[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[ccatman]

first of all temporos honestly you only have 34 games played i think you need to learn the site a little better before you can make any judgements on other people and how they view ratings
and waseemallm what we've been trying to argue is the rating system we have now might have its downsides but it does have a purpose and does get 1 point across and that is who the awful people are you dont want to play with and who the ok people are and what this new suggestion will do is prevent you from telling whos really bad or really good because the ratings will be all closer to 0

[MeDeFe]

LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

[ccatman]

LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

maybe i missunderstood what you were saying
but the people who have crap ratings now i look at are people anywhere from 2.5-4.4

[MeDeFe]

LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Not at all, you would still be at least 0.2 above the people who got crap ratings and every bit as distinguished as you are right now.

a .2 and 2.0 difference is actually very large difference

It's 0.2 now, it would still be 0.2 (or more) under the proposed system.

maybe i missunderstood what you were saying
but the people who have crap ratings now i look at are people anywhere from 2.5-4.4

And under the proposed system you would be looking at people anywhere from 1-2.9 (Or -2 to 0, but I don't much like that version myself).

[gimil]

I have not read this thread because I find all 15 pages a little overwealing to go through for the sake of what I want to say, so here it goes. if I have repeated something then jsut shoot me down!

The current rating system works fine for me but I think it could be improved upon rather than changed. My suggestion incorporates (sort of) the current rating system with aspects of temporos original suggestion in this thread.

If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

[Metsfanmax]

If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

I believe this would be antithetical to the goal. temporos points out (and I agree) that the reason people don't give low ratings is because they're stuck in the "everyone's a winner" mentality. If you change the lower stars to red, which most people would agree indicates something worse, then you make it even less likely to get low ratings because people don't want to do something like that, which would stick out even more blatantly.

[temporos]

Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I do nothing half-assed. That includes on-line gaming sites and forums. I expect nothing less than pure logic from myself and everyone else. If one doesn't take Conquer Club "to heart," then perhaps he should find something that is more worthy of his time and attention.

[Victor Sullivan]

Wow, you really are taking this Online gaming site to heart.

I do nothing half-assed. That includes on-line gaming sites and forums. I expect nothing less than pure logic from myself and everyone else. If one doesn't take Conquer Club "to heart," then perhaps he should find something that is more worthy of his time and attention.

I can't explain how shweet of a statement this is, so I will sig it.

[ccatman]

If we maintain the current system (1-5 with 3 stars being the default average if you choose to leave feedback) and change how it is visually represented we may be able to change how people perceive it to work. rather than having 5 orange stars (as current) we have rating 1-2 (poor) as red, 3 (average) as orange and 4-5 (excellent) as green. With the visual cue of different colours then people may get behind the idea of making average ratings (3's) as standard rather than always giving excellent (5's) as ratings.

Does that make sense? When I get home I will throw something up in photoshop to try and better represent what I am saying. If people think I am talking nonsense let me know and I will shut up. (maybe )

I believe this would be antithetical to the goal. temporos points out (and I agree) that the reason people don't give low ratings is because they're stuck in the "everyone's a winner" mentality. If you change the lower stars to red, which most people would agree indicates something worse, then you make it even less likely to get low ratings because people don't want to do something like that, which would stick out even more blatantly.

actually thats false i think
all you guys are running on now is hope thats all that you have and as temporos said "i expect nothing less than pure logic" hope is not logic
and to add to this i've already told you i will not change the way i rate judgeing by the poll other people are NOT going to change the way they rate and even if some people do change the way they rate we cant have half the people voting differently then the other half on the site because that just messes up the rating system even more
we already have a system that is accurate to the point where it has a purpose and it does get the point across of whos who. the mods dont need to waste there time here they need to fix or add other things to the game that people want to see in the game that MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK

[gimil]

actually thats false i think
all you guys are running on now is hope thats all that you have and as temporos said "i expect nothing less than pure logic" hope is not logic
and to add to this i've already told you i will not change the way i rate judgeing by the poll other people are NOT going to change the way they rate and even if some people do change the way they rate we cant have half the people voting differently then the other half on the site because that just messes up the rating system even more
we already have a system that is accurate to the point where it has a purpose and it does get the point across of whos who. the mods dont need to waste there time here they need to fix or add other things to the game that people want to see in the game that MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK

point taken ccatman, I personally feel that my idea is the way the rating system should work and (i think) this was the way it was intended to work. However like you said it is not a priority, but rather something I would like to see done due to my own biased opinion on the rating system.

[stahrgazer]

LMAO!!!!!!! I sent a pm out Friday night to 1/2 my friends list and I see the no votes came rolling in.

All this crap sugg will accomplish is making most of us less distinguishable from those with really deservedly low crap ratings.

No thanks.

Bingo.

[Metsfanmax]

Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

[stahrgazer]

Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

Yes, I think you're ignoring it or think that's of benefit. I disagree that making really bad ratings look indistinguishable from really good ratings constitutes "a good thing."

If the premise is, "no one is using the ratings system the way we interpret that it should be used," this change doesn't change what's wrong with that system.

You're suggesting that "no rating" be made equivalent to "average rating" and you're suggesting that the rating numbers be moved closer together. This assumes that the reasons people are not using the rating system the way you think it should be used is because whenever they're not rating, they're not rating "an average player."

Perhaps the premise is, if every game got fed into the rating system, that would force people to actually punch the thing to put in the stars they think are appropriate.

1) I don't care to be forced, thank you
2) You still cannot force people to use the rating system the way you interpret is appropriate, even if this change goes through to "force" people to use the system at all
3) You're simply changing the way things are skewed, not changing the fact that things are generally skewed
4) I don't see the purpose of making a change that won't fix things; that's "change for change's sake" rather than change based on rational thinking.
5) At least with the current system, a player can see whether another player is really popular or really unpopular, which means it's not all that broken after all.

[Metsfanmax]

Just out of curiosity, jefjef and company, do you think that's something we're ignoring when we support this suggestion?

Yes, I think you're ignoring it or think that's of benefit. I disagree that making really bad ratings look indistinguishable from really good ratings constitutes "a good thing."

No, I just disagree with the premise in the first place. It's true that there probably won't be anyone ranked -1.8 in the new system. Still, even if the bad players are ranked -0.6, which is likely, you'll still be able to tell them apart. It is not the case that everyone will be ranked within -0.3 to 0.3. It's just true that the people that aren't exceptionally bad (or good) will probably be near there.

If the premise is, "no one is using the ratings system the way we interpret that it should be used," this change doesn't change what's wrong with that system.

No, but it's pretty hard to fix that issue. This is the next best solution.

You're suggesting that "no rating" be made equivalent to "average rating" and you're suggesting that the rating numbers be moved closer together. This assumes that the reasons people are not using the rating system the way you think it should be used is because whenever they're not rating, they're not rating "an average player."

Incorrect inference. I addressed this a couple of pages ago.

Perhaps the premise is, if every game got fed into the rating system, that would force people to actually punch the thing to put in the stars they think are appropriate.

1) I don't care to be forced, thank you

You're not forced to do anything. You can continue to rate the same way you want to after the change, if you so desire. I only hope that people will be motivated to rate differently because of this. I have no illusions that anyone will feel forced.

2) You still cannot force people to use the rating system the way you interpret is appropriate, even if this change goes through to "force" people to use the system at all

Not trying to. Only hoping that people will use all of the rating scale, if possible.

3) You're simply changing the way things are skewed, not changing the fact that things are generally skewed

Irrelevant. Not a reason to not do this.

[ccatman]

good job again you have managed to respond to another users post without giving any facts why this is a good idea