It's not a feature I care that much about implementing, but I do like the idea, so I'll put 1 vote in.

I agree, but it may not be that easy to implement depending on how NUMA works. I have no idea how NUMA works, but from what I've gathered it's hard to modify things without completely redoing the system. I don't know, though.

But only 8 people are non-annonymous supporters.

And the average rating is greater than 3. Wat? o.O

Also, how does this have 107 votes when there are only 28 supporters and the maximum votes you can give is 3? (28 * 3) = 84 < 107

@ Mae
The idea that people may not use ratings like 0.5 and 1.5 is irrelevant. Adding 3.5 and 4.5 will help overrating, since most people tend to round up. And 3 is supposed to mean "above average" (granted, there is no "average" so average maps become 3) so if people only want to rate non-noobish maps 4 or 5, that's all the more reason to add more possible ratings.

Also, not having 2.5 is kind of dumb since 2 is "below average" and 3 is "above average", so there is no rating for average maps, so everyone rates average maps as 3. Since average maps are usually rating average maps as 3, this means they rate maps that are better than average as a 4, resulting in a rediculous amount of maps rated 4.

YES!! Definitely. Ever since the ratings changed to integers, it seems like every map on NUMA is rated 4. (Not that removing half ratings was the only thing that caused this)

Definitely want this feature back. Not having this feature is like having a cellphone that can do everything except call people. I only ever want to search by author or by title, so the tags are kind of pointless and a waste of resources in my oppinion.