Reinterpret ratings

[GeneralRisk]

I think the current system is fine. 4.9 to 5.0 are players that seldom if ever play speed games and act nice in game chat. 4.3 to 4.8 are average players that are capable of both good and bad. 4.2 and lower are players that usually have issues and if you play them, then be prepared for either idiotic play and/or abusive game chat.

I do agree with most of this - and this is a fairly useful guide to evaluating an opponent based on ratings - the problem I have is the instructions given for rating encourage people to give 3.0 rating to people who then feel they deserve higher because an average rating is not threes across the board it is two fives and a four!

If the instructions tell you to rate a average person a 3 then the instructions need changing. I rate average people a 5.0 and am sure most other people rate the same.

[Funkyterrance]

The ratings system as is, is a funny thing. I think it's flawed only in that it takes a pretty long time to understand what a rating means at a glance. As a new player I would think that 4.6 is pretty darn good but guess what, I avoid players with this rating. I don't like missed turns, I don't like playing with buffoons and I don't like playing with suicidal maniacs. At this stage of the game I can pretty well tell what type of player someone is just by looking at their rating but it took a great deal of time to get the "feel" of this. As far as changing this system I suppose It all depends on how long you think someone should have to be here before they get the hang of the site.
That said, I go out of my way to rate people 5 stars all the way if they were indeed a pleasure to play with e.g. polite, sportsmanlike, friendly. I also rate 5 stars if someone was not memorable (most likely not afwul) but they rated me 5 stars since they must recognize a conscientious player when they see one and I figure they deserve a 5 star rating for this level of perceptiveness. I rate 1's to 4's for glaringly obvious faults in my opponents which I feel should be flagged to any of their prospective challengers. Everything in between I tend to not rate.
I guess what I am saying is that having been here a while I am fine with the current system but that's not to say that an alternative would not be a better fit, just that I am not in a position anymore to decide what that may be. I believe the proper term is jaded.

[GeneralRisk]

The ratings system as is, is a funny thing. I think it's flawed only in that it takes a pretty long time to understand what a rating means at a glance. As a new player I would think that 4.6 is pretty darn good but guess what, I avoid players with this rating. I don't like missed turns, I don't like playing with buffoons and I don't like playing with suicidal maniacs. At this stage of the game I can pretty well tell what type of player someone is just by looking at their rating but it took a great deal of time to get the "feel" of this. As far as changing this system I suppose It all depends on how long you think someone should have to be here before they get the hang of the site.
That said, I go out of my way to rate people 5 stars all the way if they were indeed a pleasure to play with e.g. polite, sportsmanlike, friendly. I also rate 5 stars if someone was not memorable (most likely not afwul) but they rated me 5 stars since they must recognize a conscientious player when they see one and I figure they deserve a 5 star rating for this level of perceptiveness. I rate 1's to 4's for glaringly obvious faults in my opponents which I feel should be flagged to any of their prospective challengers. Everything in between I tend to not rate.
I guess what I am saying is that having been here a while I am fine with the current system but that's not to say that an alternative would not be a better fit, just that I am not in a position anymore to decide what that may be. I believe the proper term is jaded.

You are being untruthful again. I looked at your games played and see that you have joined against players with 4.6 and lower ratings. Shame on you Flunkyterrence.

[Funkyterrance]

The ratings system as is, is a funny thing. I think it's flawed only in that it takes a pretty long time to understand what a rating means at a glance. As a new player I would think that 4.6 is pretty darn good but guess what, I avoid players with this rating. I don't like missed turns, I don't like playing with buffoons and I don't like playing with suicidal maniacs. At this stage of the game I can pretty well tell what type of player someone is just by looking at their rating but it took a great deal of time to get the "feel" of this. As far as changing this system I suppose It all depends on how long you think someone should have to be here before they get the hang of the site.
That said, I go out of my way to rate people 5 stars all the way if they were indeed a pleasure to play with e.g. polite, sportsmanlike, friendly. I also rate 5 stars if someone was not memorable (most likely not afwul) but they rated me 5 stars since they must recognize a conscientious player when they see one and I figure they deserve a 5 star rating for this level of perceptiveness. I rate 1's to 4's for glaringly obvious faults in my opponents which I feel should be flagged to any of their prospective challengers. Everything in between I tend to not rate.
I guess what I am saying is that having been here a while I am fine with the current system but that's not to say that an alternative would not be a better fit, just that I am not in a position anymore to decide what that may be. I believe the proper term is jaded.

