What do you want from ratings?

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with a survey like this is that most people won't read or respond to anything here in the forums. That said, I am going to try.

What do you think the goal of ratings should be or can be?

I am keeping this simple for now. For example, I am not breaking down what qualities people would like, just if you want the ratings to give you a semi valid assessment of the experience you will have playing a person.

[Woodruff]

The problem with a survey like this is that most people won't read or respond to anything here in the forums. That said, I am going to try.

What do you think the goal of ratings should be or can be?

I am keeping this simple for now. For example, I am not breaking down what qualities people would like, just if you want the ratings to give you a semi valid assessment of the experience you will have playing a person.

I'm a big believer in the up-down system of ratings. Hard for that system to be inflated. I also do very much like the opportunity to include comments with the rating (for specificity), but I do understand why that's not going to happen.

[azezzo]

Nothing, i want nothing from the current ratings sytem, rather I want the old feedback system back

[squishyg]

I also want nothing. If I don't want to play someone, I'll foe him or her. I've never avoided a game because someone had a 4.6 instead of a 4.8

[Mr Changsha]

The problem with a survey like this is that most people won't read or respond to anything here in the forums. That said, I am going to try.

What do you think the goal of ratings should be or can be?

I am keeping this simple for now. For example, I am not breaking down what qualities people would like, just if you want the ratings to give you a semi valid assessment of the experience you will have playing a person.

I would love to be able to actually give a real assessment of a player (invariably positive) other than a tired combination of 'good strategy', 'balanced play', 'brave' and 'humorous'. If CC's intention was to make the rating system as boring as possible they succeeded with flying colours. If on the other hand they were attempting to create an informative system of player to player ratings, then they completely failed. The ratings mean nothing, beyond alerting us to the occasional sub-4 player.

What would I like? I'd like a system whereby we can actually write a few sentences of genuine praise/considered criticism that actually means something. However, accepting that the mods would be unwilling to deal with all the complaints that would naturally follow, I would allow players to self-censor their ratings recieved. While some would naturally abuse this freedom and delete anything negative, I believe the vast majority of the site would benefit far more from my system than the current one we have.

Beyond that, owen suggested employing some members here to take on the role the mods gave up if we want the old system back. To be frank, I have a fairly relaxed life and would be quite capable of eliminating the obviously spurious crap that was written an hour a day. I am sure other members would be prepared to do their bit too.

So my conclusion is that the current system is a lazy waste of space designed by someone who obviously put about five minutes of effort into it. We all know that. The old system could, in my opinion, be resurrected, but would involve CC trusting a few members to do the work for them. Highly unlikely to happen I would think. Or you institute the old system but, rather like the current wall system, allow self-deletion.

[Fruitcake]

The problem with a survey like this is that most people won't read or respond to anything here in the forums. That said, I am going to try.

What do you think the goal of ratings should be or can be?

I am keeping this simple for now. For example, I am not breaking down what qualities people would like, just if you want the ratings to give you a semi valid assessment of the experience you will have playing a person.

I would love to be able to actually give a real assessment of a player (invariably positive) other than a tired combination of 'good strategy', 'balanced play', 'brave' and 'humorous'. If CC's intention was to make the rating system as boring as possible they succeeded with flying colours. If on the other hand they were attempting to create an informative system of player to player ratings, then they completely failed. The ratings mean nothing, beyond alerting us to the occasional sub-4 player.

What would I like? I'd like a system whereby we can actually write a few sentences of genuine praise/considered criticism that actually means something. However, accepting that the mods would be unwilling to deal with all the complaints that would naturally follow, I would allow players to self-censor their ratings recieved. While some would naturally abuse this freedom and delete anything negative, I believe the vast majority of the site would benefit far more from my system than the current one we have.

Beyond that, owen suggested employing some members here to take on the role the mods gave up if we want the old system back. To be frank, I have a fairly relaxed life and would be quite capable of eliminating the obviously spurious crap that was written an hour a day. I am sure other members would be prepared to do their bit too.

So my conclusion is that the current system is a lazy waste of space designed by someone who obviously put about five minutes of effort into it. We all know that. The old system could, in my opinion, be resurrected, but would involve CC trusting a few members to do the work for them. Highly unlikely to happen I would think. Or you institute the old system but, rather like the current wall system, allow self-deletion.

All highly pertinant and well thought out.

