When I have given points to cards, I have always tried to see the cards as a construction of these three separate things:

1) Quality of the model (according to my preferences of visual beauty)
2) Quality of the performance (not whether the model does the things I want her to do, but rather how well she does what she is supposed to do, unless her performance contains material I very much object to)
3) Technical quality (colour balance, resolution, sharpness, sound...)

For general usability, number 1) is least important. People can see what the model looks like and somebody else's review of her looks should really have no relevance on the buying decision. It really functions only as a feedback to Totem: whether you do or don't want that particular model to appear on iStripper .

Numbers 2) and 3) are much more important as motivation to other members to buy or not to buy the card.

I would like to see these three aspects of a card to be made separately reviewable. Of course that wouldn't prevent some members to ***** the system as they are doing right now, but it would perhaps make them analyse their reception of the show a bit more thoroughly.

When I have given points to cards, I have always tried to see the cards as a construction of these three separate things:

1) Quality of the model (according to my preferences of visual beauty)
2) Quality of the performance (not whether the model does the things I want her to do, but rather how well she does what she is supposed to do, unless her performance contains material I very much object to)
3) Technical quality (colour balance, resolution, sharpness, sound...)

For general usability, number 1) is least important. People can see what the model looks like and somebody else's review of her looks should really have no relevance on the buying decision. It really functions only as a feedback to Totem: whether you do or don't want that particular model to appear on iStripper .

Numbers 2) and 3) are much more important as motivation to other members to buy or not to buy the card.

I would like to see these three aspects of a card to be made separately reviewable. Of course that wouldn't prevent some members to ***** the system as they are doing right now, but it would perhaps make them analyse their reception of the show a bit more thoroughly.

I agree. I reviewed a lot of cards this last month and tried to provide insight into the content. Whether a model is 'sexy' or 'gorgeous' is up to the indivdual making the purchase.

I think the ultimate feedbac for whether we like the model or not that the team cares the most about is the volume of sales, though. Something we have only the most basic control over.

For me the technical quality of a card is not important, if I like the model is much more important to me than some technical stuff.

For other people, instead, technical quality is also extremely important. Luckily, in my opinion; otherwise, we still would have 480p grainy cards or so...

Is iStripper becoming a Big Boobs site?

Not at all - 31% of big boobs looks to me to be just the right percent to have here. Not less than this one, thanks...

There is enough beautiful girls here to satisfy everyones needs.

And I think, it's here where the Totem ***** is. We have models for every tastes, this is the most important.
Good end of year for everyone 😊

And I think, it's here where the Totem ***** is. We have models for every tastes,

Yes, it is exactly what I too wanted to say: if 31% of models has big boobs, it means it's likely to have also approx. 33% of normal sized ones and approx. 33% of small ones available. Perfect ratios.

And I think, it's here where the Totem ***** is. We have models for every tastes,Yes, it is exactly what I too wanted to say: if 31% of models has big boobs, it means it's likely to have also approx. 33% of normal sized ones and approx. 33% of small ones available. Perfect ratios.

perfectly balanced as all things should be 😉

33% of small ones available.

In 2019 (2019-12-28) small breasts (tag Tiny Tits) were 68/365 * 100% = 18,6%.

For me, the only fair way to make the changes to the rating system, without making it too complex and, hopefully more accurate goes like this:

Remove the top 10% and bottom 10% of star ratings from the calculation. Possibly revise that to 20% after say 100 votes.

This would (probably) eliminate the majority of negative votes out of spite or whatever other silly reason and also the habitual 5 star voters just because they love ALL the girls.

How does that sound?

Edit:

Keeping the maths simple, let's say a card has exactly 100 votes and they went like this:

20 people voted 5 stars
60 people voted 4.5 stars
20 people voted 1 star

20 x 5 = 100
60 x 4.5 = 270
20 x 1 = 20
Total = 390, divided by 100 = 3.9 average vote.Doesn't read fair right?

Remove the top and bottom 20 leaves 60 x 4.5 = 270. Divided by 60 = 4.5 average vote. That to me looks much more fair and accurate.

@HombreSinSombra

Unfortunately, according to @Rex, discarding the extreme ratings would eliminate something like 90% or more of the data.

That's not what I said. I also believe Rex was just giving extreme examples.

Half 5 stars and half 0 stars would give a rating of 2.5, regardless of how many percent you took off the top and bottom. Eliminating 20% or 40% of the data from top and bottom combined can only give a more accurate view of the membership in general who voted.

