Any such system for performance ratings must take into account the player's hardware (including for Android/iOS). Many optimizations that work very well on RTX 2060 GPUs (or equivalent) and later are completely useless for GTX-970 (or equivalent) and reviews made from the 970 are only representative of the performance experienced on that hardware, which a world developer may very reasonably choose to disregard in order to implement more powerful optimizations for richer content which are just not possible with hardware on the very fringe of compatibility. Similarly, "flickering" and z-fighting experienced on the Quest 2 does not happen nearly as much on iOS, and thus a world dev may choose to just disregard this and focus on more forward-looking, and much more effective optimizations that are possible on iOS (or newer Android VR devices, I hope) but completely impossible on the Quest 2.

I think presenting players with a thing that shows "Performance Experienced by Players with Similar Hardware" would be a way to present this in a manner that doesn't lead low-spec players into performance disasters, while also not holding back innovation or misrepresenting performance to other players. It also gives players a more transparent indication of how close their older hardware might be to no longer being able to run VRChat, instead of just surprising them.

Well, this is hard one.

I think because the list 'New & Noteworthy' also showed sometimes bad worlds, which i am VERY surprised why it happens.

Voting systems have one problem: it can mis-used with botting (VrChat has still some bots / hacked accounts) and if you let everyone vote on it, it can turn suddenly in way too positive one (with help of group) or too negative (also with help of group) and not all players have experience in world building.

So voting is still not the solution.

I prefer show more pictures of the world. Much less clickbaits too. Because i have clickbait pictures.

Add more tags. I still miss tag 'sleep room' or 'home world' because i see them 10-20x times every day, most just copies from paid assets.

Can also make voting system VRC+ only, but still again, it can mis-used.

There are already external world sites with rating systems. They're good alternative because you must register to vote it, so it's more controlled area. Botting is almost not possible.

This would be a great idea but have text reviews be locked behind known user rank to avoid review bombing but thumbs up and thumbs down with no text for all ranks would be fine too

This is currently a bad idea. There are countless ways for a player’s experience to be mangled by things that have nothing to do with the world at all, but would be easy to blame on it, and this disadvantages world devs who do not engage in botting or other unethical behaviors to increase their visibility. This is a foolish thing to implement since VRChat has no way to stop botting.

not the best idea as this would allow people or bots to flood spam worlds etc.

Wanted and needed since 2018, still not implemented. More and more worlds are coming out, wowing everyone, then falling in to obscurity. The only ones that seem to continue to float have some weird power, maybe just a bunch of patreon subscribers?

Perhaps we could create the rated system as a separate list. Fresh and new. Creators can opt in to it and it can start growing on its own, while the unrated category and its subcategories(current system) remains.

Maybe then we wouldnt see so many test and home worlds. Not a guarantee, but still.

No rating is going to identify the best VRCHAT spots, as some will be more visited than others. A place with 4 stars and 1000 visits will potentially be better than one with 5 stars and 2 visits. Furthermore, people tend to group together in certain places... and that is perhaps a social issue that goes far beyond this forum. In Twinity it worked perfectly to identify the least interesting places and to motivate the creators, which should be the achievable objetive.

-------- In spanish -----

En mi experiencia ninguna calificación va a funcionar para identificar las mejores creaciones, pero el sistema de estrellas/ nº de visitas se demostró útil para identificar los menos interesantes y fue una buena forma de motivar a los creadores... lo cual en el fondo es el objetivo buscado.

Twinity, for no few the best virtual world ever created... and possibly the worst maintained too ;-) had a 5 stars system and it worked perfectly fine. If sometimes you have to load heavy places only to find something uninteresting... in the end may not be worth traveling anymore. In Twinity this 5 star system worked perfectly and I never heard anything against it, and creators wanted to improve their places for this. There was no additional qualifying text, but has something much better... A "GUEST BOOK" where everyone could leave their opinion, compliments, greetings to the creator.

---------- In spanish: -----------

Twinity tenía un rango de 5 estrellas que funcionaba estupendamente y alentaba a los creadores a mejorar. Y aún mejor, tenía un "LIBRO DE INVITADOS" donde se le dejaban cumplidos, mensajes o saludos a los creadores.

I fully agree and I also think it should be mandatory for both worlds and groups when it comes to Creator Economy, maybe even with comments. Because in this case it's already a marketplace with values, where the institution of reputation plays an important role. It's hard to imagine a marketplace without the ability to rate the product.

So, it might be simple like/dislike for regular worlds, and classic 5⭐-system with comments for "p2w" worlds.

Nice Idea 10/10