You are being untruthful again. I looked at your games played and see that you have joined against players with 4.6 and lower ratings. Shame on you Flunkyterrence.

GeneralRisk, you think you have me caught. However, I may embellish to further a point.
Surely this is not to be taken as untruthful?

P.S. - Does avoidance necessarily imply that I never play against opponents with such ratings? You're going to have to do better than that to effectively smear my reputation, sir.

[macbone]

To be honest, I rarely rate players. Generally if a player wins a game, or has impressed me with good play, I'll leave 5 stars. I don't leave less than that now, even for poor play. But if I think a player's just average, I don't rate them at all. Actually, maybe I'm coming around to this idea after all. =)

[Arama86n]

Concise description:

Amend the ratings description to reflect the reality of how users rate each other

Specifics/Details:

The current ratings system of

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

is nonsense - most people, IMO, will agree that 90% of users rate based on a different scale - something like

1 = Foed, 2 = this person is stupid and I hate them, 3 = this person is stupid, 4 = needs to learn a thing or two, 5 = I would play again with person.

*the exact wording to be worked out later.

The description of ratings could be easily changed and I am sure if a consensus view could be achieved on the description then most people who claim to have stuck rigidly to the current system would be happy to amend their ratings.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

A ratings system that reflects users opinions would clearly benefit users who use the system and probably lead to a decrease in whinging C&A reports.

The current average rating on the site is 4.7 not 3.0 as many people are lead to believe.

89% of user have an rating of 4 or above.

I largely agree with you in your assessment, I have found the rating system somewhat pointless. This because it has gone to the point that the community is SO used to getting 5stars as the norm, that if you try and rate someone with 3stars that is taken as an insult. That in itself confirms what you are saying and makes the whole system obsolete.

Another example is TO's and clans saying "no one under 4.7 rating", lol, it just speaks volumes.

It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right

This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.

[Metsfanmax]

It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right

This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.

Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.

Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.

[Funkyterrance]

It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right

This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.

Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.

Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I didn't read the link but if the idea is to automatically give an average rating it may be a good thing. However, wouldn't this just mean that if you rated anything below the average you would be pointing the dirty end of the stick once again? Seems like something of a lateral move? Different nomenclature, so to speak, but the same overall result. Here's where I shamelessly plug my own suggestion, not because it's mine but because I think it really is the best solution: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181555

[Metsfanmax]

It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right

This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.

Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.

Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I didn't read the link but if the idea is to automatically give an average rating it may be a good thing. However, wouldn't this just mean that if you rated anything below the average you would be pointing the dirty end of the stick once again? Seems like something of a lateral move? Different nomenclature, so to speak, but the same overall result. Here's where I shamelessly plug my own suggestion, not because it's mine but because I think it really is the best solution: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181555

That could be done in conjunction with the other suggestion. It sounds more and more like we need a complete overhaul of the rating system, instead of piecemeal fixes.

[Funkyterrance]

It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right

This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.

Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.

Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I didn't read the link but if the idea is to automatically give an average rating it may be a good thing. However, wouldn't this just mean that if you rated anything below the average you would be pointing the dirty end of the stick once again? Seems like something of a lateral move? Different nomenclature, so to speak, but the same overall result. Here's where I shamelessly plug my own suggestion, not because it's mine but because I think it really is the best solution: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181555

That could be done in conjunction with the other suggestion. It sounds more and more like we need a complete overhaul of the rating system, instead of piecemeal fixes.

I think you may be onto something. A combination of the two would be very satisfactory imho. If you liked/dislikes someone's playing you could make the effort to rate them without fear of vindictive acts and if were just satisfied it would be an auto-rate of average.