Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:35 pm**

Concise description:

A feature to add descriptive tags to a rating, to provide some explanation.

Specifics:

When you leave a rating, beneath the input section for stars, there would be a bunch (say, 10 to 20) of descriptors with a checkbox next to each one. You would check off any that apply (say, up to 3). These descriptors would appear alongside the stars on the recepient's ratings page.
Because their time is better spent hunting multiple accounts and answering support tickets, staff would not investigate "unfair" ratings tags. Members would still have the option of discussing with the author directly, and tags should go live along with the "Allow written responses to ratings" suggestion.
Examples of tags: Deadbeat, Timely, Friendly, Rude, Sore Loser, Trustworthy, Backstabber. If you have any to add please share!

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Members will be able to better express themselves when leaving ratings.
Members will understand the reasons behind ratings.

EDIT: Please give your input on this suggestion!

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:37 pm**

this would be great!

although i would like a deadbeat counter but i think thats been suggested and rejectd?

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:43 pm**

Automated deadbeat stats are on the to-do list

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:52 pm**

When an opponent leave a rating that is unfair, am I able to respond to it by my own account of the actual situation? Under CC's feedback system, a negative or neutral feedback can be given a response by the victim.

I should and must be able to defend myself from the onslaught of inappropriate ratings left by sore losers.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:11 pm**

lackattack wrote:
Members will be able to better express themselves when leaving ratings.
Members will understand the reasons behind ratings.

We used to have a feedback system that met these requirements.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:04 pm**

If you continue with this rating system, I think your suggestions for tags and the option for written comments are good.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:12 pm**

how about some tags related to chat. like say, talkative, silent, or my favourite flirtatious.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:16 pm**

MOBAJOBG wrote:When an opponent leave a rating that is unfair, am I able to respond to it by my own account of the actual situation? Under CC's feedback system, a negative or neutral feedback can be given a response by the victim.

I should and must be able to defend myself from the onslaught of inappropriate ratings left by sore losers.

lackattack wrote:tags should go live along with the "Allow written responses to ratings" suggestion.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:35 pm**

Would the tags be madatory, or can they be left blank?

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:57 pm**

Im all for it. The comments are infinitely more valuable than the star value alone. Neg comments shouldnt be as problematic for people, because they wont stand out as much as they did before. Unfortunately though i suspect it may cause some work for the mods. You may need more volunteers to deal with the inevitable complaints about inaccurate tags. But I for one, miss my ability to leave comments.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:05 pm**

I think this is a step in the right direction. It also gives a starting grounds for the defensive input of the receiving party.

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:15 pm**

we need some kind of decription for opponents who are just plain ASSHOLES! The guy who swears at another opponent because his dice go bad, or the higher ranked manipulator who can convince the rookie to do his bidding by insult, threats, or lies.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:40 am**

lackattack wrote:
MOBAJOBG wrote:When an opponent leave a rating that is unfair, am I able to respond to it by my own account of the actual situation? Under CC's feedback system, a negative or neutral feedback can be given a response by the victim.

I should and must be able to defend myself from the onslaught of inappropriate ratings left by sore losers.

lackattack wrote:tags should go live along with the "Allow written responses to ratings" suggestion.

Wow! I'm simply amaze by your tip-top class customer services and deliverables to keep coming up with innovations or improvements to this site. I believe the latest implementation and to-do features pertaining to user feedback would make for a better or superior system.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:56 am**

this is a friggin joke, im raelly sorry but its a wash out. I got 2 years of premium left, so can you please give it to someone else!! I just dont want it anymore, life here is getting to complicated and un fun.....

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:05 am**

Great idea Lack.

I think that people aren't really understanding what Tags are though...

Perhaps some examples...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud

http://chir.ag/phernalia/preztags/

http://www.ftrain.com/tagcloud.html

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/6171

C.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:59 am**

I like it so much I already made a similar suggestion.

But yes, I like it..

