Conquer Club

Just suggesting (not sure if it has been already brought up) that we should be able to leave responses to people's ratings that have been left for us. (like a text box under each rating to fill in)

For example recently in a game i was holding S.A. and australia in a game, with a clear advantage i would have won the game within 2 or 3 rounds... yellow cashed a set and took me out of australia and saved the game for everybody else. i said in chat "nice play yellow" another very observant player took that to mean I was in a secret alliance and left me all 1's as ratings... (even if i was in an alliance the 1 under attendence was completely unfounded since i never missed a turn and it was the incompetent player leaving the rating that was slowing down the game)

I know a lot of people have their complaints and complements about the new system and I think just simply being able to say "this person has no clue what they are talking about" under the bad ratings would fix a lot of the problems

Went ahead and moved this on over to Suggs & Bugs for ya.

It might be locked because I think there's already a thread about it, but I'll let the fine people here handle it for ya

thanks, just threw it in general discussion... wasnt sure where to put it

I understand how you feel Sir G, but one of the benefits of benefits of ratings as I see it is that random/spiteful/inaccurate ratings like this are accounted for over time.

Right now this 1,1,1 has maybe brought you down from a 4.9 to a 4.5. But no-one is going to avoid playing you because of it.
And it only made even that much difference because right now you only have 10 contributory ratings. Once you have more - 20, 50, 100 ... the odd random random/spiteful/inaccurate one isn't going to make any difference. No one is going to scan through all your ratings to see if you ever got a 1,1,1.

They'll see 4.8 overall. Maybe take a peek and see your individual Fair Play, Attendance, Attitude and Teamwork ratings, but they won't go any further than that.

Given that the Ratings guidance in Instructions says ...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

... you're still considered "well above average, borderline excellent" which seems fine to me

yes i understand that, and the response box doesnt help or hurt that. it simply gives you a chance to explain the low ratings that you dont agree with to people who bother to look

cicero wrote:I understand how you feel Sir G, but one of the benefits of benefits of ratings as I see it is that random/spiteful/inaccurate ratings like this are accounted for over time.

Right now this 1,1,1 has maybe brought you down from a 4.9 to a 4.5. But no-one is going to avoid playing you because of it.
And it only made even that much difference because right now you only have 10 contributory ratings. Once you have more - 20, 50, 100 ... the odd random random/spiteful/inaccurate one isn't going to make any difference. No one is going to scan through all your ratings to see if you ever got a 1,1,1.

They'll see 4.8 overall. Maybe take a peek and see your individual Fair Play, Attendance, Attitude and Teamwork ratings, but they won't go any further than that.

Given that the Ratings guidance in Instructions says ...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

... you're still considered "well above average, borderline excellent" which seems fine to me

even cheaters and liars such as KLOBBER, have mastered the art of hiding their true nature!!! Im sure you can as well

Edited:

A decent idea.

Sir Gordalot wrote:Just suggesting (not sure if it has been already brought up) that we should be able to leave responses to people's ratings that have been left for us. (like a text box under each rating to fill in)

Yet again we used to have a feedback system that met these requirements.

The issue with being able to type whatever you like is that people did just that, and it had to be moderated.
The new ratings system takes all the free will away, and people hate having free will removed, but it also removes the load on the admins of moderating all the bad feedback.

I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.

Guys, have you seen lack's recent post Descriptive tags for ratings ?
I think it may well be the beginnings of something that combines the benefits of ratings with the expression of feedback ...

cicero wrote:Guys, have you seen lack's recent post Descriptive tags on ratings ?
I think it may well be the beginnings of something that combines the benefits of ratings with the expression of feedback ...

theres nothing good at all about the new ratings. better off we had nothing at all.

gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.

I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.

One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:
One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.
--Andy

EDIT


I think that is a point some folks missed .... that in some ways, the negatives (and how one responded to them) often went a long way towards DISPROVING the comments. I mean if someone says this $#% cheated. Well, its probably the one LEAVING the comment I will put on my ignore list ... particularly if I see more of those type comments from that person.

