Ratings Reloaded - Community Consultation - UPDATED

[animorpherv1]

1. The biggest problem that I could tell was a lot of "retalitory" feedback with the written comments. If it's set-up where the person doesn't see the comments for 5 days until the game is locked, this would be eliminated. The only way that the feedback would really be "retalitory" would be if some idiot told the other one that I'm going to leave you negative feedback" in which case they deserve receiving the neg for stupidity. The person receiving the neg. comment should be able to post their "response" to the complaint just like before.

You're 100% right about that. The best solution to feedback complaints would be to implement the "hidden until archived" aspect of the new ratings to the old feedback system. I have a feeling that the vast, vast majority of feedback complaints came from retaliatory feedback.

I don't agree, the user will still see all the wrong things said about him/herself, so why not have the less busy mods look through the feedback before it gets posted?

[Optimus Prime]

1. The biggest problem that I could tell was a lot of "retalitory" feedback with the written comments. If it's set-up where the person doesn't see the comments for 5 days until the game is locked, this would be eliminated. The only way that the feedback would really be "retalitory" would be if some idiot told the other one that I'm going to leave you negative feedback" in which case they deserve receiving the neg for stupidity. The person receiving the neg. comment should be able to post their "response" to the complaint just like before.

You're 100% right about that. The best solution to feedback complaints would be to implement the "hidden until archived" aspect of the new ratings to the old feedback system. I have a feeling that the vast, vast majority of feedback complaints came from retaliatory feedback.

I don't agree, the user will still see all the wrong things said about him/herself, so why not have the less busy mods look through the feedback before it gets posted?

Because all of the Mods are busy, that's the point.

[B -- man]

ratings system stinks if u upset someone u get a rotten rating no matter what i prefer the review better

[hulmey]

1. The biggest problem that I could tell was a lot of "retalitory" feedback with the written comments. If it's set-up where the person doesn't see the comments for 5 days until the game is locked, this would be eliminated. The only way that the feedback would really be "retalitory" would be if some idiot told the other one that I'm going to leave you negative feedback" in which case they deserve receiving the neg for stupidity. The person receiving the neg. comment should be able to post their "response" to the complaint just like before.

You're 100% right about that. The best solution to feedback complaints would be to implement the "hidden until archived" aspect of the new ratings to the old feedback system. I have a feeling that the vast, vast majority of feedback complaints came from retaliatory feedback.

get some more mods in!!1 its not as if they are paid

I don't agree, the user will still see all the wrong things said about him/herself, so why not have the less busy mods look through the feedback before it gets posted?

Because all of the Mods are busy, that's the point.

[usetocould]

i know i should read all the other posts before posting and that i'm probably doing something out of order here, but i don't have time. I'm busy all day and love conquer club because i can take a few 5 minute stress breaks by conquering (or trying to) something. i've never been to any of the forums before and probably won't ever visit any of them again, but i feel strongly about putting in my 2 cents:
YOU FIXED SOMETHING THAT WASN'T BROKEN! you will never get the silly little star ratings to work as well as the old method of letting people post comments. unfortunately, you have too much effort invested in the new system to do what you should do -- trash it, forget it -- so you'll waste lots more time trying to solve a problem that you should not have invented. for me, it's no big deal except that i enjoy conquer club a little less now and may not renew or try as hard to get friends to join.

usetocould

[Raf_THFC]

I'm at the point where I'll work with the new system now.

I'd back the proposal for an automated attendance rating - mainly because I've seen people using it as a way of 'hurting' another player the most. To explain - most people will not be bothered to check games for time stamps, so giving a low rating here is a sneaky way of damaging the other players reputation. And no one wants to play with a supposed laggard. 3 would be the minimum rating for attendance for me unless they miss turns.

It's a lot easier to assess attitude ratings quickly with the find games option.

A comment to justify low fairness ratings would be useful, as this is hard to assess without spending a lot of time.

[Soloman]

I'm at the point where I'll work with the new system now.

I'd back the proposal for an automated attendance rating - mainly because I've seen people using it as a way of 'hurting' another player the most. To explain - most people will not be bothered to check games for time stamps, so giving a low rating here is a sneaky way of damaging the other players reputation. And no one wants to play with a supposed laggard. 3 would be the minimum rating for attendance for me unless they miss turns.