My above example was of course simplified so that people could easily see the maths involved. In reality, there would normally be many more votes of 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 in the middle. The end result would still be a fair measure of the general membership's view WHEN they take the time to vote, of course :/

Colors and tastes... I don't see the point to ***** the votes. 1 star is as valid as 5 stars whatever the reason. Because the average does not represent our own taste... very often after what we call elections, the elected candidate is not the one we have voted for... shall we suppress votes for other candidates?

1 star is as valid as 5 stars whatever the reason

I sincerely disagree!

We've all seen and read the ridiculous votes of members over the SEC cards, the Advent calendar cards etc. Also, any one of us can go and read the comments of any recent card... Such as one member pretty much copies and pastes a line of stars on EVERY card with no comment. Always 5 stars.

If you think that is a VALID and FAIR estimation in general of a given card's value ... Well... I'm not going to say it... 😎

Edit: Nothing to do with the topic at hand but talking about elections... I was with Brewster. None of the above. EVER! 😖

Do you confirm that it is only possible to vote for and comment the cards that you own, correct? If this is the case the vote is VALID for me because you are then entitled to express an opinion. But I do agree it may be UNFAIR... but fair/unfair implies the notion of subjectivity.

I also do agree that the current system is far from perfection, but to be honest I do not see how to improve it either. 😕

You may be missing the point, my friend. I welcome people's opinions if they are in line with what they are REALLY thinking.

Too many people down-vote cards BECAUSE they were SEC cards, or Advent calendar cards PURELY because of those reasons, NOT because of the card or model's own merit. I hope you and others can see the difference in that. It's not fair to the model or Totem.

Ok then I may have the solution, this is a sophisticated device that will detect alpha waves of the users voting and commenting... if and only if their intentions are pure, then the votes will be validated otherwise they will be sanctionned. 😋

Scene is taken from an old french movie that is not the most glorious one... but this is what we call french cultural exception...

Hahaha! Good one. You reading this Team???

@Gorfa91 That was funny - YES, that would be the ideal solution :)

Otherwise, I agree with @HombreSinSombra. People have right to give score to cards, but they really should do it honestly and understanding what the vote is for.

Giving one or zero stars to a card/performer just because it is part of advent calendar and the user didn't want that particular model to appear in that pre-paid set of cards, is not ok. Same thing for 5 stars simply to counter attack low scores given to cards of your favourite model, even if you really dislike the contents of the card. These kinds of issues should be handled with general feedback to Totem, not as feedback on specific card.

There is no way of evaluating with adequate certainty the motivations of any voter, but some adjustments can and should be done in case the points/star-system remains. I think the idea of trimming the distribution of votes by 10% or 20% from top and bottom is a good idea, but I think there should also be a mechanism that checks your voting history and/or voting pattern for specific cards: if your voting pattern heavily concentrate on 1 star or 5 stars (compared to voting in general), the significance of your vote should be down-weighted so that it doesn't affect the overall average as much as votes by "more trustworthy" voters.

Here is a typical vote on a model.
10
10
10
3
10
10
8
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
10
10
10
9
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
7
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10

There are over 200 votes in there, and only two zeros, the rest are mostly 10 with some 9, 8, two 7 and one 3. Seems like a perfectly normal score, no need to make a big fuss out of a non-issue.

There are only two options, for me:

• totally eliminate ratings;
• keep them. But if you keep them, each and every vote must still have same value. Yes, the silly and ridiculous ones too.

If not, it would become a rigged voting system. A vote by some ones - chosen with arbitrary methods and reasons - should count more than other ones' one? No, thanks. Better no vote at all, then.

@Rex, LOL

Ratings?

Each of us has in our own Mind what the Rating means.

Your Own Idea might be totally different from that of another member.

You Might for example, Watch the card, and Rate her on how Nice her Body Appeals to You.
She has nice boobs and a nice ass, and a pretty face, yo u that is waht you Believe the rating means.

but then another member, Rates her simply on how well she Use the Pole.
and Another rates the Card based on the Difficulty of getting it to download.
And still yet another on just how big her boobs are.

All of the ratings are valid ratings, to the member who rated the card, But none of them are based on the same criteria..

So the Question is,
What does the rating, averaged out after 100 members gave it a rating, mean?
Can it be used by another member to get an Idea of how good the Card will be,
based on their own Idea of what the Rating criteria is?

