Rating System Wrong Invalid and Biased

[minsuz]

seems the katz rating system of site is a partial failure the best sites are rated like crap and worst rated five.

Look at this site its a 5 Star rating
http://katz.cd/download/1650806/App/WinRAR-3-71/
1. its pretty slow compare to few sites that are 3 star.

why arent these sites 5? after all they load hell lot faster and the pages seem more clean and friendly.
http://katz.cd/download/1650486/TV/Journeyman-S01E12/
http://katz.cd/download/1650494/Movie/Redacted-2007/
http://katz.cd/download/1650292/eBook/Security-in-Distributed-Grid-Mobile-and-Pervasive-Computing/

and look at this guy he got a 3 and his page takes you to a login page
http://katz.cd/download/1650348/Game/Half-Life-Blue-Shift/

This "Rating" nonsense is crap if its not done automatically in some systematics way so please consider my suggestion to do it fairly or remove it.

[Baby Jesus]

So what, let me get this straight, you're saying is that because a page is pretty that the site is fantastic and deserves a higher rating? I'm not saying the rating system is perfect, but it's damn good. Who cares if a 5* site is .01 seconds slower than a 3* site? Who cares if a 3* site is nicer looking in your own opinion than a 5* site?

Keep in mind that the quality isn't the only play, it includes website quality as a whole (not just guest downloads), website size and growth rate, it includes the site's future - not just present quality. It includes the "reliability" as far as staff (admins, smods, etc) go. It includes the katz admin's opinions of the site - whether you like it or not - the katz admins have clearly built a very successful large website - their opinions are more than fantastically accurate.

If you don't like it, leave - not many others have a problem with it. You're probably simply angry because your site didn't get a high rating, correct?

[lipripr]

Whoop whoop whoop!

[Hazzard]

i agree the rating system may not be perfect but it works well enough and there are a lot of things considered when rating a site not just how fast it loads.
tho your right about share zone you shouldnt have to login for the download.

[Baby Jesus]

You know what else I find interesting, the 3 sites you listed as "nice looking and deserve 5*" have practically no members, one has 43, the other two don't say without registration however they don't have enough content to have much more than 100.

[Cøbra]

@minsuz: Dude, you don't get it.

You're looking at only a couple of downloads from each site.

We take into account numerous factors and also consider:
The age of the site i.e. how long they've been submitting to us. A quality site is rated low to begin with; maturity and consistency earns them a higher rank.
We reject a lot of downloads that the end-user/other webmasters never see. Minor mishaps are overlooked. Repetitive mishaps results in an email or more likely, a ban -- trust me, it works.nitroshare.net - its pretty slow compare to few sites that are 3 star.lol, you want us to take into account slowness ? Site loading speeds can vary from minute to minute and this is not something we consider for ratings.

platinumw.org (http://katz.cd/download/1650486/TV/Journeyman-S01E12/) (3*) - is a relatively new site. They have to earn their stripes over time. Bans this year: 1.

bayw.org (http://katz.cd/download/1650494/Movie/Redacted-2007/) (3*) - has been banned numerous times this year for poor download titles. They need to show consistency in the long run to earn their stripes. Bans this year: 5.

induslounge.com (http://katz.cd/download/1650292/eBook/Security-in-Distributed-Grid-Mobile-and-Pervasive-Computing/) (3*) - also a relatively new site. Majority of submissions are eBooks. Since this is not mainstream content, such sites will generally not see 4-5* ratings. Bans this year: 2.

sharezone-network.com - has been banned for 40 days. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

I hope this gives you a better picture and the justification for the ratings these sites are given.

[minsuz]

You know what else I find interesting, the 3 sites you listed as "nice looking and deserve 5*" have practically no members, one has 43, the other two don't say without registration however they don't have enough content to have much more than 100.
Sites are rated by the quality of submission pages AND NOT SITE. isnt that right? so where do you get the idea its rated by the number of member? Also not everyone runs forums

and cobra thanks bro I get the system.