine (Tier 1 - 5000+)
BattleTech: BattleMech Manual	4.8/5	4	July 22, 2017	Platinum (Tier 3 - 1000-2000)
BattleTech: A Time of War	4.3/5	51	September 25, 2009	Mithral (Tier 2 - 2000-5000)
Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0	4.5/5	81	March 9, 2014	Mithral (Tier 2 - 2000-5000)

I'd also like to point out that I looked through the Chronomancer's Guide to the Future and it has some pretty good rules for running a cyberpunk/magic mash-up in D&D 5E rules.

[Shadowhack]

They must not be rating on total sales then since Shadowrun is only at Platinum Tier.

[penllawen]

They must not be rating on total sales then since Shadowrun is only at Platinum Tier.

No, I suspect it’s sales during some sliding time window - over the last week, or something like that. That’s the most sensible and common approach.