Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:Can we take another look at this? I did particularly like this suggestion.
stahrgazer wrote:btw, you could do the same "equalizer" thing with the current system by having the system default to 3 *** instead of "not-counted if the player doesn't feel like hitting the buttons."
The idea is theoretically good. The problem with this new idea and the current ratings system is that it involves subjectivity. You can't regulate against human choice, and you can't regulate the reasons for the choice. It's human nature: you're less likely to rate someone you are friends with with less than the highest, even if you know that friend is not as good a player as others you've played.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
temporos wrote:Concise description:
- Migrate from a "1 to 5" star system to a "-2 to +2" star system.
Specifics/Details:
- Right now: 1 is bad, 5 is awesome.
- Migrate to: -2 is bad, +2 is awesome.
- Migration should be retroactive.
- Lack of a rating should be counted as a 0 or "average" rating.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
- Right now, the average player rating is about 4.8 stars: well above the 3 star "average."
- If the scale is adjusted such that "average" is 0, anything below average is negative, and anything above average is positive, the average player rating will naturally stabilize around 0.
- If a player does not wish to leave a rating for his opponents after a match, it counts as a 0 or "average" rating.
- This proposed system will encourage a more intuitive and reliable measure of a player's attitude, gameplay, and sociability.
- Players would be compelled to leave a rating only if they wish to leave an above or below average rating for another player.
- Players aren't left jaded when someone leaves them a less-than-5-star rating (i.e., everybody wins).
MeDeFe wrote:What you're pointing out is exactly what the proposed system would counteract.
In other words: What you're pointing out IS a problem for the current system, it would NOT be a noticeable problem for the proposed system.
stahrgazer wrote:MeDeFe wrote:What you're pointing out is exactly what the proposed system would counteract.
In other words: What you're pointing out IS a problem for the current system, it would NOT be a noticeable problem for the proposed system.
Yes it would still be a problem; players would still rate their "less than zero" friends as +2's (instead of +5's) and people they decide not to like as -2's (instead of 1 to 3) regardless of game skill or any problem in a particular game.
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
JoshyBoy wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion, it seems like it's just people being pedantic.
JoshyBoy wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion, it seems like it's just people being pedantic.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Metsfanmax wrote:JoshyBoy wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion, it seems like it's just people being pedantic.
You fail to see that the current rating system is completely meaningless, given that something like 90% of the average ratings fall between 4.5 and 5.0?
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
MeDeFe wrote:JoshyBoy wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion, it seems like it's just people being pedantic.
The current system is not working because the ratings are hugely inflated. Implementing this suggestion would go a very long way towards solving that.
That's the point.
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
pmchugh wrote:Think of someone like magleplunka or highlander attack, with thousands of games and such a low percentage of people rating it is almost certain their rating would be like 0 or +/-0.1
JoshyBoy wrote:MeDeFe wrote:JoshyBoy wrote:I fail to see the point of this suggestion, it seems like it's just people being pedantic.
The current system is not working because the ratings are hugely inflated. Implementing this suggestion would go a very long way towards solving that.
That's the point.
Which specific suggestion are we talking about here?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Metsfanmax wrote:stahrgazer wrote:MeDeFe wrote:What you're pointing out is exactly what the proposed system would counteract.
In other words: What you're pointing out IS a problem for the current system, it would NOT be a noticeable problem for the proposed system.
Yes it would still be a problem; players would still rate their "less than zero" friends as +2's (instead of +5's) and people they decide not to like as -2's (instead of 1 to 3) regardless of game skill or any problem in a particular game.
It's trivial to point out that ratings are subjective. It has nothing to do with the value of this suggestion.
stahrgazer wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:stahrgazer wrote:MeDeFe wrote:What you're pointing out is exactly what the proposed system would counteract.
In other words: What you're pointing out IS a problem for the current system, it would NOT be a noticeable problem for the proposed system.
