Edited plugin reviews should rise to the top

[hommealone]

It seems to me that there should be a mechanism whereby a person can meaningfully update an old plugin review, or create a new one, if the plugin has changed significantly. But this does not currently seem to be the case.

One year+ ago, I gave a 5 Star review to a plugin which deserved it. Recently the plugin changed hands (and name) and the plugin itself was changed for the worse. I was able to edit my review, and change my Star rating in order to more accurately review the new version. I assumed this would bring the review to the top of the list, but that was not so.

Buried pages down, it is basically useless, except for the statistics about total reviews, because no one will dig through pages of reviews to read an old one. What’s more, the date of the review was not updated, so it is inaccurate in the sense that it does not apply to the version that was available a year ago.

And because of its age, the “topic is closed” so I cannot add a comment to bring it to the top to reflect the new content. Because I already created a review for the (old version of) the plugin, I naturally cannot create a new review (about the new version.)

Does anyone else see this as a problem? Shouldn’t an edited review rise to the top, or at least have an option to somehow make it do so?

I suppose there's a rub here. Perhaps the edit was minor - a spelling correction or similar - which wouldn't necessarily warrant rising to the top. But that kind of change would not likely be done a year later, so I don't suppose it would hurt. Also, I suppose you'd need to have a way that wouldn't allow people to abuse the feature, in order to bump up their topic just by editing it slightly.

Perhaps this: On an old locked review topic, there is currently no "Report" option. Perhaps if the original topic starter could "Report" the topic as a way to ask a mod to allow it to rise to the top or be commented on again, that would be a solution?

[Ipstenu]

I briefly kicked around a couple alternatives (like allowing a second review) but I think, practically, it may work best as when a plugin rating is changed it automagically makes a post by the OP saying "On date, OP changed rating from X to Y"

That would be beneficial to all readers.

[dd32]

practically, it may work best as when a plugin rating is changed it automagically makes a post by the OP saying "On date, OP changed rating from X to Y"

I think this is an ideal solution, in the event the rating is changed then it gets bumped to the top of the list (...and maybe if it hasn't been changed in the last 6 months? to stop edits like 5->4->5 or 1->2->1 to keep it at the top)

I've kicked around the idea that there should be a 'review relevancy' in the review counting, where a review from today is more relevant than a review from 5 years ago, but that's been limited by the fact that most plugins get so few reviews :) #1181

This would make things like #2884 more relevant too.

[hommealone]

Replying to Ipstenu:

I briefly kicked around a couple alternatives (like allowing a second review) but I think, practically, it may work best as when a plugin rating is changed it automagically makes a post by the OP saying "On date, OP changed rating from X to Y"

That would be beneficial to all readers.

Sounds great! The devil's in the "automagically" part, I suppose. That's above my pay grade, but if you think it could be done, great!

[bcworkz]

I like this concept in general. My only concern would be for "rage reviewers" who might repeatedly make occasional minor edits in order to keep their 1 star review near the top. (or same for the opposite overly enthusiastic 5 star reviewer) To expound on ipstenu's suggestion of including "On date, OP changed rating from X to Y", do so visibly for every edit submission. Similar to how forum edits are logged at the bottom of each topic or reply.

The thought of generating a long edit log record should dissuade most people from attempting this tactic. For the few that try it anyway, the long log is easily seen by moderators.

[mrfoxtalbot]

Adding a link to #7064 which, if fixed, would allow us to close this issue.

[dd32]

#7595 was marked as a duplicate.