[26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Archival storage for Announcements. Peruse old Announcements here!

Moderators: Media Team, Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby retrocrush on Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:02 pm

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class retrocrush
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:16 am
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Optimus Prime on Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:07 pm

retrocrush wrote:I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to. :roll:
User avatar
Cadet Optimus Prime
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 9747
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2)
Tournament Contribution (30) General Contribution (3)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby retrocrush on Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:18 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:
retrocrush wrote:I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to. :roll:


I just think it's funny as hell that it allows you to put in contradicting tags. Lighten up. It's crazy that we're adding all of these options to make the feedback more detailed, when you could just flip the switch back to the old feedback system and have it all.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class retrocrush
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:16 am
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby pissedoffsol on Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:26 pm

@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken
My Highest
-----------------
Rank: Major
Score: 2055
12/20/09
7200 Games and counting! :)
Corporal pissedoffsol
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: ct
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Night Strike on Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:30 pm

pissedoffsol wrote:@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken



You've taken enough turns to be 99.5%, which would round up to 100%.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8640
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby hulmey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:23 am

Night Strike wrote:
pissedoffsol wrote:@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken



You've taken enough turns to be 99.5%, which would round up to 100%.

i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
User avatar
Lieutenant hulmey
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:33 am
Location: Las Vegas
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby hulmey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:25 am

Optimus Prime wrote:
retrocrush wrote:I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to. :roll:


You always seem to defend CC. Bit of sheep? We had a perfectly fine feedback system beore that neeeded a few tweaks here and there to perfect. This new system has been forced apon us!! Its like your mum giving you some sweets and then taking them away. So for godsakes like people complain if they want to without being so bloody annoying!
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
User avatar
Lieutenant hulmey
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:33 am
Location: Las Vegas
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Night Strike on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:35 am

hulmey wrote:i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!


hulmey, do the math. Even if he does skip turns while losing, that is a max of 3 turns for a game that is at least more than 5 turns along. In some games, only 1 or no turns are missed. Playing over 2300 games and winning 50% of them means it's going to take a WHOLE lot of missed turns to actually change the stat by 1%. With that many games with many rounds in each game, being at only 98% IS a lot of missed turns.

Also, OP can defend CC if he wants just how you choose to attack it all the time. He was pointing out how the player purposefully used the tags in a way that they were not meant to be used. And if you're going to complain about the new system that "has been forced upon us", why have you left 122 ratings? :roll:
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8640
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Ditocoaf on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:44 am

How was your experience with this player (in category X)?

Unhappy
Satisfied
Impressed

Rating your experience, rather than the other player per se. Solves a lot of issues, quickly.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby hulmey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:48 am

Night Strike wrote:
hulmey wrote:i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!


hulmey, do the math. Even if he does skip turns while losing, that is a max of 3 turns for a game that is at least more than 5 turns along. In some games, only 1 or no turns are missed. Playing over 2300 games and winning 50% of them means it's going to take a WHOLE lot of missed turns to actually change the stat by 1%. With that many games with many rounds in each game, being at only 98% IS a lot of missed turns.

Also, OP can defend CC if he wants just how you choose to attack it all the time. He was pointing out how the player purposefully used the tags in a way that they were not meant to be used. And if you're going to complain about the new system that "has been forced upon us", why have you left 122 ratings? :roll:


im going for my medal....I also got 98% attendance and i can asure that theres something very wrong. The new system aint working

ps...tags can be used how the player seees fit. And yes i will attack CC coz its going downhill. Its not what it used to be. But i try not to attack the individual coz thats bullying.
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
User avatar
Lieutenant hulmey
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:33 am
Location: Las Vegas
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Ditocoaf on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:58 am

retrocrush wrote:
Optimus Prime wrote:
retrocrush wrote:I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to. :roll:


I just think it's funny as hell that it allows you to put in contradicting tags. Lighten up. It's crazy that we're adding all of these options to make the feedback more detailed, when you could just flip the switch back to the old feedback system and have it all.

The old feedback system required too much moderation.

