Reading a 1-page review: 5 minutes
DL'ing a map, playing it, finding out it's shit: 25 minutes
Choice is yours dude.
Anyway, I agree with Stevie about the ratings system. Although I'm not worried about too low of scores, but too high of scores. Standards in the zombies community are waaaaay too low. Prison Mission has 10 stars on ZM, and it's literally the worst map I ever played. Universal democracy is wrong, some people just don't deserve an opinion. Too many noobs shotgunning out "BEST MAP EVAR" (it's the first map they've played...)
Nonetheless, we need a rating system because reviewers can't get 'em all. I'm currently working on a (glowing) Das Herrenhaus review, but that's just one of the many maps currently out, and I've already missed many I'd have liked to review. Just not enough time, especially since I'm working on a map of my own.
Would be nice if UGX tracked an individual's downloads, and that was part of the criteria... so like 100 posts, 30 maps DL'd
You're 'currently working' on a review? Damn, I didn't realise reviewers spent this long on them, anyway I digress.
A simple solution to the 'noobs can't be trusted' conundrum is like I said, any coloured ranked member can vote (from Famous Male Pornstars to Mapper Elites and everything in between) - I can't see how anyone would have opposition to that?
And the tracking downloads thing would be impossible since most maps are linked through Mega/Mediafire, etc and not through the site directly.
And I think people are still getting hung up on the name. I repeat 'First Mappers' or w/e it should be called is a EUPHEMISM, stop taking it literally. We all know it really means 'Shit Maps' but of course we can't have that as a section (sigh), it DOESN'T MATTER if it's your first or 100th map; if it's shit it goes there, if it's good it doesn't. End of.