Moderator: Community Team
Little Witt wrote:I support! I think the current rating system is all messed up, and is in need of dire changes.
sundance123 wrote:Little Witt wrote:I support! I think the current rating system is all messed up, and is in need of dire changes.
You are right about that. Community doesn't give a toss though.
Macbone wrote:Yeah, I know it doesn't match the information under Instructions - Ratings, but when I see a player with a 3.5, I have a pretty good idea what to expect. The same with a 4.7.
And the tags are useful,too. If I see a bunch of Good Teammate, Good Strategy, Friendly, etc., I want to play with that person. If I see Vindictive, Complainer, Bad Strategy, I'm going to be cautious (but not necessarily rule out playing with that person - maybe (= ). Just looking at your first page of ratings, you're definitely the type of player I'd enjoy playing in a game, and just scanning the games we've played together, I can see I'm right.
Metsfanmax wrote:viewtopic.php?f=535&t=123707
macbone wrote:I'd definitely be against a automatic rating of 0 in that system you linked to, metsfan. I play too many games to individually rate players, but if that were implemented, I'd feel the need to rate every single player (no thanks).
-2 to +2 is the same thing that we have now, with the addition of an "average" rating when one doesn't rate a player.
Metsfanmax wrote:The whole purpose of a rating scale is so that the numerical average of the ratings says something meaningful about the player.
Metsfanmax wrote:Making the number of stars equivalent to some "tag" describing the player defeats the purpose of such a scale.
Metsfanmax wrote:That is why I strongly prefer the suggestion I linked; it retains the idea of the number of stars given corresponding to the quality of the player in the game you played
sundance123 wrote:Not what I am suggesting. The opposite, in fact, for example 'average' is a tag with pretensions toward objectivity. A newb cannot accrately apply a label such as average. 'I will never play this guy again' is a subjective rating of the experience of playing against them & anybody can accurately rate their experience.
Well so does my suggestion - and in a better reasoned way. The quality of a player can best be defined as the average subjective experience of playing against them not by comparing each individual's experience to their idiosyncratic ideal player as encourage by the current system.
Perhaps you would discuss the merits of other suggestions in their respective threads - they have no relation to my suggestion.
Metsfanmax wrote:There is no useful information to a person reading the average rating. It says something about the interpersonal relationship between the rater and the rated
Metsfanmax wrote: objectivity . . .what you want in a rating system that averages ratings from different players.
Metsfanmax wrote: If your only defense is . . . .
Metsfanmax wrote:How does one average . . . . blah blah blah
sundance123 wrote: *the exact wording to be worked out later.
Metsfanmax wrote: you are now averaging over some binary property (e.g. "I hated this game" or "I didn't hate this game")
Metsfanmax wrote: you need to explain why yours is better.
GeneralRisk wrote:I think the current system is fine. 4.9 to 5.0 are players that seldom if ever play speed games and act nice in game chat. 4.3 to 4.8 are average players that are capable of both good and bad. 4.2 and lower are players that usually have issues and if you play them, then be prepared for either idiotic play and/or abusive game chat.
If the instructions tell you to rate a average person a 3 then the instructions need changing. I rate average people a 5.0 and am sure most other people rate the same.sundance123 wrote:GeneralRisk wrote:I think the current system is fine. 4.9 to 5.0 are players that seldom if ever play speed games and act nice in game chat. 4.3 to 4.8 are average players that are capable of both good and bad. 4.2 and lower are players that usually have issues and if you play them, then be prepared for either idiotic play and/or abusive game chat.
I do agree with most of this - and this is a fairly useful guide to evaluating an opponent based on ratings - the problem I have is the instructions given for rating encourage people to give 3.0 rating to people who then feel they deserve higher because an average rating is not threes across the board it is two fives and a four!
You are being untruthful again. I looked at your games played and see that you have joined against players with 4.6 and lower ratings. Shame on you Flunkyterrence.Funkyterrance wrote:The ratings system as is, is a funny thing. I think it's flawed only in that it takes a pretty long time to understand what a rating means at a glance. As a new player I would think that 4.6 is pretty darn good but guess what, I avoid players with this rating. I don't like missed turns, I don't like playing with buffoons and I don't like playing with suicidal maniacs. At this stage of the game I can pretty well tell what type of player someone is just by looking at their rating but it took a great deal of time to get the "feel" of this. As far as changing this system I suppose It all depends on how long you think someone should have to be here before they get the hang of the site.
That said, I go out of my way to rate people 5 stars all the way if they were indeed a pleasure to play with e.g. polite, sportsmanlike, friendly. I also rate 5 stars if someone was not memorable (most likely not afwul) but they rated me 5 stars since they must recognize a conscientious player when they see one and I figure they deserve a 5 star rating for this level of perceptiveness. I rate 1's to 4's for glaringly obvious faults in my opponents which I feel should be flagged to any of their prospective challengers. Everything in between I tend to not rate.