Specifically,
I woud like to see the following (simplify as needed):

For positive:

Excellent teammate (or communicated well as teammate; gave us strategies to help us win; etc.

Helped me learn the map/game/etc.

Humorous chat

Put up with abuse from another player with good grace or defended well another player who was being abused.

Excellent game play/strategy

For Negative:

Attacked wrong opponent in Assassin

Did not communicate with teammates

Ignored advice from other teammates, causing us to lose.

Does not speak English (note -- I include this mostly so those of us who would NOT care can seperate it out).

Missed 1 turn. (when CC server working fine)

Missed repeated turns for what I consider to be good reasons.

MIssed repeated turns for no reason, for strategy or poor reasons.

Deadbeat, without reason or I don't accept reason.

Deadbeat, but offered reason or gave us warning.

Gave up/suicided before game was over.

Seemed to have unannounced alliance.

Violated terms of announced alliance.

Generally poor player.

Started speed game, but never played.

Deadbeat speed game.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:03 am**

Those tag suggestions are way too long in my opinion. They should be something like:

Good Teammate
Average Teammate
Poor Teammate
Deadbeat
Rude Chat
Good Chat
Abusive

etc, etc, etc.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:09 am**

Optimus Prime wrote:Those tag suggestions are way too long in my opinion. They should be something like:

Good Teammate
Average Teammate
Poor Teammate

etc, etc, etc.

uhh, those are already in the ratings. Let's use tags to be MORE desrciptive, not say the exact same thing.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:14 am**

I think it would be nice to have a check list. Like for different things:

Optimus Prime wrote:Good Teammate
Average Teammate
Poor Teammate
Deadbeat
Rude Chat
Good Chat
Abusive
etc, etc, etc.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:22 am**

wicked wrote:
Optimus Prime wrote:Those tag suggestions are way too long in my opinion. They should be something like:

Good Teammate
Average Teammate
Poor Teammate

etc, etc, etc.

uhh, those are already in the ratings. Let's use tags to be MORE desrciptive, not say the exact same thing.

Wait, aren't you the one always moaning about clutter? Long 15 word sentences are going to be clutter. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into my list, I just was demonstrating short two or three word options, not long sentences. Lack said he wants to display them next to the ratings on the My Ratings page. I doubt he wants to put big long sentences in there. Besides, 80% of people aren't going to read long sentences to find out if they apply to their game. They want it simple and straightforward.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:27 am**

Right, agree with the shortness, I think that's the only way it'd be done anyway. I know you didn't initially propose the teammate rank, but it was easier to just quote yours. The comment wasn't directed at you.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:27 am**

Tags by very definition have to be short and succinct... OP's list may not be a great list of options - but the idea for short and succinct is there.

Things like
"Deadbeat" "Freestyler" "Amusing Chat" "Suicide" "Analytical" "Turtle" "Aggresive" "Reckless"

C.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:56 am**

yes please

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:33 am**

I agree about the brevity, even though the criticism was voiced to my post.

I would like to see attendance rating automatic, and summed for every game. Then, you could have 1-2 qualifiers, for those who might be interested.

For example:

Missed turns for strategy

Deadbeat when losing

has/had computer/religious issues.

unkown reason for misses

Other ratings would be more general:

Team rating would include:

Poor communication

Attacked teammates for no reason (I think a clarification is necessary so new folks don't think any attack is bad. Sometimes you need to attack mates to get bonuses, cards, etc.

Badgered teammates

For assassin: attacked wrong opponent

For Fair Play:

helped opponent understand game (note this would mostly apply in 1v1)

friendly chat

quick to take turns

ETC.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:58 pm**

yeti_c wrote:Great idea Lack.

I think that people aren't really understanding what Tags are though...

Perhaps some examples...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud

http://chir.ag/phernalia/preztags/

http://www.ftrain.com/tagcloud.html

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/6171

C.

would they work like the youtube tags?

Conquer Club

>> Descriptive tags for ratings

>> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings

Re: >> Descriptive tags for ratings