Ratings Reloaded - Community Consultation - UPDATED

[n00blet]

Or you could save yourself some time and bring back the old system which EVERYONE BAR THE MODS WANT.

One quick way to fix the problem for mods: write a script so any e-tickets filled out containing the word "feedback" is automatically deleted.

Problem solved. Everyone's happy BAR THE WHINERS WHO NO ONE CARES ABOUT ANYWAYS

[lackattack]

We heard you the first time, suggs. Repeating yourself over and over is not helpful - it has become noise.

Written comments were a mess and led to much more dispute and unhappiness. Leaving written comments unmoderated would still leave us with too many angry members offended by comments.

Ratings currently has advantages and disadvantages over feedbacks. How can we get the best of both worlds? Try working *with* us to make CC better.

Oh, and not everyone wants to go back to the old system instead of fixing ratings (although those that do are much more vocal).

[snapdoodle]

i don't want this to be like ebay.

"This player was A++++++++++++++. Would play again!"

[charliec]

If for what ever reason you piss someone off in a game he can leave you all ones , this is especially maddening when you get a 1 for attendence even if you took all your turns in time. Attendence is an important rating and as it is objective can it be automated?
Fair play and attitude are too similar and could be merged.In my limited experience the teamwork rating is not being abused.
Thanks for listening , keep up the good service.

[DukeToshiro]

Written comments were a mess and led to much more dispute and unhappiness. Leaving written comments unmoderated would still leave us with too many angry members offended by comments..

The written comments didn't look like a mess to me. It looks like community moderation would be a great thing for you to look into. It seems like it would solve a lot of problems and allow us to ditch this ratings thing.

The comment tags thing is a nice idea, but it would be as pointless as the stars unless it was game specific. Leaving written responses to comments sounds good, but in reality all we will end up with is a page full of comments saying "I have no idea why this rating was left".

A big reason why this system is useless is the fact that everyone has a different idea of how people should be rated. Five stars is too ambiguous. I have a user on my foe list who had literally hundreds of negative feedback under the old system. I got a pm from him a couple days ago saying, "Look! I've got a 4.6 rating now. Could you please remove me from your foe list since my reputation is now good?" I went over and looked at his ratings and he had been deadbeating games, cursing, etc., yet all of those bad ratings were being swallowed up by the blanket five star ratings people were leaving. So here we have a horrible player who has a great rating number. This is the kind of thing that frustrates people and makes them want to post on this board in an attempt to get this change either revoked or severely altered.

[wicked]

There would be some of the same disagreements in community moderation as there were in the feedbacks.

[DukeToshiro]

There would be some of the same disagreements in community moderation as there were in the feedbacks.

Like what, exactly?

[mountainbill]

When my kids were in high school the teachers gave them grades and selected comments from a drop down menu; ex -a) good student, b) doesn't apply himself' c) a pleasure to have in class. Maybe something like this could work and still keep an avenue open for the seriously pissed off or extremely pleased to make written comments.

[PLAYER57832]

i don't want this to be like ebay.

"This player was A++++++++++++++. Would play again!"

I have heard a lot of references to e-bay, but CC is distinctly different from e-bay.

In the one, folks try to buy and sell for profit ... conduct business. There are more or less set standards. You lie about merchandise, fail to deliver as promised or fail to pay, etc... and everybody pretty well feels the same. The "grey areas" are pretty few and even they can be spelled out (smoking, return issues, etc.)

Here, it is about fun. The standards of decorum vary WIDELY. Some people think tossing insults is good fun, others are offended. Some like this tactic, some like that one. There is no one standard

Even when it comes to deadbeating ... the closest to a universal "no" in CC, some of us are tolerant if a person has computer or other issues (apologies go a long way!), some couldn't care less why.

Maybe one partial solution to this (??) is to let people post certain self-proclaimed attributes in their profiles. Things like "prefers real time"; ...etc. OR, perhaps more space (other than jobs, hobbies) for people to describe their gaming style.

Unfortunately, it might just open up another can of worms, if people expected these attributes to be somehow enforceable, but on the other hand, what someone says about themselves is ... well what they say.

[khushhal]

just read the entire post... vast majority (by a far margin) want the written feedback system back!!!!

[Chariot of Fire]

If I may draw an analogy.....

