drunkmonkey wrote:Sure, a lot of people don't use tags, and a lot of people just leave 5 stars across the board no matter what, but that doesn't mean they're useless. If one person leaves a tag of "Rude" or "Deadbeat", it could be a fluke. But what if, say 20 people have left those tags in the last few months? It could be useful information. I like the idea. For the reasons I just stated, I think 2 stipulations should be added:
1) Only tags left in a certain time frame should be noted. People can change, and a rude player who gets his act together shouldn't be punished for his old ways.
2) There should be a minimum # of the same tag before they're displayed. You shouldn't be flagged with poor tags because you ran into a couple jerks recently.
1) I oppose this one, for the same reason as I would not like 'Give Ratings a Lifetime or Fill Zone' to be implemented. Simply, the more ratings and the more tags the better. The result is less biaised, and more accurate, because they reflect more people's opinion.
Yes, there are rude players, but why would we want to hide them? If they get less rude then their ratings and their tags will also reflect the change. This is obviously a gradual process, if they have been rude for long (I think this is not something someone playing normally should worry about).
By the way, this info is already available, but on several pages of ratings. I only intend to highlight the most important ones. If someone has been rude / friendly recently, then their ratings already reflect their attributes, I believe.
2) Is there a minimum number of ratings to be achieved before the current averages are displayed for the rating of different attributes?