[26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

[maique]

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• Only posted when game's been archived 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.

[lancehoch]

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?

[maique]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[Roveriver]

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.

[maique]

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

[2261981]

ui

[awc]

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.

[maique]

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.

[lancehoch]

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.

[hulmey]

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.

Im quite certain that CC could put in all the necessary filters to do the job!

[t-o-m]

I like the new ratings, although a little comment box next to it would be good.

[hulmey]

I like the new ratings, although a little comment box next to it would be good.

There is a comment box next to it. YOu just need to click on "respond"

[Androidz]

wow some1 suggested a great idea to make this new rateing even better here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=57552

[maique]

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.

Im quite certain that CC could put in all the necessary filters to do the job!

I do think filters could initially do at least a reasonable job, and could be improved quite easily. Mind you, I only mentioned filters as an afterthought, the main point being "just get rid of moderation (accompanied by a few more changes, previously suggested) and be done with it".
And I want to clarify that when I suggested filtering, I meant it as a display filter. If someone wrote f*ck, then f*ck is what would appear written to the unfiltering viewer. The filter would be an option for the reader not wanting to be subjected to foul language, not a form of censorship.

The assassin/******in problem could be very, very easily overcome in the filtering.
So could the type of variations you mention, to more or less of an extent.
But, are people really that anal about swearing? Anyway, this would give the more susceptible the option not to be so easily offended. It wouldn't save their sensible eyes and minds from metaphor and allegory, but I frankly don't give a shit (do you like how I gratuitously swore just then?)