[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[temporos]

Yeah, double-post, I know...

Once you migrate over to -2 - 2, as i said, you're just going to get a lot of people with 1.5-1.9.

False. The majority of players do not leave ratings, so the majority of ratings will be 0 or "average" if these non-ratings are counted. Thus, the average will stabilize around 0, since the only incentive people will have for leaving ratings is if the player was particularly good or particularly bad.

The rating system as we see it now is always going to be skewed.

That's why I proposed this new system, which will naturally correct the current skew.

Doesn't matter if we change it to you're suggestion, keep it, or even 1-10. Some people rate all 1's, and some rate all 5's until they meet someone they really disliked.

The people who consistently leave ratings after a match are in the minority. With the majority of people not leaving ratings, and those non-ratings counted as "average," this will correct the skew of that minority who don't know how to rate others properly.

[TheForgivenOne]

So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate? I don't think that's going to fly. Just because a person DOES NOT rate, does not mean they didn't enjoy the player.

[bluwizard]

Just because having a 4.5-4.9 is the norm now, does not mean it is broken.

Once you play here for a while, you will notice that people tend to be between 4.5-4.9, and anyone below that tends to be a poor player to play with. A lot of people find that, if the person played good enough, they get all 5's...

If 3 of 5 is defined as average but 4.5+ is the norm, how is that not broken?

If "good enough" deserves a set of perfect 5s, then those numbers cease having any value. A lot of people don't leave ratings because they see the entire system as completely defective.

I agree to the extent that its not so much the system, its the mentality of all 5's that for some reason is so prevalent here, but if ratings are truly distorted, there should either be an attempt to correct that, or to just eliminate it all together.

As it stands "ratings" carry virtually no value because they are skewed to the extreme, and if that is not a broken system, I'm not sure what is.

I also find it extremely disconcerting that the suggestion forum moderator, of all people, would be of the opinion that a system that is admittedly skewed and/or flawed, should be treated as a lost cause. As if its a waste of time trying to fix it and that it will always be broken, that it "doesn't matter" basically. That is a dangerous mentality that I pray does not extend beyond this issue.

But, I am sorry, if what is intended to be a five-point system has essentially become binary, it most certainly is broken.

[bluwizard]

So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate? I don't think that's going to fly. Just because a person DOES NOT rate, does not mean they didn't enjoy the player.

This is the mentality that got me berated for giving an average rating. Being called anything but uberspecial is an insult to some. Its like those children's sports leagues where they don't keep score so everyone can be a winner. Simply not getting the gold star is seen as punishment.

I'm sorry, but most people, by definition, should have a score that is close to average. That is, in fact, what average means. But the current system has no middle ground, no gray area. One is either a L337 h4x0r or stupid noob, here. Is that really better than some be relegated to average status?

[TheForgivenOne]

So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate? I don't think that's going to fly. Just because a person DOES NOT rate, does not mean they didn't enjoy the player.

This is the mentality that got me berated for giving an average rating. Being called anything but uberspecial is an insult to some. Its like those children's sports leagues where they don't keep score so everyone can be a winner. Simply not getting the gold star is seen as punishment.

I'm sorry, but most people, by definition, should have a score that is close to average. That is, in fact, what average means. But the current system has no middle ground, no gray area. One is either a L337 h4x0r or stupid noob, here. Is that really better than some be relegated to average status?

The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless

[MichelSableheart]

The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

If player A didn't leave player B a rating, either player A doesn't care about the rating system at all (in which case it doesn't matter to him what rating he gives), or player B didn't leave enough of an impression to leave a rating (in which case the average rating describes his play perfectly). In none of these cases are we actually punishing player A.

Nor are we punishing player B. He is still getting rated as average, which is not bad. Most players deserve average ratings. Yes, their rating goes down, but it goes to a point that more accurately reflects what it should be.

And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless

This, I agree with. There is no significant difference between a 1 to 5 and a -2 to 2 scale.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't suddenly decide to retroactively handle all times someone didn't leave a rating as them handing out a 3. There may be players who didn't leave a rating because they knew not leaving a rating wouldn't influence a players rating. If the system is changed, and suddenly not leaving a rating does influence a players rating, they are unable to change the fact that they didn't leave a rating.

