[Site] Normalize Player Ratings (Average = 0)

[temporos]

... have ratings based on the number of friends and foes you've got.

This is similar to the idea proposed earlier in this thread that the possible ratings be either thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Even such a system as that would be better than the current joke. Personally, I still prefer the -2 to +2 scale, but obviously I don't have any control over what the mods do.

[Victor Sullivan]

I still prefer the -2 to +2 scale, but obviously I don't have any control over what the mods do.

Agreed.

[waseemalim]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

[Victor Sullivan]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

I am the same way! And I totally agree.

[TheForgivenOne]

May I ask how this will affect the Ratings Medal? Will it be able to code the medal to not count "ratings" that are "Normal/0/3"?

[MichelSableheart]

I would imagine that you don't actually add the 0 rating to the ratings tab. Rather, it would mention "58 people did not rate this player". That can be determined using a simple if statement along the lines of "if playedGameTogether and not ratingLeft". I see no problems with the ratings medal.

[Metsfanmax]

I would imagine that you don't actually add the 0 rating to the ratings tab. Rather, it would mention "58 people did not rate this player". That can be determined using a simple if statement along the lines of "if playedGameTogether and not ratingLeft". I see no problems with the ratings medal.

This seems like the optimal solution. The ratings page and ratings medal will only count ratings actively left by players. But at the top of the ratings page where the overall rating is calculated, behind the scenes it will average in all the zeros before displaying the result.

[nebsmith]

No, it is a substantial change. Let's say I have played 1000 players and 25% of them rated me. 80% gave me 5 stars for Gameplay, 10% gave me 4 stars, and 10% gave me 1 star. Under the current system, my rating would be 4.5 out of 5. Under the new system (where 80% of the raters give me 2, 10% give me 1, and 10% and give me -2), my rating would be +0.375. You don't think those are different?

Actually no. While the first case (a 1 to 5 system) would give you 4.5 on the numbers you use, the second case (a -2 to +2 system) would give you 1.5 on the numbers you use.

All this has done is moved the result down 3, it's still a 5 point spread overall.

Of course if half the people who played you under your proposed sytem couldn't be bothered to leave a rating this would cut your rating down to 0.75. but ,if as you say, people giving extreme ratings to friends and foe would have little effect then there would just be a lot of 0.75's around.

I would suggest.
That if the problem stems from people not rating honestly for fear of comeback then make the ratings system anonymous, which has it's own problems, but is probably the only way to get an honest rating from most people. Unfortunately this would mean those who abuse the system would get away with it.
Any system where the rating you give someone is tracable to you is always going to be skewed to the high end no matter what the system is.

[Metsfanmax]

Of course if half the people who played you under your proposed sytem couldn't be bothered to leave a rating this would cut your rating down to 0.75. but ,if as you say, people giving extreme ratings to friends and foe would have little effect then there would just be a lot of 0.75's around.

In my situation, 75% of the people who played me didn't leave a rating, so my calculation was accurate. I feel like 75% is a conservative estimate!

[Bruceswar]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

[Metsfanmax]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

[natty dread]

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

It would work better than the current system.

On the current system nobody has ratings below 4 and THAT we know is not true.

In the real world, not everyone is above average. It's time the ratings system reflected this and actually meant something.

[temporos]

On the current system nobody has ratings below 4 and THAT we know is not true.

The current ratings system reflects the current mindset in the developed world right now: "Everybody's a winner!"

In the real world, not everyone is above average.

Don't tell the public school system that...

[jrh_cardinal]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

They wouldn't. All of the people that they played and essentially gave 0's to would.

1) Who rates -2 to 2? When giving a movie review you give it 1-5 stars, or go into a restaurant that has those "How did we do?" cards, the ratings they have on there are 1-something (usually 5, maybe 3 or something). You don't use negative numbers

2) The last day of the old system:
Player x plays 100 multiplayer public games at a time, against random people, most of whom don't give a crap about CC or ratings. He gets rated by 25% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

Player y only plays 40 private team games at a time in his clan, Team 2000+++ usergroup, and clan wars all against people who are serious about CC, their score, and their rating. He gets rated by 50% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

6 Months after implementation of new system:
Player x has finished 1000 new games, in which he played 1333 new opponents (remember, public games against random people). His trends continued, so he's now been rated by 1000 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He's also not been rated by 1000 people, so he actually has a rating of 0.9

Player y has finished 400 new games, in which he only played 66 new opponents (2 clan wars, only a few changes in his clan and usergroup). his trends continue, so he has now been rated by 700 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He has not been rated by 33 people, so he now has a rating of 1.75ish

Are these two players deserving of such disparity in their ratings?

[Victor Sullivan]

This is a great suggestion. Especially, the no rating = 0. I only rate people that thoroughly impress me, or disappoint me. I am somewhat reluctant currently to give people 3 stars, as they are perceived as a negative. Under this system, I dont have to bother about that.

I think this would be a great way for us to see who truly are the most honorable players.

Actually no this will just tell you who gets rated the most or not rated. If someone does not rate anybody at all they are saying everybody is average, which we know is not true. Some people just do not rate. Nice idea but will not work.

If some people do not take part in the ratings system, then why would those people be upset if this were implemented?

They wouldn't. All of the people that they played and essentially gave 0's to would.

1) Who rates -2 to 2? When giving a movie review you give it 1-5 stars, or go into a restaurant that has those "How did we do?" cards, the ratings they have on there are 1-something (usually 5, maybe 3 or something). You don't use negative numbers

2) The last day of the old system:
Player x plays 100 multiplayer public games at a time, against random people, most of whom don't give a crap about CC or ratings. He gets rated by 25% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

Player y only plays 40 private team games at a time in his clan, Team 2000+++ usergroup, and clan wars all against people who are serious about CC, their score, and their rating. He gets rated by 50% of them, and has a rating of 4.8 (667 people have rated him)

6 Months after implementation of new system:
Player x has finished 1000 new games, in which he played 1333 new opponents (remember, public games against random people). His trends continued, so he's now been rated by 1000 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He's also not been rated by 1000 people, so he actually has a rating of 0.9

Player y has finished 400 new games, in which he only played 66 new opponents (2 clan wars, only a few changes in his clan and usergroup). his trends continue, so he has now been rated by 700 people, with a rating of 1.8 on the new scale. He has not been rated by 33 people, so he now has a rating of 1.75ish

Are these two players deserving of such disparity in their ratings?

Yes.