Ratings Reloaded - Community Consultation - UPDATED

[Slom]

We need a tag for the ratings that says, "clickys user."

[saaimen]

And one that says 'Turn misser' for someone who doesn't deadbeat but simply missed a few turns (less than 3 in a row) without a proper explanation. This might not influence his attendance stat cause he played so many games that a few missed turns don't make a difference there. But it does slow the game way down, and since the ratings and tags are supposed to be based on the game you just finished, I thought this would fit in...

[mightyredarmy]

So I am wrong to presume that since this is a community consultation, the community will be given a chance to vote on the options?

Personally I would vote for some simplification, I don't think we needs loads of categories, with up to 5 stars in each, just keep it simple. 3 star system with one category only is all we need.

Attendance is automated - great, no extra work. Tags should add the explanations behind the rating given, but that rating should be simple - Good, bad, or somewhere in the middle.

Give us the chance to vote, then we'll know how many want:

- The complex system
- A simple system
- The old system
- No system

[kmhebert]

I strongly prefer the previous written feedback system. It gave a much clearer idea of who problem players were and why.

[jiminski]

I strongly prefer the previous written feedback system. It gave a much clearer idea of who problem players were and why.

well the old system was very flawed too... I had over 100 positives from many fine players and friends which i enjoyed looking at once in a while.
I had 1 negative which was a joke one to balls up my perfect record. (thank you Daz) Now was my behaviour exemplary in every game i ever played in before the new system came in? .. Naaaahhhhhh!

The old system was just so steeped in gravitas that people did not leave Negs except in the most extreme of circumstance. Also the structure of it made it so difficult to leave a Negative feedback and make it stick that only truly moronic behaviour made it into the annals of history. (which did mean it worked as a good guide for the truly moronic players)
And due to the seeming import and personalised nature of the old Comment based system the moderation was impossible to maintain for the site.

Never-the-less i find the new system almost worthless as a guide to behaviour. As a tool of expression and entertainment it is completely worthless. (tags may help a bit with regards expression.. but i am already a bitter and inconsolable opponent)

For me the best system would be to marry the old and the new. Adding a bespoke comment which could qualify the ratings without it holding the weight of a Negative or Positive rating and which did not have to be moderated by the Site Mods.

could someone break that record for me please!?

[Blitzaholic]

=============================================

UPDATE

I'm making progress on these changes and I'm probably going to be able to throw in the "change color of star for players needing re-rating" suggestion.

I'm getting to the part about making ratings relative to each rater's "average rating left" and I'm having second thoughts. It won't fully solve the problem - some people will still typically leave 5's and others will still typically leave 3's and get complaints about it. Also the solution is quite hard to explain and understand.

I'm looking at other suggestions brought up:

* 4 stars (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) with no "average", so people could typically leave 3 with less controversy.
* 3 stars (1-Bad, 2-Good, 3-Very Good) so that "average" would be more positive sounding as "Good".
* 4 stars with a cap on how often you can rate 1's or 4's. For example, only one "extreme" rating per game to force ratings to be more moderate and therefore (hopefully) accurate.

What do you guys think? I need some more feedback!

=============================================

After two weeks of experience with the new ratings system and a lot of important input from Conquer Club members like you, it's pretty clear that it could use some fixing.

So here is a 4-point plan to address the major problems with ratings, based on ideas brought up in this forum:

Problem: We want to know the reasons behind the stars, but written comments lead to too many complaints.
Solution: Introduce descriptive tags that you can attach to ratings, to explain them. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: There is too much inconsistency - some people follow our scale and leave 3 for an average player, others typically leave 5.
Solution: Display average rating left (ARL) on each rating and factor it into your overall rating score. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: We have few options when left "unfair" ratings.
Solution: Allow written responses to ratings. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: We want to rate gameplay behaviour that affects the game experience for others, but doesn't fall under "Fair Play".
Solution: Introduce an attribute for Gameplay (which would include teamwork). >> discussion topic <<

None of this is set in stone and we need you input! Please comment on the individual solutions in their respective topics and comment on our overall approach here.

Thanks for helping us make a better Conquer Club!

EDIT: Due to popular demand I've added a 5th point to the plan...

Problem: Attendance should be automated, not a rating!
Solution: Add attendance stat to player profile, remove it from ratings. >> discussion topic <<

LACK, with all due respect, any system you create, there will always be some CC players complaining about it, you cannot please everyone, just ask the president. Any system you come up with will or may have some flaws by CC players perceptions, there may not be a perfect system, with this said, I like the original version better, but dislike the idea of having to start back over with zero again on a new system. Perhaps, if you saved the old data, leave it as you first created it, but that's up to you.