It's a lot easier to assess attitude ratings quickly with the find games option.

A comment to justify low fairness ratings would be useful, as this is hard to assess without spending a lot of time.

I agree on both points

[Lufsen75]

I see attendance as if a player see danger in the board. I want to keep it as the way it is now. Fair play is if he go in truces that are not to be or just to be. What the last one attitude is how I behave in the game. In chat and so on. But attendance have for me nothing to do with how fast I make my turns. I can log in once a day or ten times a day and be good anyway.

[Raf_THFC]

Well, maybe there is a misunderstanding in language, but the rules make it clear that:

Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...

This should be able to a large degree to be automated, albeit you can't cover babysitting.

[Matroshka]

Kind of off topic, but have ratings moderators been ruled out?

[Lufsen75]

deliberately prolonging rounds

How do you know this. If I only log in once a day I am not but if I log in 10 times aday but take the turn my last login then it is?

[Optimus Prime]

deliberately prolonging rounds

How do you know this. If I only log in once a day I am not but if I log in 10 times aday but take the turn my last login then it is?

I think that is actually more applicable to freestyle games where someone is purposefully attempting to run it down to the last second.

[psilotum]

My suggestion for ratings is to emulate the slashdot.org ratings system. Individual ratings may not be reviewable by other players. But the ratings could be weighted, where ratings from higher-rated players counted more than ratings from lower-rated players. I guess that would have some similarity to the RPI rankings as well.

[Fruitcake]

The crazy and bizarre thing about this system is a player who deadbeats the whole game, can then leave ratings for a player as has happened to me.

Wizards of aus never turned up to play any of the game, was kicked out after 3 turns, so contributed nothing to the experience, yet left me 2 stars for each of the categories.

This is yet another case proving how very ill thought out the whole process was.

I have an idea. Why don't we just go back to the old system.

[Soloman]

The crazy and bizarre thing about this system is a player who deadbeats the whole game, can then leave ratings for a player as has happened to me.

Wizards of aus never turned up to play any of the game, was kicked out after 3 turns, so contributed nothing to the experience, yet left me 2 stars for each of the categories.

This is yet another case proving how very ill thought out the whole process was.

I have an idea. Why don't we just go back to the old system.

I find that I am of the opinion anyone booted for deadbeats should not be able to rate as they did not participate enough to give a fair unbiased rating...

[PLAYER57832]

Hmm: Seems to me that the main thing we want to know is "should I get in a match with this player".
A simple "yes" or "no" vote would accumulate over time. so "30/20/1" might mean "30 people recommend playing this person, 20 people couldn't be arsed to comment, 1 would never play them again".

The other thing I think some players would like to know is "does this player approve of alliances/other deals"? - some players get real annoyed if someone says "I won't attack a if you won't attack b", others feel this is part of a normal game.

I sort of agree, but think folks want to know more than just about alliances. language, excessive griping or badgering other players, missing turns/deadbeating, attacking someone out of spite or "vengeance"... etc.

EDIT

I would be happy with a check-off system such as Lack described in one thread. BUT, I have a feeling it would frustrate a lot of folks and end up being useless, again.

BUT, Suggs hit the nail on the head

It seems you have ruled out written feedback, which is a mistake.
You could just set CLEAR guidelines, eg no swearing.
But anything else is fine, as you have a chance to respond to the feedback.

To all the whingers who can't hack a negative and complain, send an automated response along the lines of "see our guidelines here, we don't get involved in disputes".
Problem solved.

For one thing, I strongly suspect that many of those complaining the MOST about the old feedback were the ones it was intended to rate. I mean, I read comments here asking "why did I get this feedback" ...and more often than not want to say "well ... did you READ what you wrote?"


The only tricky issue is the missed turns issue. I like knowing whether someone misses because their computer is out or if they just leave when they are losing. BUT, I know some people don't care why ... they have little patience.

So, how about automating the turns (discussed fully in another thread).

AND unmoderated feedback.