If we went back to the old system, you'd complain as soon as some noob said something stupid in a negative feedback, and demand that they remove it. And so would half the players on this website. And they don't have time to deal with all those issues.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby hulmey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:15 am

there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
User avatar
Lieutenant hulmey
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:33 am
Location: Las Vegas
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Ditocoaf on Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:23 am

hulmey wrote:there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to

I think they are letting people complain... that's what you're doing, aren't you? And you're right; it's a good thing that they are. Because those initial complaints are what helped this flawed new system take a step in the right direction. Hopefully it'll keep improving, as the site has since it started.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby hulmey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:29 am

Ditocoaf wrote:
hulmey wrote:there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to

I think they are letting people complain... that's what you're doing, aren't you? And you're right; it's a good thing that they are. Because those initial complaints are what helped this flawed new system take a step in the right direction. Hopefully it'll keep improving, as the site has since it started.

opinions are like farts, every1 has one
[img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9761/41922610151374166770386.jpg[/mg]
User avatar
Lieutenant hulmey
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:33 am
Location: Las Vegas
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby yeti_c on Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:03 am

hulmey wrote:opinions are like farts, every1 has one


Jesus christ - get the quote right... your version just doesn't make sense.

It's

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby maique on Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:13 am

Optimus Prime wrote:
retrocrush wrote:I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right?
[...]

erm... actually, he is. If he can do it, anyone else can. he's actually being quite helpful, if you ask me, which you didn't. but then, you weren't exactly being helpful yourself.

Also, he's not abusing the system more than it allows itself to be abused. If the CC management don't want moderation, and insists on tags, they're gonna have to be parsed.
Between this and the random twit lying and swearing on feedback, even if it weren't moderated, i think i'd rather have good old feedback.

And, pressing on with the idea of going back to feedback, i wouldn't think that banning certain language in feedback would be the right move, either. There are always ways around this and it's not really CC's place to moderate language. Furthermore, implementing a count of how many players have foe'd a given user would pretty much marginalize the jerks (whilst also stepping over the problem of tactical foe'ing which would be of neglectable number), leaving it up to each to decide wether they want to play with the "outcast" or not.

So suggestions for goin back to feedback:
  • No moderation
  • One liners >> fewer characters = less trouble
  • Only posted when game's been archived >> pretty obvious
  • Response to feedback should also be editable for the same 5(?) days after which, like feedback, it can only be removed >> prevents further and recurrent abuse**
  • Adding a counter for amount of times a user's been foed >> useful in a non moderated environment


** like a player who one day decided to swap all his filth-ridden, fallacious responses (to all the negative feedback he'd ever received) to "gg like to play again" and such.
Captain maique
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby lancehoch on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:08 am

maique wrote:So suggestions for goin back to feedback:
  • Response to feedback should also be editable for the same 5(?) days after which, like feedback, it can only be removed >> prevents further and recurrent abuse**

If you are going to have it be "editable" for 5 days, should the rating appear in those 5 days, or should it remain hidden like the original rating does?
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby maique on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:55 am

If you are going to have it be "editable" for 5 days, should the rating appear in those 5 days, or should it remain hidden like the original rating does?


that's a very good question. I guess it could be visible, since there's not going to be any retaliatory feedback to a response.
Captain maique
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby sideoutshu on Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:45 am

Good additions. The only problem is that if you are going to a new system, you should really reset to old ratings. People were formerly using "fair play" as a game play rating. Now that they are differentiated, there is no way to tell what the "fair play" rating is for. It could mean either:

1. the guy is a cheater;

2. The guy has bad strategy;

two very different things that will certainly affect desire to play with that individual.
Lieutenant sideoutshu
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:12 am
Location: NYC
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby Roveriver on Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:37 pm

I'm curious how greatly participation on the site has multiplied over recent months. The more people who use it, the more diverse and complicated it would seem. To say the site is getting worse would simply mean to me that you're just wishing for the good old days. Changes are occurring in order to correct problems, and no change is perfect.
Obviously, allowing entirely liberal feedback has caused problems with abuse and that's why CC is limiting feedback to tags ~ which enables us to tell what's behind the rating provided. If we want to be more detailed in commenting about a game, leave a message or write on someone's wall on their profile.

Just my humble opinion. I like what I've seen so far, and look forward to future improvements.
User avatar
Lieutenant Roveriver
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:44 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby maique on Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:19 pm

Thing is, at least in my opinion, in the feedback system, people left feedback when they had something to say. Now, I'd even go so far as saying some people are rating compulsively, not because the other user struck them in some way, and this detracts from the relevance of having such a system. Or maybe it doesn't, maybe it'll work as intended and the average rating will somehow represent the user in some relevant way.
I'm not against any of it, it is ultimately the designer's choice. But since I'm allowed to express my opinion... Heck, if I really dislike using it or simply do not see the point, I can just refrain from using it.
The tags, in principle, are not a bad idea. I even think they could be applied to a renovated feedback system whereby a user could compose his feedback by selecting tags (as though they were template feedback points) if these expressed his view, even streamlining the process, or he could choose to write his own if he found the idea he wanted to express would be better served by writing his own feedback.
As i've said before, I still think the permitted feedback length would have to be shorter than it previously was so as to drive the commenter to leave more relevant feedback.

