This Forum is Literally TOO Friendly
like caretcaret said people vote on different things. so why not splitting it up in different categories?
Because there are only a couple of people who vote: for example: 12 angry tests has over 10.000 downloads and only 102 votes. That's about 1 vote for every 100 downloads; will not-spotlighted this value is often even lower. If the system is made any more complex even less people will vote -> less votes -> less reliable score.
Agreed with OP, it can be difficult to criticize a map that has flaws but clearly got a lot of work put in. If I make a critical comment I often just make clear that i do appreciate one's hard work but the flaws keep it from reaching its full potential.
It feels like shit to put a lot of time in a map and receive negative/mixed feedback. I've put over 70 hours in my first released WIP map (+ like 100 on unreleased previous crap) which ended up being mediocre at best because the puzzle is kind of boring. But it was definitely a good learning experience to be able to make higher quality maps later. Without mistakes being pointed out I don't think anybody can make great maps.
In my opinion, the more criticism the better. i dont want to be told jow great i am, i want to be given useful advice. And yes, good aesthetics is not 100%necessary, but it makes a map far better. I love playing a map where you can see the mappers spentthe time and effort needed to make somehjng truly fantastic. And yes, the rating system is unreliable. we know. gt over it.
I think in terms of boolean variables. Generally, it makes things easier.
As mentioned above this is the problem with a completely arbitrary and subjective rating system. People are rating on different criteria.
The only solution is to establish a set of (even very basic) criteria.
On other sites you might be able to hover over (or perhaps there is a key) the different ratings and it will give you a short description.
Just as a very rough idea:
1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.
Ideally the descriptions of the criteria should be more detailed and Portal 2 specific, but you get the idea.
The only solution is to establish a set of (even very basic) criteria.
On other sites you might be able to hover over (or perhaps there is a key) the different ratings and it will give you a short description.
Just as a very rough idea:
1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.
Ideally the descriptions of the criteria should be more detailed and Portal 2 specific, but you get the idea.
that would definitely make a good system.
Aperture Science: We do our science asbestos we can!
That's what iWork925 is for.
To some extent I agree with you here...
Once every hundred maps or so, there comes one which provides a decent challenge and manages to look fantastic at the same time. It's like finding a really hot girl who's actually fun to spend an extended amount of time with.
But put simply, maps have the rating they do because people voted that way. If you disagree, then you can:
A- Vote otherwise
B- Suck it up, get on with things, and accept that people like different aspects of the map.
C- Make something better, such that the ones you disagree with seem worse by comparison.
If you can get your head around the idea of momentum transfer through arbitary holes in walls, it's not such a stretch to think that you might be able to accept that some people are in it for the puzzle, some like a fun map, and some just like the "portal experience" regardless of difficulty level.
I.e. LPFreaky thinks my map Gubble deserves a 3/5 - 4/5 for the reasons he's mentioned.
I think LPFreakys's Flingtro probably deserves a 3/5 for being about 2 minutes long, immediately obvious and having a sticky button that leaves the door open - regardless of the great attention to detail and custom textures.
Clearly we have different expectations for a map and should just get the hell on with it. Why?
Well, both got a 5/5 rating. Some people enjoyed one, some enjoyed the other .. some maybe enjoyed both.
The only thing I don't like about criticism is being told I *have* to or *need* to do certain things. I *have* to brush my teeth, defacate, and eat on a daily basis. I don't have to upload random subjective improvements to maps just 'cause some people might appreciate it. Likewise some people might appreciate it if I gently cupped their balls and sang them a sweet sweet lullabye. I can chose not to.
That said, feedback is a healthy thing. Whether it be a critcism, praise on a specific aspect of a map, a bug report, an idea, an alternate solution etc. For example, with my map Double Gubble, it's clear some people like messing with strange techniques, some hate it, and some can't wrap their head around it. It's clear though, that it's probably not worth repeating. I realise also that the core puzzle in the map is a little easy now, and people dislike being disorientated just for the sake of it. Lesson learned, time to move on.
Complaining that people dont like the same shit as you is like going apeshit 'cause your favourite Pop Idol contestant didn't get through, even though you'd stake your life on them being the best in the bunch.
Getting on with things and accepting different tastes is a life lesson and not something specific to maps in a little game about making holes in surfaces; state your opinion, move on, enjoy the good ones.
Indeed; feedback is the key to improve your mapping skills. It learned me to work on a grid; align textures add proper lighting, add frames to my glass just to name a few things I would probably be still screwing up.
1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.
This is very close to how I vote. 4/5 is a bug free map for me. 5/5 is a bug free map that just has a bit more: it looks good and it's fun to do. But that's just my $0,02
I think LPFreakys's Flingtro probably deserves a 3/5 for being about 2 minutes long, immediately obvious and having a sticky button that leaves the door open - regardless of the great attention to detail and custom textures.
See, that's a proper reason why you think my map deserves a 3/5. Why not post it directly into the thread about the map? If this thread hadn't been here I'd never know 
This is the eternal fight: visuals vs. puzzleing. Portal is a puzzle game, so in MY humble opinion, mapping for this game, should ALWAYS envolve puzzles... good puzzles. And then, right after you know you've figured out creative solution puzzles or imaginative ways for using the puzzle elements this game contains, only then, you should care about the visuals. For me, it doesn't make any sense to "have a wonderful walk along really good-looking Portal2 chambers so easy that your brain was taking a nap while you crossed the whole thing to the exit door..."
I love a Portal map with good visuals, attention to detail, correct mapping (aligned textures, no overlapping of brushes,...) etc. BUT this IS a puzzle game, ok? We should never forget it! So, criticism is always good and it should be used everytime anyone thinks it should be used on his opinion. The key is here: everyone has, and has the right to have, his own opinion and criteria. Some will judge puzzle-wise, some will judge whatever other thing, as for instance, the visuals or upon the number of bugs encountered... But no one can control what exactly is someone liking after rating a map with 5/5... That's personal. I've even given 5/5 sometimes only because of the map's mood: awesome lighting, music, details... an atmosphere so well conceived and arranged.
So:
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.
Well, it doesn't make any difference for me. If the system should be focusing in each one's expectations, that would be so subjective: would only rate how a preconfigured idea of one map matches to the personal final feeling about the map... this is what we actually have, right?
About significant flaws... well, that would be good if ALL the people in this forum would have enough attention capability and experience to detect that, right? Not all of us has the same playing skills, mapping skills, or good personality filters to noticed this, right?
IMHO, maybe different categories, as mentioned above, would be good. At least 3 of them:
1. Puzzles: this should always be rated separately, as this is in essence a puzzle game. PLEASE! not only related to difficulty, but also to the "aha" moments, creativeness and usage of the puzzle elements, new elements, etc.
2. Functionability: does the map work properly? are there bugs that break the map somehow? only related to the functionality of the I/O system.
3. Visuals: not only bugs envolving aligning of textures, overlapping materials or brushes, missing lighting sources, flickering reflexes on water surface, etc, etc. but also regarding attention to detail and decoration of the chambers, design, distribution of the elements, etc.
This is what I think about the current rating system.
EDIT: I seriously miss xDiesp's comments and ratings on the maps... Ey Jexim, if you want to hear/read more critical comments, just check out xdiesp's posts, he's hard.
useful tools and stuff here on TWP 
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]I only mentioned it in passing to make my point. Generally I only bother if I'd give the map a 4 or 5 or there was something exceptionally wrong with it.