Moderator: Community Team
It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?Metsfanmax wrote:It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

For the purposes of the overall rating, yes.riskllama wrote:so, if you got 2/5 for gameplay and 0/5 for attitude and the other one(i forget what it is right now), your rating for that particular game would be 2/15? i was always under the assumption that it would just be a 2/5.
???
It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).Nymeria Stark wrote:if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?Metsfanmax wrote:It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?
my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.
For a particular field it's not counted, only for overall.betiko wrote:I didn't know that when you didn t leave full ratings you were actually giving a 0 to the overall rating.
We agree that for a particular field, it s not counted in the average though right? I ve always given 1/1/1 as the worse rating possible when someone had been horrible. So i guess 1/0/0 is actually the worse rating possible?
i highly doubt many people realise giving a 5 and leaving 2 fields blank means leaving a worse rating than giving 2/2/2. im confident apart from people that have read it in their forum (to their surprise), almost everyone assumes 1/1/1 is the worst rating you can give.Metsfanmax wrote:It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).Nymeria Stark wrote:if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?Metsfanmax wrote:It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?
my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.




Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.
the conversation is going in circles. now we're back to this.Metsfanmax wrote:Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.
but im happy to agree to disagree. thanks for taking the time to reply.Nymeria Stark wrote:if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?Metsfanmax wrote:
It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.
i agree. people should know the ratings system is different than one naturally assumes so they can rate accordingly. i'll post in ccd.riskllama wrote:perhaps some kind of announcement is in order? I think a lot of players were under the same assumption I was, eh?
1/15 is the lowest.mrswdk wrote:So if someone's really shit, is it possible to rate them 0/15 instead of 3/15? I was under the impression you have to leave at least 1 star for the form to submit.