[jiminski]

LACK, with all due respect, any system you create, there will always be some CC players complaining about it, you cannot please everyone, just ask the president. Any system you come up with will or may have some flaws by CC players perceptions, there may not be a perfect system, with this said, I like the original version better, but dislike the idea of having to start back over with zero again on a new system. Perhaps, if you saved the old data, leave it as you first created it, but that's up to you.

Are you advising Lack to consult President Bush on how to proceed Blitzy... blimey it's been a tough month or 2 on CC but i think you go too far my friend!

Of course you are correct; any system, particularly a new one, will come under fire. It is very rare that you please all people.. However, eventually a good system or at least a better system, will placate the dissenters. And acknowledgment comes through their low, guilty, silence as admission.

In the case of this system i still do not see that.. hehe and this dissenter, though slightly less vocal as time moves on, is not ready to admit the superiority of this system through my silence ... yet!

Now i think you are saying you preferred the old comment system too but I will say that the new one is improving (that is testament to Lacks willingness to listen to dissent.. ) and though i am still, stubbornly not using the system, tags have helped a little.

That said, I am still a little sad that some/most of the entertainment in feedback has inevitably been lost forever.
And no new player will feel the crackle of excitement, as they garner personally composed feedback from the CC legend which is Blitzylicious.

I am only fractionally taking the Michael ; I remember as a new-boy, that a personal word of respect from a ranking player, at the top of the board was a very real yet pathetic joy!
And that a tailored comment, after an epic battle, often led to the friendships i have fostered on this site.

so though the existing feedback may now work for us (you and I) - we have already made our friends and we are past being starstruck - the new players have lost something.

[mightyredarmy]

[color=#BF0000]=============================================

UPDATE
I'm looking at other suggestions brought up:

* 4 stars (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) with no "average", so people could typically leave 3 with less controversy.
* 3 stars (1-Bad, 2-Good, 3-Very Good) so that "average" would be more positive sounding as "Good".* 4 stars with a cap on how often you can rate 1's or 4's. For example, only one "extreme" rating per game to force ratings to be more moderate and therefore (hopefully) accurate.

What do you guys think? I need some more feedback!

3 stars is closest to the old, simple rating system which worked, so would be the best one to use, also please please please get rid of categories for teamwork, gameplay, etc and just have one category. "Most" people I've seen using the current system either rate 5-5-5, 1-1-1, etc - people just can't be bothered to decide on a 3 for this and 4 for that and a 2 for the other so the multiple categories become meaningless.

A better score totalling system was the old one which gave a total for postives and negatives, 4.7,4.8, etc is meaningless unless you're an ice dancing judge.

Also, if you were to reinstate a 3 star system of 3 = good, 2 = neutral, 1=bad then you could combine it with the data from the old system and players who had ratings in the hundreds would get that hard-earned achievement back.

[saaimen]

I remember as a new-boy, that a personal word of respect from a ranking player, at the top of the board was a very real yet pathetic joy!
And that a tailored comment, after an epic battle, often led to the friendships i have fostered on this site.

3 words.

Use



the



WALL


That's what they 'built' it for.

I received 1 very nice comment on my wall so far (thank you, OperaManFL), which did me as much good as any nice feedback in the old system.

[jiminski]

3 words.

Use



the



WALL


That's what they 'built' it for.

hehe if you set out to be irritating with that post, Good Job
the content and point of the post was lost to me through your masterful manipulation of font size.

[saaimen]

hehe if you set out to be irritating with that post, Good Job
the content and point of the post was lost to me through your masterful manipulation of font size.

Well, if you had watched which part of your post I quoted, you might have gotten the point.
I didn't mean to be irritating though, I'm just amazed at how many people complain about the system when they don't use all of its features: some can do exactly what they want.
You CAN leave very personal and detailed feedback, or just be kind to someone. Just write a message on their wall. If you want, you can even type in the game number so ppl can go and see. That's about the same as the positive feedbacks you were proud of as a beginner.
So now there's the less detailed but better objectively judgeable Rating system, and if you don't find you can express yourself fully there, they added another feature for exactly that reason.
Only positive imho. IF you don't miss out on parts of the progress.

[jiminski]

hehe if you set out to be irritating with that post, Good Job
the content and point of the post was lost to me through your masterful manipulation of font size.

Well, if you had watched which part of your post I quoted, you might have gotten the point.
I didn't mean to be irritating though, I'm just amazed at how many people complain about the system when they don't use all of its features: some can do exactly what they want.
You CAN leave very personal and detailed feedback, or just be kind to someone. Just write a message on their wall. If you want, you can even type in the game number so ppl can go and see. That's about the same as the positive feedbacks you were proud of as a beginner.
So now there's the less detailed but better objectively judgeable Rating system, and if you don't find you can express yourself fully there, they added another feature for exactly that reason.
Only positive imho. IF you don't miss out on parts of the progress.