If this is implemented, it should be from a certain point of time forwards. Which means that it will take a while for the effect to take place, and the ratings of older members will be skewed upwards.

[bluwizard]

...What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings....

That's just it, average shouldn't be considered a downward movement, it should be the starting point. The way things are now, everyone is five-star until proven otherwise. I believe players should actually earn the rating they have instead of starting with a five and having every rating that isn't perfection essentially being a "punishment", like it is now.

If a player doesn't do something that would compel me to give a higher (or lower) rating, then they receive the default measurement.

I don't think anyone is going to quibble over whether it is -2+2, A-E, or different colours. What we have now is 1-5 in name only, it is really 4.5+, or not, which is what I find really pointless...


I am more than willing to concede that implementation is the messy part, I just think the current system needs messing up.

[Darwins_Bane]

TFO I disagree on this one. The you're thinking of the rating system in its current iteration, which is where very close to 5 stars is average. If the ratings system was used properly then 3 stars would be the norm for most ppl. basically, this suggestion is coming up with a way to normalize the ratings, not punish anyone. if you get 0's because someone didn't rate you, its because they decided not to rate you, because you were average. I support this suggestion. But it would also become a nightmare to prove ratings abuse.XD

[Metsfanmax]

I completely agree with this suggestion. Good call, OP.

The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people. You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.

I'll agree with Michel. The first problem is an incorrect assumption: that everyone will have a +1.9 rating, and a failure to leave a rating will lower that person's rating. Faulty logic, because that person could have a -1.9 rating and be helped by the lack of a rating. Second, if you fail to rate them, it means that either you are too lazy to respond, or you didn't see anything special about that player. The latter situation truly does mean you feel they are average. The former ought to be corrected, don't you think? On this site we encourage people to rate each other (e.g. the ratings medals). This will give an additional motivation - if no one rates each other, the ratings system will become meaningless. And if that's how it ends up, fine - but as it stands now, the rating system is also currently meaningless, so we didn't lose much.

[jrh_cardinal]

The former ought to be corrected, don't you think?

no, casual gaming site, ratings aren't even a part of the game. People are NOT and SHOULD NOT be forced to rate in any way.

For example, I know I almost never rate 2 or 4 stars. I am just playing for fun, rating is not fun. I only rate if I feel very strongly about someone*, either positively or negatively, so they almost always get ones or fives

* I have mass rated 5's once or twice when waiting for a speed game to start, but that's just because I'm bored and medal hunting is the only thing available

[Metsfanmax]

The former ought to be corrected, don't you think?

no, casual gaming site, ratings aren't even a part of the game. People are NOT and SHOULD NOT be forced to rate in any way.

For example, I know I almost never rate 2 or 4 stars. I am just playing for fun, rating is not fun. I only rate if I feel very strongly about someone*, either positively or negatively, so they almost always get ones or fives

* I have mass rated 5's once or twice when waiting for a speed game to start, but that's just because I'm bored and medal hunting is the only thing available

And if you don't care about ratings, don't leave any. You're effectively giving average ratings, sure, but you're not being forced to do anything actively.

[temporos]

So we are going to punish more people because some people decide not to rate?

Why do you keep bringing up this "punishment" stuff? That's hardly a logical conclusion, since there is no punishment involved for any player, frequent rater or not.

Get rid of your opinion and start presenting counterarguments logically, if you truly think my suggestion would be counter-productive. I have very little tolerance for illogical debate. Here's how to debate using logic:

• Reference verifiable facts.
• Do not use opinion-based qualifiers such as "punish."
• Use negation instead of contradiction.
• Always support your arguments and counterarguments with clearly-worded reasoning.
• Reject your own arguments that have been defeated.
• Keep your emotions out of it. Suggestions are for the good of the community, not your personal comfort.

[temporos]

What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down.

FALSE. You obviously do not understand the suggestion, either because you do not wish to, or because you did not read it carefully. The rating of the person leaving (or not leaving) the rating for another player would not change based on that rating (or lack of rating).

[maasman]

bring back feedback, or make it more prominent again. This will solve most of the laziness, and if you feel strongly you'll actually type a few sentences rather than making a few mouse clicks, which is far easier to do.

[Darwins_Bane]

dont derail the subject. thats a diff sugg, and has already been and will always be, rejected.