And the Answer is: it basically is Meaningless, because it is NOT criteria based..

It is based on, what ever that member decided, it should be based on.
Which is never the same as what you think it should be based on..

A single written out review that shares specific criteria ,
is worth more than any numerical based system could provide.

Using the numbers posted by @Rex the average is 9.7766 which would be a 4.888 star rating, which is hardly a typical rating. In my collection, which is a full one, there are only three cards with a rating of 4.87 or above and they all feature the same model, Belka, who has a three cards rated as 4.87, 4.88 and 4.89.

From this I conclude that the numbers are incomplete, or are not typical, or that Totem already use something other than a simple average in order to compensate for the highly skewed distribution of votes.

The third interpretation seems to agree with a post made quite some time ago (I think when the change was made from VGHD to iStripper) from one of the team, probably from Rex himself, saying that among the changes was one to the rating system that was intended to improve the resolution at the high end of the scale but I could never see that it made much difference.

EDIT: There were 412 numbers in the list posted by @Rex - this is far too many for two of the three highest rated cards but to few for the other, for which the card's details page gives the total number of votes as 581 - perhaps the post was truncated because of size. I also note that 581 votes, or even just 412, is a remarkably high total especially for a quite recently released card. Checking cards at random there are a few with more than two hundred votes, but I have yet to find another with more than 250.

With some offers or competitions, Totem sometimes promises or confirms that only models with ratings of e.g. > 4.5 is offered at random. So even in this case, the current rating system (through frustration of e.g. calendar cards etc.) is completely useless, since (many) 'good' cards simply fall through at the bottom and do not appear by chance. Hence a bad decision to choose automatically on this basis.

I myself have never (significantly) paid attention to the level of the rating in my personal decisions, but I did pay attention to well-written comments by users. I personally have some low-rated cards that I still like to look at.

No matter how the rating system is changed later, it still only plays a very ***** role in my own assessments.

No matter how the rating system is changed later, it still only plays a very ***** role in my own assessments.

In my ones too. And always will...
Unluckily, even if detailed post by @Wildanimal about criterias is very interesting, we have also to point that, if precise criterias and separated votes for technical quality / beauty / moves and so will ever be introduced, there still will always be someone who gives casual or not reliable votes, in order to "game the system" 😒; and also some one who gives a 5 to all aspects because is a fan of the model, some other who gives a 0 to all because the model was barefoot and he likes heels instead; and so on...

At the end of the day, the main concern is when its during the advent calendar that ratings aren't as helpful.

I look at Eva Gingers rating as of now 3.35 and I can't agree with that rating given how the outfit, hair, and other things taken into account.

Overall, it seemed to me like 2019 was a vast improvement on shows released over 2018 in my personal opinion. I had no regrets over purchasing the advent calendar as several cards I would have bought were in it.

@zzmaskers I can see your concern as I looked at the Tiny Tits tag and some of my top models/performers of 2019 were in that tag. Several actually.

With some offers or competitions, Totem sometimes promises or confirms that only models with ratings of e.g. > 4.5 is offered at random. So even in this case, the current rating system (through frustration of e.g. calendar cards etc.) is completely useless, since (many) 'good' cards simply fall through at the bottom and do not appear by chance. Hence a bad decision to choose automatically on this basis.

I myself have never (significantly) paid attention to the level of the rating in my personal decisions, but I did pay attention to well-written comments by users. I personally have some low-rated cards that I still like to look at.

No matter how the rating system is changed later, it still only plays a very ***** role in my own assessments.

I used to think that this too was a big deal but totem offers the "Buy 3 get 1 free deal" a couple times a year. Basically you get all four cards for 25% off. So wishlist the cards you want...and wait for the deal and you save money over the demo deals. It takes patience, but so does waiting for a card to go on 20% off.

At the end of the day, the main concern is when its during the advent calendar that ratings aren't as helpful.

Wouldn't that be the case for all packages that are not put together by the members themselves? With advent calendar it's probably only easier to spot, because many people got the same shows at the same time.

I think the single overall rating is not too bad. For each category I still could find several ways how to interprete it.
When you rate the model, you could rate her beauty or her emotions in that show.
When you rate the clothes, you could rate the outfit/costume or how she removes it.
And technical quality I would rate different 5 years ago and today for a set from 2015.

In real life I found out, that for me music is very important. Has nothing to do with the show, but decides if I'm in a "it's boring" or "it's hot" mood.