I guess what I am saying is that having been here a while I am fine with the current system but that's not to say that an alternative would not be a better fit, just that I am not in a position anymore to decide what that may be. I believe the proper term is jaded.
GeneralRisk wrote:You are being untruthful again. I looked at your games played and see that you have joined against players with 4.6 and lower ratings. Shame on you Flunkyterrence.Funkyterrance wrote:The ratings system as is, is a funny thing. I think it's flawed only in that it takes a pretty long time to understand what a rating means at a glance. As a new player I would think that 4.6 is pretty darn good but guess what, I avoid players with this rating. I don't like missed turns, I don't like playing with buffoons and I don't like playing with suicidal maniacs. At this stage of the game I can pretty well tell what type of player someone is just by looking at their rating but it took a great deal of time to get the "feel" of this. As far as changing this system I suppose It all depends on how long you think someone should have to be here before they get the hang of the site.
That said, I go out of my way to rate people 5 stars all the way if they were indeed a pleasure to play with e.g. polite, sportsmanlike, friendly. I also rate 5 stars if someone was not memorable (most likely not afwul) but they rated me 5 stars since they must recognize a conscientious player when they see one and I figure they deserve a 5 star rating for this level of perceptiveness. I rate 1's to 4's for glaringly obvious faults in my opponents which I feel should be flagged to any of their prospective challengers. Everything in between I tend to not rate.
I guess what I am saying is that having been here a while I am fine with the current system but that's not to say that an alternative would not be a better fit, just that I am not in a position anymore to decide what that may be. I believe the proper term is jaded.
sundance123 wrote:Concise description:
Amend the ratings description to reflect the reality of how users rate each other
Specifics/Details:
The current ratings system of
1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.
is nonsense - most people, IMO, will agree that 90% of users rate based on a different scale - something like
1 = Foed, 2 = this person is stupid and I hate them, 3 = this person is stupid, 4 = needs to learn a thing or two, 5 = I would play again with person.
*the exact wording to be worked out later.
The description of ratings could be easily changed and I am sure if a consensus view could be achieved on the description then most people who claim to have stuck rigidly to the current system would be happy to amend their ratings.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
A ratings system that reflects users opinions would clearly benefit users who use the system and probably lead to a decrease in whinging C&A reports.
The current average rating on the site is 4.7 not 3.0 as many people are lead to believe.
89% of user have an rating of 4 or above.
Arama86n wrote:It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right
This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.
Metsfanmax wrote:Arama86n wrote:It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right
This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.
Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.
Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.
Funkyterrance wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Arama86n wrote:It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right
This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.
Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.
Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.
I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I didn't read the link but if the idea is to automatically give an average rating it may be a good thing. However, wouldn't this just mean that if you rated anything below the average you would be pointing the dirty end of the stick once again? Seems like something of a lateral move? Different nomenclature, so to speak, but the same overall result. Here's where I shamelessly plug my own suggestion, not because it's mine but because I think it really is the best solution: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181555
Metsfanmax wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Arama86n wrote:It could have been avoided (and can be fixed) with one simple change though: If it was coded so that everyone automatically gives 3 star ratings (symbolising it was an average game) and you had to change it manually when you had something to add, then new players would clearly see that 3stars = average. Where as now, they look at what everyone else is doing.
Ah... the lovely flaw of democracy... the assumption that the majority are actually right
This might be the easiest "fix" requiring the least effort from team-CC. just reset ratings (with the appropriate announcements and such ofc), make an automated 3star rating where you have to change it manually when you feel that the game you played gave you a fair picture of the players playing ability, fair play, or attitude, and you would like to change the rating to coincide with your experience.
Indeed. This is basically the idea in this suggestion.
Ultimately, I applaud anyone who comes up with ideas on how to improve the ratings system (I find it so flawed that I refuse to rate anyone). But I think that this proposed system in the OP simply reinforces the idea that it's ok to rate 5 if you didn't mind the game and 1-4 if you disliked it, so it doesn't actually change anything except to make it clearer what people are doing. And that's why I'm opposed to it, because I have in mind this larger reform to the ratings system, instead of a change that makes it more ingrained.
I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I didn't read the link but if the idea is to automatically give an average rating it may be a good thing. However, wouldn't this just mean that if you rated anything below the average you would be pointing the dirty end of the stick once again? Seems like something of a lateral move? Different nomenclature, so to speak, but the same overall result. Here's where I shamelessly plug my own suggestion, not because it's mine but because I think it really is the best solution: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181555
That could be done in conjunction with the other suggestion. It sounds more and more like we need a complete overhaul of the rating system, instead of piecemeal fixes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users