I do use the wall, however most people i have come across do not use it as yours was used.
It is a place to chat with your mates and has almost no practical use as feedback... The message you received (which, in spite of your beginning, I did originally read and get your point) was very nice but incredibly rare in wall-genre! (heheh now there a new movement!)

So because it is rare it is almost useless as a tool of feedback, simply due to most not using it like that.
The content of the Wall is completely at the mercy of the recipient, so you will keep the good and throw away the bad. this makes it only worthwhile as a tool of chat and almost no one will comment in the same way as with the specifically alloted Comment system.
It does not hold the same impact or import as the old sanctioned and easily available comment system.
In the majority of cases (your wall is the exception and only has one entry, many have page upon page of banal chit-chat to pile through) unless you are going to say hello to someone you already know, you will never see anothers wall. SO as a badge of honour it is rather ephemeral.


With the old comment system people genuinely used to read through and measure a potential opponents worth based on words and author.

The wall is just to stop people spamming the forums with the equivalent of smalltalk; a textual hand-wave which maintains personal ties.

So i am happy for you and your wall .. but if you had never posted the comment i would never, ever, ever have seen it.

To your second point as a way to chat and make new friends; yeap.. i can see that it does have some place. But this is one aspect of an aspect of what the old feedback did.. if you add all of the new gimmicky additions together they still do not do quite what the old feedback did .. To say that they do is bonkers .. Lack will love you for it but he got rid of the old system in order to save site resources, not to directly improve feedback. He would argue successfully that indirectly, due to less strain upon mod time, we have benefited but this is a complex subjection.

We have gained in other areas (to the taste of some) with medals and Stars and Walls and glitter on our balls..... But they act to replace an apple with a slice of bacon and a monkey-wrench.... i want a bloody apple.. And i want the spanner and a bacon sandwich too!

[Jeff Hardy]

there should be an automatic thing telling everyone how quickly the person plays their average turn

[kmhebert]

With the old comment system people genuinely used to read through and measure a potential opponents worth based on words and author.

That's why I liked it. Sure you'd get mainly positive feedback, and if you had a few negatives from horrible rated players it was no big deal. But the real troublemakers were very very easy to spot.

[Snorri1234]

With the old comment system people genuinely used to read through and measure a potential opponents worth based on words and author.

That's why I liked it. Sure you'd get mainly positive feedback, and if you had a few negatives from horrible rated players it was no big deal. But the real troublemakers were very very easy to spot.

For really reals. Especially with the mods removing some stuff if you asked for it that system worked pretty decent.

It's far better than this one where I just leave five-star ratings for everyone to get my ratings-medal. (since it's the only medal I'm likely to get.)

[saaimen]

It's far better than this one where I just leave five-star ratings for everyone to get my ratings-medal. (since it's the only medal I'm likely to get.)

If you don't use it like you do, it makes more sense. You can't say something's stupid if you treat it stupidly.
If you want to get your ratings medal, leaving ratings that you actually thought about is just as good.
It's people who do what you do that make it harder for this system to work.
No offense though.

[Snorri1234]

It's far better than this one where I just leave five-star ratings for everyone to get my ratings-medal. (since it's the only medal I'm likely to get.)

If you don't use it like you do, it makes more sense. You can't say something's stupid if you treat it stupidly.
If you want to get your ratings medal, leaving ratings that you actually thought about is just as good.
It's people who do what you do that make it harder for this system to work.
No offense though.

Bullshit. It shows how abusable the system is. I don't give a f*ck about how well anyone played unless it was truly horrible. It used to be that I would give a nonsensical positive comment when I enjoyed playing someone, but since there is nothing like positive I can only give 5 stars everytime.

[saaimen]

It's far better than this one where I just leave five-star ratings for everyone to get my ratings-medal. (since it's the only medal I'm likely to get.)

If you don't use it like you do, it makes more sense. You can't say something's stupid if you treat it stupidly.
If you want to get your ratings medal, leaving ratings that you actually thought about is just as good.
It's people who do what you do that make it harder for this system to work.
No offense though.

Bullshit. It shows how abusable the system is. I don't give a f*ck about how well anyone played unless it was truly horrible. It used to be that I would give a nonsensical positive comment when I enjoyed playing someone, but since there is nothing like positive I can only give 5 stars everytime.

That changes things. But you said in your original post, you just leave 5 stars for everyone in order to leave ratings for your medal. I just thought, if you leave that many ratings, you might aswell think about them instead of automatically making them all 5's. That's not bullshit.

[Snorri1234]

It's far better than this one where I just leave five-star ratings for everyone to get my ratings-medal. (since it's the only medal I'm likely to get.)