Yes it would still be a problem; players would still rate their "less than zero" friends as +2's (instead of +5's) and people they decide not to like as -2's (instead of 1 to 3) regardless of game skill or any problem in a particular game.
It's trivial to point out that ratings are subjective. It has nothing to do with the value of this suggestion.
Your lack of logic astounds me. What's wrong with the current system - as is indicated even in one of the OPs posts, is that the ratings are "inflated" - and they only get inflated because people are using them subjectively. This new system doesn't fix that, and can't. So, if the ratings will be inflated due to subjectivity anyway, why make the change?
I can see the value of making "no ratings" equivalent to a 3, "average" to tone down the levels of inflation, but you'll still see the subjectivity-caused inflation.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:And your logic is nonexistent.
There are about 20000 players on the site. People rating their friends higher than they might deserve amount to maybe 2% of the inflation. The remaining 98% are due to people not bothering/wanting/daring to rate those who don't leave an impression or who leave a bad impression. Reasons for people not rating have also been pointed out already. Compared to the big problem of people only leaving good ratings, the problem of people rating their friends better than they deserve is not noteworthy.
Because inflation cannot be ruled out 100% but only mostly ruled out you say that nothing should be done at all? You must be kidding.
stahrgazer wrote:Currently "not rated" means zero added in, all across the board. That means the skewed 2% ratings appear high, like 4.8.
In your proposed change, "not rated" will mean zero added in, all across the board. The same 2% ratings will still appear. While a 1.25 won't look as high as a 4.8, the percentage of deviation will remain the same. you'll have very few zeros (we have very few 3's now), some -1.25's and some +1.25's, almost no 5's (we currently have almost no 5's) .
Metsfanmax wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Currently "not rated" means zero added in, all across the board. That means the skewed 2% ratings appear high, like 4.8.
In your proposed change, "not rated" will mean zero added in, all across the board. The same 2% ratings will still appear. While a 1.25 won't look as high as a 4.8, the percentage of deviation will remain the same. you'll have very few zeros (we have very few 3's now), some -1.25's and some +1.25's, almost no 5's (we currently have almost no 5's) .
No, you obviously don't understand the suggestion as originally stated. Every time you don't actively leave a rating, in the suggested system, a zero rating is automatically left for you (as opposed to the current system, where no rating is given for you - I hope you understand that when someone leaves no rating, currently, it doesn't mean that a zero is added and the score is re-averaged; rather, it means that no score is added in). The 2% of ratings in question will have little effect.
Since people probably rate their opponents less than 50% of the time, this would be incredibly different from the current system, because the average rating would be much closer to 0 (the intended average score) than the average rating now is, in relation to a score of 3.
stahrgazer wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Currently "not rated" means zero added in, all across the board. That means the skewed 2% ratings appear high, like 4.8.
In your proposed change, "not rated" will mean zero added in, all across the board. The same 2% ratings will still appear. While a 1.25 won't look as high as a 4.8, the percentage of deviation will remain the same. you'll have very few zeros (we have very few 3's now), some -1.25's and some +1.25's, almost no 5's (we currently have almost no 5's) .
No, you obviously don't understand the suggestion as originally stated. Every time you don't actively leave a rating, in the suggested system, a zero rating is automatically left for you (as opposed to the current system, where no rating is given for you - I hope you understand that when someone leaves no rating, currently, it doesn't mean that a zero is added and the score is re-averaged; rather, it means that no score is added in). The 2% of ratings in question will have little effect.
Since people probably rate their opponents less than 50% of the time, this would be incredibly different from the current system, because the average rating would be much closer to 0 (the intended average score) than the average rating now is, in relation to a score of 3.
Obviously, you don't understand deviation percentages. It will only appear to be significantly different because you changed how the number values look. All that will happen with your system is that the decimal differences will have increased importance because you'll be averaging in a few thousand zeros. But nothing really changes unless people's tendency to rate appropriately changes - and the reason they don't is because not everyone agrees on "what is appropriate?"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users