I'm a copious drinker of wine (it's what keeps me on here for indecent lengths of time) and I appreciate a good tipple and a recommendation on a certain label or vintage.

Some clown came up with a star rating system that is used across the board for all grape varietals. So a 97* Merlot may be on a par with a 97* Cab Sav. What a crock! I want to read about the complexities and the character of the wine, not just the fact that A.N. Arse rates it a 97.

But that's what the medal system is for. Each type of game gets its own medal, single, double, assassin, and so forth. You can tell at a glance what type of player a person is by looking at their medals. So a pure Cab Franc would have one type of medal, and a Pinot Grigio another medal and for most of us players we would have a mixture of grapes.

Even then it doesn't describe things on a map by map basis. Some people may be doodle earth assassins, or AOR doubles, or some peple may be KLOBBER. You need a complex matrix to get into that level of detail.

The topic is the ratings system, not the medals (the concept of which is fine, though as one wag wrote it does show what a wasted life one leads)

[JoshyBoy]

It was changed because it was too much work for the mods.

PFFT! Thats gotta be one of the lamest excuses like... ok if it was why not make more mods... and if you say they are hard to find then give people trials as feedback mods or something or make them sit a test or something

[tzor]

Or you could save yourself some time and bring back the old system which EVERYONE BAR THE MODS WANT.

I do not want the old system back.
I am not a mod.
Therefore you are wrong as not everyone bar the mods wants the old system.
Q.E.D.

[jiminski]

Or you could save yourself some time and bring back the old system which EVERYONE BAR THE MODS WANT.

I do not want the old system back.
I am not a mod.
Therefore you are wrong as not everyone bar the mods wants the old system.
Q.E.D.

*little yella-fella rolling eyes to the heavens*

FACT Sugsy!

heheh of course you are correct... i don't really think the Q.E.D. was toooootally necessary however. *wink*

but for sure, some people are happy with the new system.. i have to say it seems to be mostly those who now have a clean sheet and got rid of countless negatives. (It certainly could be they are just the most 'vocal' due to their vested interest..) They now have carte blanche to rip-off the next batch of new players for their points.

But I think the new system is neither without merit nor completely useless. (Although i will never use it)
They are trying to get it right, as they always do, however i think we are stuck with the essence of the system due to the unavoidable labour intensive nature of the old feedback and the time and effort invested into the new structure.

I still think the community moderated system would work but i can see there is no real desire to have anything to do with it.. That is a shame! i think everyone could have what they need and it would also be fun.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

Lack if you think that community enforcement over comments won't work(I personally disagree on that matter and either way it can be made clear that mods won't delete them after they show up 5 days after the game with an opportunity to put a response back to counter the negative comments) then go with some preset comments that cover a range of attributes in a drop box.

Could have things such as Fast player, missed a turn, missed multiple turns, took a long time b/t turns among the attendance things

For fair play/attitude can have things like "very friendly, didn't really say much, cursed a lot, blamed others for his problems, suicided, played illogically etc..."

[tzor]

FACT Sugsy!

heheh of course you are correct... i don't really think the Q.E.D. was toooootally necessary however. *wink*

but for sure, some people are happy with the new system.. i have to say it seems to be mostly those who now have a clean sheet and got rid of countless negatives. (It certainly could be they are just the most 'vocal' due to their vested interest..) They now have carte blanche to rip-off the next batch of new players for their points.

I know the Q.E.D. was over the top. It's sort of like beating Tiger Woods in a single hole in match play and high fiving your caddy. I mean this is Suggy we are talking about.

Yet I think I have made it clear somewhere in this thread tha I've never had a single negative comment. So why do I like the new system over the old (note that I do not say that there is not plenty of room for improvement)? Mostly because the old system wasn't all that good to determine the rotten fruit in the basket either. Negatives are often given out for petty reasons, positives were often just fluff statements. More often it was the game and not the player that was commented on. Trying to find deadbeaters, for example, required due dilligence searching for those needles in the haystack of the old system. (Honestly the best deadbeat indicator is still the "?" in the rank; sad but true.)

I really like a lot of the suggestions; perhaps some criteria should be automated, perhaps we need to put in new criteria, but the point is that if I see a person I can tell at a glance whether he makes his teammates happy or whether he misses turns, or whether he is nice person. I don't have to wade through a ton of text messages to get this information.