Understand, I had 2 ratings removed. But, in retrospect ... leaving those 2 (as opposed to my 231 positives) would not have hurt me a bit.... and might have warned a few folks to avoid those 2 players.

AndyDufresne wrote:

gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.

I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.

One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.


--Andy

Good point Andy I guess you would be the only one doing the wrighting so it might work out in the end. You can gain a lot of in site on a person just on how they respond to such things.

gloryordeath wrote:Good point Andy I guess you would be the only one doing the wrighting so it might work out in the end. You can gain a lot of in site on a person just on how they respond to such things.

I think this is the key point that the response may solve. It not only provides a way to write out feedback (which people want), but it also provides a method for people to review what a user has said in response to their ratings. I do recall a large number of people mentioning that they only read how a user responded to their feedback, and I think this takes the best of that...while leaving out some previous problems.


--Andy

I'm waiting in anticipation for it to go live or to be implemented.

If you kept the text box limited in size (similar to how its done on e-bay) than it would work nicely. If you want to share the whole story as you did in your post, you can put in on your wall and direct people there. Limited text will keep the ratings nice and uncluttered but give players a chance to defend themselves to some degree when they have been unfairly rated.

I would suggest no comments and just let the law of averages work itself out. If a person does not fit there bad review, later good reviews will bring them back to where they should be. Conversely if the person deserves the bad review, multiple bad reviews would appear.

so this is like ratings and feedback combined?

AndyDufresne wrote:

gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.

I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.

One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.


--Andy

so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?

lexie3000 wrote:so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?

No - cos then no-one would have any negative comments... thus the feedback would be utterly useless.

C.

I was recently left some dodgy feedback for the third or fourth time in the short lifespan of this new feedback system.... i attempted to find out from the player concerned what had warranted his ratings.... and this is the discussion via PM:

Quase wrote:

UpandRising wrote:please explain your ratings,fairplay 3 attendance 3 attitude 3 i won the game it was a 1v1 so no bad play, attendance played all my turns so how can you do any better, attitude did chat more then you but then again some players dont chat at all does not mean attitude is poor.how i rated you fair play 5 attendance 5 attitude 5 why again 1v1 no bad moves impossible because we are the only two players,you played all your turns how can you give less then 5 cant be average was i only there sometimes then,well i did chat more then you yet score less maybe i should have given you a 1 for the only sentence you put in the game.please reply as i will have know choice but to withdraw yours thanks mate upandrising

i give tha rating just to give the rating lets do one more game to correct that then

I think you'll agree, this is un justified and goes to prove that this system in its current state... just doesn't work.

yeti_c wrote:

lexie3000 wrote:so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?

No - cos then no-one would have any negative comments... thus the feedback would be utterly useless.

C.

that begs the question. just how useful are negative comments anyway? i for one wouldn't bother removing negative comments and i'm sure there's quite a few others who aren't that precious about the negative comments they get either. but either way what's the big deal? allowing people the ability to delete negative comments would have solved the problem the moderators had with the system.

Sir Gordalot wrote:Just suggesting (not sure if it has been already brought up) that we should be able to leave responses to people's ratings that have been left for us. (like a text box under each rating to fill in)

For example recently in a game i was holding S.A. and australia in a game, with a clear advantage i would have won the game within 2 or 3 rounds... yellow cashed a set and took me out of australia and saved the game for everybody else. i said in chat "nice play yellow" another very observant player took that to mean I was in a secret alliance and left me all 1's as ratings... (even if i was in an alliance the 1 under attendence was completely unfounded since i never missed a turn and it was the incompetent player leaving the rating that was slowing down the game)

I know a lot of people have their complaints and complements about the new system and I think just simply being able to say "this person has no clue what they are talking about" under the bad ratings would fix a lot of the problems

yes, yes, but we want to be able to leave details in ratings that we give people, too!