xNURBS announces the availability of Version 5.2 and V4/V5 customers can get a free upgrade to V5.2. V5.2 includes a number of enhancements, e.g., automatically trimming the boundary curves and further reducing the G1 deviation etc.
Currently, xNURBS rating on Food4Rhino is 2.8 - genuine xNURBS users give 5-star rating on Food4Rhino and trolls use fake IDs or anonymously give 1-star rating. In other words, nearly half of rating are 1-stars and another half are 5-stars on Food4Rhino. For anyone with basic statistics knowledge, it means the rating on Food4Rhino is forged. In plain language, trolls are manipulating xNURBS rating on Food4Rhino. Food4Rhino records these guy(s)’ IDs. The guy, who made 1-star rating, is a long-time Rhino “user” in Europe. He is an active member of Rhino community and also attends all kinds of Rhino meetings and demonstrations.
@carlosperez , Carlos, Could you publicly reveal the guys’ names who rate xNURBS on Food4Rhino? People in this Rhino community should be able to easily identify who are the trolls. I believe, if they themselves feel shameful to let others know that they give 1-star rating on Food4Rhino, basically they admit they are trolls.
@bobmcneel , Bob, The xNURBS development benefits the whole Rhino community and Rhino users. From the simple fact that nearly half of rating are 1-stars and another half are 5-stars on Food4Rhino, it is obvious that trolls are attacking us. Apparently, someone try to discourage us from further developing xNURBS for Rhino users. Without xNURBS, professional designers would use other software (or Rhino competitors) to design a production automotive model, e.g., the model below. Some person(s) are upset with the fact that, with xNURBS, talented industrial designers can use Rhino to deliver super impressive automotive models in a very short period of time. In my opinion, the trolls may actually work for Rhino’s competitors and it is Rhino’s job (not ours) to deal with them. Bob, could you ask Carlos to publicly reveal the guys’ names who rate xNURBS on Food4Rhino? I don’t see any reason why someone needs to use fake IDs or anonymously make 1-star rating.
In November 2021 I emailed Food4Rhino to point out that there were serious flaws in the rating system. There is a common web paradigm (e.g. at Amazon) that if you want to see detailed ratings you click on the ratings bar. In Food4Rhino this paradigm was not observed - instead a vote was added to whichever band happens to be under the cursor when you clicked. As the ratings bar is at the right of the window, it was likely that more people would click on the lower ratings as they are nearer the centre of the screen. There was no validation of the “rating”, and particularly, nothing to ensure that it came from someone who actually had experience of the software.
Food4Rhino replied that a new site was under development and that the rating system would be reworked. I don’t know if this has happened yet.
So, dear Xnurbs, your low ratings need not be the work of trolls, they may simply be the unintended biproducts of curious consumers. (Unfortunately some of your five star ratings may also arise in this way…)
I ignore the rating system and choose to place more credence on reviews and other user comment across the forum, and most credence on personal evaluation.
When we added xNURBS to Food4Rhino 2 years ago, someone immediately registered a temporary email, then registered a brand new ID on Food4Rhino (i.e., used a temporary fake ID) and then gave 1-star rating on Food4Rhino. We reported the 1-star rating to you, you removed the 1-star rating and told us ‘the guy use a fake ID to do this’.
@jeremy5 , Do you still think it is an unintended biproducts of a curious consumer? A curious consumer won’t make such an effort to register a temporary email and a fake ID, and then gave 1-star rating on Food4Rhino. Also there are 18 votes in total on Food4Rhino. Basically, they are either 1-star or 5-star. All people made the same mistakes? I don’t think so. Professional trolls are working on it.
@carlosperez , After the fake rating was removed, we sent an email to our customers and told them the troll’s attack. Some of our customers then logged in Food4Rhino and gave 5-star rating and emailed us back. This is how we knew genuine users gave the 5-star rating. At the same time (after the fake 1-star rating was removed), you told me that guy uses his real ID to make a 1-star rating this time.
Publicly revealing the guys’ names who rate xNURBS on Food4Rhino would be the best way. Please remove the rating I just made on Food4Rhino - I just test your rating on Food4Rhino.
Trolls are also reading this message. So please reveal the guys’ names who rate xNURBS on Food4Rhino before Feb 16.
Trolls are also reading the post and I see a guy made a 3-star rating after this message was made public. Before this 3-star rating, we have 18 votes in total on Food4Rhino. Basically, they are either 1-star or 5-star. This should be our only 3-star rating.
We would be interested to see who made the 3-star rating. Those guy(s) didn’t realize that, with their “work”, we only have 1-star or 5-star rating, which makes it “awkward”. I think this guy may overplay it.
I almost made an unintended rating on Food4Rhino by clicking on the starts thinking that would show me the distribution of ratings. My guess is most or all of the 1 star ratings for XNurbs and probably some of the 5 start ratings are unintended.
The current ratings on Food4Rhino may have flaws, but a while ago, people need to pass a verification process to vote - Our customers feedbacked us that ‘you need to be a genius to get through the verification process and vote/comment’. So our ratings on Food4Rhino are not made by curious consumers.
David, Are you the guy who registered a temporary email and a fake ID to give us 1-star rating on Food4Rhino?
Publicly revealing the guys’ user names who vote on Food4Rhino should be the best way to deal with trolls.
I could not disagree more. Anonymous voting is important for true votes. Nobody want’s to tell the truth if they fear that the developers will hunt them down on forums and talk badly about them… (yeah, you know who you are)
BUT the voting system on F4R is flawed and should be fixed asap. Accidentally voting because somebody clicks on the stars because they want to see the stats or reviews is just plain wrong.
And that this happens without confirming the vote is bad too.
And personally I think voting should only be for Rhino users who have access to Rhino licenses. (Don’t need to own, so students can vote too) So false upvoting (or downvoting) can’t easily happen.
IMO I would like to have access to my votes too, so I can change a 3 star to a 5 star if the developer fixes the bugs, or I can downgrade a 5 star to a 3 star if development has stopped and/or the software has stopped working etc.
So let me get this straight. If I try the plug-in, don’t think it’s very good, and give it a poor rating, my privacy should be violated by exposing my name? Wow… that alone makes me want to have nothing to do with you or your plug-in.
I’m confused. If you cannot see who made the 3-star rating, how can you tell that the 1-star ratings are made using fake ids?
And if you believe that people who comment on your software should be publicly identifiable, kindly abide by your own principles and name the officers of your company and the key XNurbs personnel on your company website.
This is a good way. (Not really reveal a guy’s real name, but his user name with his comment.) Why couldn’t Food4Rhino work like Amazon? Before Feb 16, we have 18 votes in total on Food4Rhino. Basically, they are either 1-star or 5-star. This makes no sense at all. In my opinion, Amazon voting system may work better to stop trolls from manipulating the rating.