[tzor]

I like the new system. I really didn't like the old. It's not that I have had bad feedback, on the contrary, my feedback seemed like the back cover of a best selling novel.

• Beat me resoundingly and yet I feel warm and fuzzy inside. How does he do it?
• Great teammate. After we both got isolated behind a third teammate who was doing nothing, he made a brilliant move to put us back in the game and lead to the win.
• A very smart, and sneaky player, tzor won a game by surprise; he came out of nowhere and took the whole board. tzor made the game truly fun! Great game, tzor.
• Put up a great fight and I recommend playing tzor.
• He should have won this game but, other guy hit him a little bit too hard. GG though. You really stepped through to take a huge advantage, which, early (and only early) in escalating is smart and you were strong enough to pull it off.

And so on and so forth. Note a few things here. Most of these comments are really about the game, not the player itself. If you want to use the comments to really find out about the player, given the eventual amount of such messages you will get as you play more and more games, the due dilligence involved isn't really worth the effort. And I'm a victim of nice feedback, those who get a mix of good and bad feedback are even harder to really sift through. Simply put there was a lot of noise in the old system and very little signal.

[Iffy Boatrace]

Personally, I think the old system was better than the new one, but I can see how the old system was unsustainable given the amount of people playing.

For me, the single most important thing for me to see before playing someone is their attendance. If they consistently deadbeat, I want to know before I join in. In that respect, an automated rating/percentage/number/whatever on their profile is fine.

The next most important thing is to know if that player is an ass or not. And for that, we already have the system. The first time I play someone who turns out to be an ass, he goes on my foe list. Problem solved.

The "Fair play" and "attitude" ratings are meaningless to me, I'm afraid. Noobs make stupid moves, but that's indicative of their rank to a large extent. Doesn't mean they are being "unfair". Attitude? I don't really care if someone goes off in chat about how the dice hate them etc - if they are being a big ass, they go on the foe list. I don't need a rating for that.

If it really is desired to have some sort of system, I am in favour of the Ebay style rating as described earlier in the thread. Simple thumbs up, thumbs down, or neutral. Gives you a nice easy look at what someone is likely to be like - if their feedback looks OK but you play them and they turn out to be a nightmare - put them on your foe list!

[jonesthecurl]

You could just say how many people's "foe" list a player is on, and how many "foes" they have put on their own list. This would tell you a lot about attitude.

[Prankcall]

I like the current rating system its just players can leave less than accurate ratings..Like someone said not everyone will be pleased with the ratings no matter how they are..Should change fair play to skill I'd really like to see something that dictates a persons game skills or atleast gives an idea

[SlayerQC]

Just figure it out and leave it as it is, constant changes and discussions are annoying.

Easy: bring back the old feedback system with the new rule about waiting til game is archived to avoid retaliation. Forbid mods to remove negs.

Or mix (and/or make better) the old and new system.
If CC wanted to copy Ebay new(er)feedback system, you should've copy them identically.
Personally, for now, I use my wall and other's wall to comment about unfair ratings left to me and them.

[SlayerQC]

I like the current rating system its just players can leave less than accurate ratings..Like someone said not everyone will be pleased with the ratings no matter how they are..Should change fair play to skill I'd really like to see something that dictates a persons game skills or atleast gives an idea

Aren't rankings to show skills??

[PLAYER57832]

Once NICE feature of the new system is the ability to edit your evaluation after a game.

People do change.

[DukeToshiro]

Once NICE feature of the new system is the ability to edit your evaluation after a game.

People do change.

The old feedback system allowed you to delete or edit your feedback left as well. However, the old system would let you leave a negative comment for a very bad game with that person, while at a later date leaving a positive comment about a very good game you had. Now whenever you change your rating, it alters the rating you gave for any previous games you played with that person.

[Bruceswar]

I like the current rating system its just players can leave less than accurate ratings..Like someone said not everyone will be pleased with the ratings no matter how they are..Should change fair play to skill I'd really like to see something that dictates a persons game skills or atleast gives an idea

Aren't rankings to show skills??

Not at all. Just because you win 6 doodle speed assassin games in a row does not make you as good as your rank would show. Or Klobber?