My main concern here is with the "gold" measure being so easy to manipulate. It doesn't take a very sophisticated script to automatically revisit a particular page periodically to cause the count to increase artificially.

But, as long as you're proposing multiple measures, I always thought it would be good to see a highest rated this month, over the prior six months, and of all time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:13, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

My main concern would actually be the Green and Death Penalty sections. It reminds me of the GuildWiki voting system. The reason is that "favoriting" or "killing" a build is exactly like voting, however, there are no restrictions to the criteria by which you do either. A person could just click "Kill me" on every build in the section. I like the idea of assigning these "colors" to the builds, but I think that has to be in addition to a real vetting policy with Favored, Unfavored, Untested, Stubs, Possibly Useful, etc.

As such, I would probably not support this for the purposes of the official vetting policy, however, it would provide another useful criteria to help a user gauge the worth of a build and as such would make a nice auxiliary policy although it would have to be edited somewhat. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:20, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Maybe this would be a good secondary build browsing system? I just don't see how accurate results could be gotten, with the concerns mentioned above.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 05:43, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Seeing most viewed build and other statistics would be interesting, though not particularly useful. It could be an addition for just a fun "type" of deal and make it not really mean anything. Lania Elderfire 05:52, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Yea, I would support this as long as it isn't the solid vetting policy, too easy to cheat it. But it will be a great feature to help organize vetted builds.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 05:54, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

I like this concept. Needs some refinement but has a lot of potential. Not necesarrily what I would consider a build rating, but more of a hard mechanism to rotate, recognize and even remove builds from the site. This would combine well with any true-rating or voting procedure that is out there. I don't like the idea of the 'kill me' button, as unfavored votes and inactivity would be a very reasonable approach to filtering out truly dead builds. Shireen 04:12, 11 May 2007 (CEST)

good start

Thanks for all comments. The main idea behind all of this is not to replace or in anyway affect voting system, it will only make browsing of the builds easier. So if you go to the category Teste->PvE->Farming it will give you frist Green, Gold and Purple builds and then list everething else.

When it comes to concern where this is going to be secure.

Green. they will be very secure, for each user it will only be possible to favorite 7 builds. In order to favorite more he must removes some from his current 7 top builds. This will also make this category dynamic. How ever some things like "stayed green for half a year" will give highest all time ranking. Like Elite build.

Gold. When it comes to visiting only uniq host will be counted and it will be pretty secure. People will get lifetime ban from wiki on any attempt.

When it comes to purple there is no concern.

When it comes to death penalty only registered users can kill a build. But here will be also limits and advanced system that will stop spamming. gcardinal 10:13, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

This policy calls for the masses to judge and categorize builds and is not going to work. GW is played by kids and adults, casual and hardcore gamers, they all look for different builds and it is good that you are splitting the categories further. However, if the categories are not clear, (clear meaning they are not contaminated by other type of builds for example: pro players are "forced" to read SS Rts and IW Mesmers, while casual players have to break through 101 Shock axe variations by the time they find the more fun touch ranger build). Masses were unable to organize builds along a single coordinate in Guildwiki: quality (good/bad), more categories will create an an even bigger confusion. Rewards, prizes for accomplishments (the closest thing to what a build library is trying to achive) are typically given by people who can prove that they are talented enough to judge others. I suggest PvXWiki considers the implementation of some kind of hierarchy in the vetting system, with focus on simplicity and transparency.--Vazze 18:58, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
Well there is a few reasons why we have to implement such system. First of all it works on sites like (tottaly site for kids), deviantArt (amazing site with millions of works that is so easy to navigate) and many many others. Time of hard core policy has past year ago. Now its time for the people to decide. All 3 rating systems are based on 3 different rating systems they do not have anything to do with each other and are pretty secure. And after all green, gold or purple they all will be listed anyway, it is just how they will be listed when you go to PvE->Farming. I dont know how about you but I dont always feel like clicking 80 times to find a cool and hun build to play with. This system will split bad working from amazing good and working. gcardinal 20:36, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


won't this just get out of hand? gimmicky builds that are effective but unpopular (iway etc) will pose a problem. the only good idea here is the idlers sections, the rest is covered by the meta builds category. --|Hipowi sig Hipowi pew pew pew 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a few years late, Hipowi. If you'll notice, talk on this policy ceased in 2007. ··· Danny Does Drugs 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.