However, a few problems spring to mind.
1) cc does not like being shown the light of its crass decisions, this would mean it and its representitives are fallible, something which is an anathema to them all when in their private world.
2) The idea of a community moderated feedback system was put forward with great argument. This was ignored. Why was this ignored? See point (1)
3) The ratings were rolled out with great fanfare, just like every other backward step they make here. When they realised that by not asking the community first (arrogance?) they then made some half arsed attempts at putting it right. This never really worked, so it was left to wither on the vine as they know this will ultimately happen to everything, including cc.
4) The powers that be have little respect for yours, or anyone elses, opinions. I have watched as the so called sugs and bugs threads get ignored and the standard methodologies of filtering through the community completely trashed through non actions. On the other hand I have watched as an idea surfaces with little or no real input from the community, lack sees it and says, 'oh we'll do that'. This once again is indication of the arrogance that starts at the top and flows throughout the moderating and admin community.

Your thoughts will be ignored because you are regarded as stupid and not worth listening to. Such is the level of arrogance, self importance, condescension and disdain with which we are treated.

[Mr Changsha]

The problem with a survey like this is that most people won't read or respond to anything here in the forums. That said, I am going to try.

What do you think the goal of ratings should be or can be?

I am keeping this simple for now. For example, I am not breaking down what qualities people would like, just if you want the ratings to give you a semi valid assessment of the experience you will have playing a person.

I would love to be able to actually give a real assessment of a player (invariably positive) other than a tired combination of 'good strategy', 'balanced play', 'brave' and 'humorous'. If CC's intention was to make the rating system as boring as possible they succeeded with flying colours. If on the other hand they were attempting to create an informative system of player to player ratings, then they completely failed. The ratings mean nothing, beyond alerting us to the occasional sub-4 player.

What would I like? I'd like a system whereby we can actually write a few sentences of genuine praise/considered criticism that actually means something. However, accepting that the mods would be unwilling to deal with all the complaints that would naturally follow, I would allow players to self-censor their ratings recieved. While some would naturally abuse this freedom and delete anything negative, I believe the vast majority of the site would benefit far more from my system than the current one we have.

Beyond that, owen suggested employing some members here to take on the role the mods gave up if we want the old system back. To be frank, I have a fairly relaxed life and would be quite capable of eliminating the obviously spurious crap that was written an hour a day. I am sure other members would be prepared to do their bit too.

So my conclusion is that the current system is a lazy waste of space designed by someone who obviously put about five minutes of effort into it. We all know that. The old system could, in my opinion, be resurrected, but would involve CC trusting a few members to do the work for them. Highly unlikely to happen I would think. Or you institute the old system but, rather like the current wall system, allow self-deletion.

All highly pertinant and well thought out.

However, a few problems spring to mind.
1) cc does not like being shown the light of its crass decisions, this would mean it and its representitives are fallible, something which is an anathema to them all when in their private world.
2) The idea of a community moderated feedback system was put forward with great argument. This was ignored. Why was this ignored? See point (1)
3) The ratings were rolled out with great fanfare, just like every other backward step they make here. When they realised that by not asking the community first (arrogance?) they then made some half arsed attempts at putting it right. This never really worked, so it was left to wither on the vine as they know this will ultimately happen to everything, including cc.
4) The powers that be have little respect for yours, or anyone elses, opinions. I have watched as the so called sugs and bugs threads get ignored and the standard methodologies of filtering through the community completely trashed through non actions. On the other hand I have watched as an idea surfaces with little or no real input from the community, lack sees it and says, 'oh we'll do that'. This once again is indication of the arrogance that starts at the top and flows throughout the moderating and admin community.

Your thoughts will be ignored because you are regarded as stupid and not worth listening to. Such is the level of arrogance, self importance, condescension and disdain with which we are treated.

Yep, I think we pretty much covered it all.

[angola]

I never rate people. The only time I do is if I enjoyed playing with them. Other than that, nothing.

[angola]

As an addendum, I do rate people negatively if they deadbeat or are an idiot, but that is mainly in speed games.

[JoshyBoy]

The ratings system is ineffective. Feedback was such a better system.

A player with a rating of 4.5 could have a feedback score of 33-171 (33 positive feedback comments and 171 negative feedback comments) and a player with a rating of 3.5 could have a feedback score of 233-19 (233 positive feedback comments and 19 negative feedback comments).

So much more effective.

JB

[Strife]

I would like a more accurate rating system. But with the one we have, I want it to tell me what the player can do, what type of strategy do they have and etc. Not how they had "fair play" or some bullshit like that. I want it to say what was on the person who left it's mind. And with so few available tags and few that can be attached anyone with a 4.5 or better is what I prefer. Because clearly almost everyone thinks of 4.0 as being lesser, even though it may just be their "Attitude. " Honestly, from attitude all I want to know is, positive or negative, did they give up hope or carry on through to the last blow. Not if they got pissed off or not, or cussed someone out. Also, people seem to think(as well as myself somewhat) that, rather than starting with 0 stars, you start with 5. If you do well by them then you keep them, but mess up and say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing, you lose them.