Clearly the system could use some improvement, but I thnk we need to refine how we determine the criteria is the way to go. We need to determine the fundamental questions a player might want to know about another player at a glance and then the ways we can enumerate that in terms of a simple ranking criterion. The result should be a way to let everyone know about the nice people on the site as well as those ... like KLOBBER. This might require a little more thought on the criteria.

[congobill]

I'm writing a program to calculate missed turn and deadbeat %s. Hopefully that will give some useful data with which to replace the Attendance attribute.

Thanks lack,

This is something I've been waiting for a long time.

[Snorri1234]

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 left honest ratings for someone who had an attitude and gang banged me using another player. Left him good attendance etc.
What do get. Retaliatorry 1's for all ratings! Stinks.

Guys, stop trying to blame everything on ratings. Both of these unfair situations would have happened with the old feedback system.

Yes, but with the old feedback system you could more easily check if the comment was warranted. You could reply to the comment and usually take away any doubts.

However, I think the main problem people have with this is just because it's new. Getting all 1's from one player is pretty shitty now, but when you've played more opponents you will hardly notice those comments.

[danfrank]

I like this rating system it eliminates feedback. Realistically no one is going to have a perfect rating it is just not possible with all the different personalties that play on conquer club.. What seems as fair play to one may not seem that way to another. But in reality war is war and never fair. It is only an opinion of the player by other players.. What i would like to see is game stats on players where categories could include, missed turns , deadbeated games, wins , losses , Most played map. ETC. That would be the only realistic rating on a player.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

Well I personally preferred the old one. I get a 3 for "atittude" evidently because I don't respond when someone is complaining about how this is why they never play 1 on 1 anymore. I did say gg after I won, but cest la vie. Ignore list for them even though I didn't penalize them for their whining.

[ilarry]

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!

Please hold on just a minute ... a fifth element should (could) be loaded into the rating system: it concerns revenge --- open another for a fifth option to rate from 5 to 0 stars for revenge upon your opponent ... since many folks are taking revenge on the other 4 options instead of answering fairly ... as an example: If me and my partner win a game through our good partnership and combined skills yet our opponent awards us less than 5.0 on all categories (or on any categories) its as obvious as hades he's/she's seeking revenge - and everybody knows it. Why don't you?
Many are going to do it regardless; however, if its obvious, to a moderator, that revenge took place you would be able to police it pretty easily. Given revenge, as one of the options, everybody could vent their anger at losing to any opponent without running afoul of the rules.
Give it a try.

[vasko_macedonia]

??

[Suzy1]

My main complaint about the rating system is people leaving me a 1 for Attendance when I haven't missed a single turn in the games where I am being rated that. It is obviously not an accurate rating and shouldn't be allowed! Thanks

[qwiscustodiet]

i think you program for calculating deadbeats will be great. that is one of the reasons why i like the feedback, if someone deadbeat someone would leave them a neg and explain it. with the new rating system you can not always assume that because a player has a low rating for attendance that they deadbeat. it could just be a sour player leaving stupid, un-called for ratings,

[ilarry]

My main complaint about the rating system is people leaving me a 1 for Attendance when I haven't missed a single turn in the games where I am being rated that. It is obviously not an accurate rating and shouldn't be allowed! Thanks

Suzy1, this is also one of my minor irritations with some other players - If we miss no turns ... then they are transferring their anger, disappointment with themselves or for something they just have no good reason for doing --- into the ratings. It all translates into unfairness. If there were another rating for Anger, revenge, etc. then the moderators could more easily determine if the first 4 rating factors, by looking at the examples provided them, were tainted by any of the reasons the 5th factor is included into the rating system for.
I have many good examples I can provide to anyone from I and my partner's logs of doubles games. We won 2 doubles matches against the same doubles opponents.
The opponents who lost rated us down one star on our attendance & attitude and our partnership by 5 stars. There were no adequate reasons, what-so-ever, for this rating except revenge for there big losses. I have logs of many of these types of things I can bring forth to show anyone the facts and my partner has more. I've provided these logs to lackattack for evidence; however, he hasn't even bothered to reply. Does this mean he thinks it's a bad idea --- no! He is waiting for someone else to bring these types of examples to him to. Please do so so that he can see the unfairness and revenge motives that appear self-evident in our records.
Thanks,
Larry