[breadfan]

I haven't had much chance to get a good look but I've had a very quick play, nicely done. I'll do some more later. Vortex has some interesting points but I've picked out a few that I question

Originally Posted by VorteX

...
Some improvement to the Site:

• Add a section, where users can upload/submit a replay of their own, so it can be analyzed and give advice from experience players.
  I don't think there's any reason you need to do this - just point people at drop.sc or similar and link to those locations. It opens up a whole other area of security risk that you need to take care of and probably isn't worth it.
• When Submitting a Build, make it possible for people, who already have them written down on a word document or on a text file, to upload it, instead of copy or pasting (losing its format) and allows photos/pictures (if any).
  Same as above. A wysiwig editor is just fine, asking people to do some formatting tweaks to upload builds is a small ask, I don't think you want to get bogged down in allowing uploads, doing any kind of conversion, etc.
• No chance, of having "https"?
  Not necessary?

Otherwise, as Erasmus said the whole rating thing is definitely a concern, but in a community like this there are going to be people leaving feedback about things that they just plain don't understand. It's inevitable.

So to leverage that, you could split it up into different types of ratings. By default (subscriber-level access) people can rate say, the perceived difficulty of the build, but only higher level players who you provide a different level of access, can rate the build's effectiveness, etc. I agree it'd be nice to tie forced comments into it too, but there's still going to be someone rating a build 1/10 and their comment being "Kappa" or something. Sure you can read the comments, but at the end of the day most people are probably looking for a list where they can sort by rating, and then pick the best rated builds, and they probably aren't going to scrutinize the comments on the protoss all-in that is around a 50% rating because it's too far down the list.