Even the numbers associated with feedback had a relevance that the ratings average cannot have. You could read something about the player, through how many people had bothered to give that user feedback and how many of these had something positive or negative to say, and this was nicely complemented by the user rank and even the recent addition of medals (except for the wretched ratings medal).

I'm sure, eventually, one way or another, even the ratings average, coupled with the tags, would/will become more relevant, though I doubt I'll ever find it half as useful as the feedback numbers and the feedback itself.

But since I doubt very much that the designers are at all interested in reverting in any way, shape or form even to a revamped feedback system, the next few months will tell
Captain maique
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby 2261981 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:50 am

ui
Last edited by 2261981 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major 2261981
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:36 pm
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby awc on Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:48 pm

i think, like many others, ratings should be relative to your own scale.

let min = minimum stars you have ever left for anyone (in relevant category, e.g. gameplay)
let max = maximum stars you have ever left for anyone (ditto)
let raw = raw rating you left for other player

"raw" should be normalized to "norm" as follows:

Code: Select all
if (min == max) then norm = 3; // boundary condition
else if (raw < min) then norm = 1; // if lowest rating yet, then normalize to 1 star
else if (raw > max) then norm = 5; // if highest rating yet, then normalize to 5 star
else norm = round(4*(raw-min)/(max-min))+1; // else calculate normalized stars


under this system, having 3 stars would really mean "average". getting 4 stars would actually take some work; it would mean something to have 4 stars. and getting 5 stars would mean you're everybody's favorite player. this makes a lot more sense to me. with the current rating system, players are encouraged to "shut up and play"... because if no one has anything against you, you're probably gonna get 4-5 stars.
Sergeant 1st Class awc
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:43 am
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby maique on Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:27 am

lackattack wrote:Headlines

  • You can attach descriptive tags to a rating. This should let a rating communicate more about the player without opening up the door to all that abusive language and nonsense we've seen with written feedback. The initial list of 35 tags is sure to evolve, so please share your recommendations for tags in the Suggestions & Bug report forum.


Damn me if looking at 35 (soon to be more) tags to pick 4 isn't more of a PAIN than just writing a little comment. If This is just to not have moderation... just GET RID OF MODERATION!!

You know, I don't tend to be rude, but if some people can't deal with rude language, they can just get some flippin browser filter, or you guys create a switchable filter to weed out rude language. SURELY that'd be easier than all this. Then you'd only have a single file to update with all the swearing and cursing that those sensitive souls can't bare to read.
Would still be simpler than creating tags that please each user and forcing everyone to go through a list of all the tags you could conjure up to see which four are more appropriate. Not that most people will care, mind you. Heck, this is even more prone to abuse since the jerks who couldn't care less will probably just call everyone cheaters and sore losers and backstabbers; you know, the usual not making any attempt to be faithful to reality and picking the negative ones.

And I wonder where I can create a petition to get rid of the ratings medal. Unless you're fine with the ratings system "belonging" to the compulsive/judgmental ones, instead of the average-joe user. Not that I know what the average user's like, but if he's anything like me, he doesn't really want to and won't rate everything that moves, only the ones that strike him (in this case, me) as rateable for some reason - the old have-something-to-say-otherwise-don't-say-anything-at-all.

I'm not gonna get in to how i think feedback could be improved all over again. But I don't really see any direction that would improve the rating/tagging mess either, except maybe reverse.

But then again, this is all merely my opinion and I don't mean to demean all the hard work the site team has undertaken.
Captain maique
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: [26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

Postby lancehoch on Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:16 am

The problem with this, is there are ways around a filter. For instance if someone wanted to say f*ck (notice the filter), they could type fcuk or fvck and people would still understand what they mean, but the filter would not catch those. Also, how would you say assassin, this would come up as ******in. Filters are not the way to go for game feedback/ratings.
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

PreviousNext

Return to Announcement Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login