If you don't use it like you do, it makes more sense. You can't say something's stupid if you treat it stupidly.
If you want to get your ratings medal, leaving ratings that you actually thought about is just as good.
It's people who do what you do that make it harder for this system to work.
No offense though.

Bullshit. It shows how abusable the system is. I don't give a f*ck about how well anyone played unless it was truly horrible. It used to be that I would give a nonsensical positive comment when I enjoyed playing someone, but since there is nothing like positive I can only give 5 stars everytime.

That changes things. But you said in your original post, you just leave 5 stars for everyone in order to leave ratings for your medal. I just thought, if you leave that many ratings, you might aswell think about them instead of automatically making them all 5's. That's not bullshit.

Oh yeah sorry, you're right. I should've elaborated more, I was a little drunk yesterday.

I rate players on whether I enjoyed playing with them. I think most people don't really care about how well someone played as long as there were not a lot of major fuckups. And since that is the case, leaving ratings becomes a problem as giving someone 3 stars turns from "normal play" into "not that horrible". With the old system you had basically "3 stars" but their importance was far less. The feed-back system told you what kind of attitude or playstyle someone had and the rank and points told you whether they were good.

Another advantage of the feedbacks was that you could read them and could make a good guess of whether you would like to play that person. If someone has a few negs but they're either jokes or non-sensical (HE BEAT ME SO NEGGED) then you wouldn't pay attention to them, but when you see someone getting all 1-stars you won't know why.

[Yonak]

Here's a constructive suggestion concerning the Ratings System. It may seem negative, but I believe its implementation would be positive for all.

Eliminate the Ratings System where people rate other players, altogether.

Initiate some kind of statistic that shows a percentage of moves a player has missed, if the player takes an extraordinary long time, generally, to make moves and how often a player is kicked out of games. (Perhaps, also, a statistic of how often a person is put on other players' Ignore Lists could be helpful, but it could be perilous, as well.)

This may seem like it doesn't give adequate information about a potential opponent or teammate, as to whether he would make a good one or not, but it would be strictly objective, and would eliminate player bias against other players for non-play reasons or because a rater doesn't know how to rate objectively. Used along with other information which is already available, such as a player's rank, it would give enough information to take the chance on a game with him, I believe, and would arrest the ability of players to slam and demean other players they have a beef with "because they can".

[saaimen]

Here's a constructive suggestion concerning the Ratings System. It may seem negative, but I believe its implementation would be positive for all.

Eliminate the Ratings System where people rate other players, altogether.

Initiate some kind of statistic that shows a percentage of moves a player has missed, if the player takes an extraordinary long time, generally, to make moves and how often a player is kicked out of games. (Perhaps, also, a statistic of how often a person is put on other players' Ignore Lists could be helpful, but it could be perilous, as well.)

This may seem like it doesn't give adequate information about a potential opponent or teammate, as to whether he would make a good one or not, but it would be strictly objective, and would eliminate player bias against other players for non-play reasons or because a rater doesn't know how to rate objectively. Used along with other information which is already available, such as a player's rank, it would give enough information to take the chance on a game with him, I believe, and would arrest the ability of players to slam and demean other players they have a beef with "because they can".

So you'd rather play a high-ranked and cunning strategist who's also the biggest prick that walks the face of this earth, than a sergeant who makes some 'statistic mistakes' but is very friendly and gives you a good feeling when playing this game?
I sure wouldn't.

[PLAYER57832]

The content of the Wall is completely at the mercy of the recipient, so you will keep the good and throw away the bad.

Actually, I tend to delete them all or its just too much like bragging.

It does not hold the same impact or import as the old sanctioned and easily available comment system.

Agreed


The ratings just are not clear enough. No system is going to be perfect, but the more I look at those ratings, the less I see any real information. What we really want to know is if a person is a jerk. But just what does that mean? The problem is "jerk" is different things to different people with very few exceptions (threats, extreme racism, plus a few gameplay issues like leaving when losing .. etc.)

Automating attendance took out one big "bone of contention" -- folks giving poor ratings for what really was just attendance.

Maybe we could deal with some other issues?

I am not sure your idea would work, Jiminski, but I DO think we can do better in the descriptive tags.

[ws1]

ru fricking kidding? Oh lets make the rating system more even so noones feelings get hurt. (sarcasam intendeded) Go back to playground pussesses

[Limey Lyons]

SUCK MY COCK. STAR RATINGS ARE SHITE>

[Army of GOD]

ru fricking kidding? Oh lets make the rating system more even so noones feelings get hurt. (sarcasam intendeded) Go back to playground pussesses

Do you talk to people from 2 years in the past often or is this just a one time deal?

SUCK MY COCK. STAR RATINGS ARE SHITE>

And please. All sexual requests must be sent to either: MegasWoman or jefjef (don't worry, I got you guys covered )