Change "Low Usage"

I would suggest loosing the "Low Usage" rank and replace the rankings as follows:

1) Average
2) Above Average
3) High
4) 2x High
5) 3x High
6) 4x High.....etc....

I think that the "Low Usage" rank comes with a negetive overtone that suggests that the filter is crap.....and that's certainly not the case with alot of filters that now have a "Low Usage" ranking. I think that moving the ranking up to start at "Average Usage" would be much better in not penalizing the "good" low usage filters with the "suboptimal" ones.....and remove the unnecessary negetive connotation for a neutral one.....

Can I get an Amen???

PS.....also thinking that 2x and up should get the corresponding number (x) of multiple rewards as just "deserts" for the filter

Quote
jffe wrote: How about you can have your filter's usage get reset if you choose to when you update it, and it reverts to the default "average use" rating then. That sounds more reasonable really, that way if it was low usage, and you update it, you can reset all usage stats, and start clean if you want

Well, I would think that could be taken advantage of by just doing some minor tweeks and resubmitting....and I don't think FF is going to want to chech out filters and split hairs on how much constitutes an upgrade.....
[quote]jffe wrote:
How exactly is high usage calculated ?
Probably all of that.....but unfortunately, in my opinion, it seems like there is some "influence" going on from both sides of it.....

Well, I think "Low" seals their fate to stay that way.....and in all likelihood, will be deleted from the library at some point. I think when "Low" rank goes on them, it automatically turns away a majority of users.....if not all of them.....so there is no way you are ever going to get them back to "Average" again no matter what you do to them once they get the "Low" ranking. I would suggest that authors just improve them and submit them as a new filter with a clean slate.....

I also think that FF can deal with "suboptimal" filters from "Average" being the lowest rank. They pretty much do and "guide" this ship any way they want.....so it doesn't really matter what's on it for ranking.....

This may be a mute issue.....because you could "re-vamp" your 'Low' or deleted filter and resubmit it as a new filter.....so I may be wasting my breath on this one

To be perfectly honest, I posted this because I've seen "Low" on some good filters by you, jffe, CF, Dilla, Volde, and Uber.....and I didn't want to see them lumped in with the "suboptimal" filters.....

I hear ya I don't think an upgrade is going to help a filter with a "Low" usage tag on it because users will still see the "Low" ranking on it and turn away. I think an author's time and energy would be better spent improving the filter and re-submitting it as a new filter with an "unblemished" usage rank.....

LOL.... Well, you have alot of 1bs and 2Cs.....so they'll never notice it LOL....

Actually, I think that submitting a new and improved version.....and asking FF to delete the low usage one.....might just be the way to do it. It would also separate those who really care about their filters (like you and I) from those who have done "suboptimals" just for the numbers and free copy (who don't care and are never going to try and improve their filters). A certain amount of time could be given to improve and re-submit filters after they turn "Low".....which would leave FF with a crystal clear list of "suboptimals" to delete from the library.....

Yeah, Uber's snippets were part of the reason I posted this