It has been several months since the rating system was changed. We were told "give it time". We have and I strongly believe the consensus is this current system is just not working. I am putting it here, though so it can be discussed before heading for Suggs and Bugs.
SUMMARY
Quick fixes:
Put in a "keep this rating" button-- click it and star turns to "already rated"
Have a differant color 1/2 star (or some other indicator) for "all 5s" ratings.
Longer term solutions:
Have team ratings and tags that show up ONLY for team games
Have a seperate Assassin rating line that shows up only for Assassin type games.
Instead of the new rating completely replacing the old, it would be averaged with those ratings you have given before. Also an option to have that rating count for games you have played previously but not rated. (this might be limited for negatives to prevent "revenge" ratings). Link: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53597
Clarify better what ratings actually mean. Perhaps combine with Jiminskis community moderation model
Problems:
"Easy fix" issues
For people who play a lot of games AND rate people a lot, rating is a royal pain. If I want to go back and change a rating for someone.. be it up OR down, I have to either remember the name of the person after the game is over (and with 100 games, that is difficult) or go through each game, each person I have rated previously to make sure I have rated them correctly
WORSE, if I want the rating to stay, there is not way to say "keep this rating, its OK". That means that I generally have around 70 people I have rated before. I either have to click on the rating, change something (I try to pick an innocuous tag, like "silent") and then go back and delete it (or just leave an inaccurate tag stand). It is a ROYAL pain. I would suggest it is one big reason a lot of people stop all but the most extreme ratings once they have their rating medals.
FIX:
minimum:
Allow a "leave this rating unchanged" option. If you click that, the star goes all yellow, meaning it is a new rating now.
better:
IN addition, since all 5's is sort of the "end point" or "goal" of ratings (if you play someone again and again, well, they should get all 5's), give an all 5 rating its own color -- green, blue.. whatever. Possibly also make all 1's red, but I don't think many people replay those they gave all 1's and I don't think many people give out all 1's anyway, so that is not critical.
result:
when you look at the list you would see gold stars for those you have just rated (like now), 1/2 a green stars for those you previously rated with all 5's. (the 1/2 is valuable still because if someone acted like a jerk, you may wish to reduce that rating) and 1/2 yellow stars for any other previous rating.
Problem ... a lot of folks suggest that we should not be giving out so many 5's. That is just a differant issue that needs another fix. This is dealing with the reality that exists and, as I put above, is a "quick fix". I deal with the actual ratings below.
Special issues
I put these next because they are independent of the overall rating problems and can be dealt with independently, more quickly perhaps.
TEAMS:
problem:
Criteria for team play is very differant from singles play. You can like playing someone, but absolutely not want them on your team either because they play terribly or don't communicate well... or just have a very differant playing style from your own.
This is a feature that people used to look at, but now... sure, you can click on the rating, but because this is jumbled in with other ratings the information gets too easily "lost" in the "shuffle". There is no way to even know if the person being rated actually played teams. (in many cases, they may have played teams previously, but it is just hard to tell).
A second issue is the whole "do I rate my own team only or is it reasonable to rate the other team members as well, even though I really don't know what happened 'behind the scenes', in chat and so forth".
solution:
Have a separate rating that plops up ONLY if you are playing team. I would prefer it be only for team members. If the opponents are to be rated, too, it should be a separate category. Something like "Teammate rating ..."
and "overall team play rating".
These could have their own tags, that would show in addition to the regular 4 (but only 1-2 of these). choices might be "cooperative" , "poor communicator", "bully", .. perhaps also "leader" or "follower".
for your own team, you would see both options, for teammates, you would see only 1.
This SOUNDS complicated, but while it might be a programming complication, it won't be more complicated than the current system. You would simply see 1 or 2 additional lines (my preference for just the 1) for the teammate only section. and the special tags below the teammate ratings.
In the standard listings, the teammate rating and tags would replace the standard tags, one set for your teammates and either the standard tage or a general team set of tags for the opponents and teammates. The summary would appear just like it does now, except there would be another line for team ratings.
ASSASSIN:
The biggest problem in assassin is, of course, people playing who just don't know how to play.
This certainly does not deserve a good rating, but is it really fair that those all 1's be simply combined with the rest? And, as above, it is currently hard to see if there is an issue with a person playing Assassin or not.
Solution:
Again, a separate rating that will appear strictly for assassin games. As above, it will appear just below the other ratings in the summary.
Benefit -- it will be easy to just click on someone's ratings to see how they have done in Assassin game specifically. The regular information will still be there, too, but you won't have to weed through ALL the ratings to get just stuff to do with Assassin games.
BIGGER ISSUES
Now for the "meat" and bigger, harder to fix issues.
BASIC BACKGROUND:
I believe that the primary purpose of ratings is to tell people whether they want to play someone or not. Currently, the rating just don't tell us that AT ALL, for a lot of reasons.
Many of the current tags are redundant or simply irrelevant. Others just have so little real meaning (balanced play? and what does it matter if someone is a "coward") Further, the ratings and tags are used so inconsistantly (largely because nothing is clear) that they are completely useless in deciding if we should play a person or not.
We all know that the old system was not workable, had to change. However, this new system does nothing. I don't think I am the only one by far who is about to plain stop rating people ... and I am someone who has rated just about EVERYONE (I have begun not rating people if they screw up once or twice, but I am not willing to say they are forever a 1 or 2 or 3)
The following was the most recent, relevant (lack approved) thread on the matter:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54737&hilit=Community+Ratings
PROBLEM #1:
It is hard to go back through all the games you have had with someone before. I might do that if I play someone I gave all 3's to or some such, but mostly .. it means that the rating is only reflecting the most recent game. This is particularly an issue since I may have played some people before the rating system changed. If I hit someone on a bad day and don't happen to remember that I have had 100 wonderful games with them before... it can be a problem.
SOLUTION: The basic solution is to average each person's ratings for a particular person. If they were averaged, it would not matter how you rated them before, unless it were before this rating system was implemented. In that case, where you have rated someone under the old systems, but not the new one (fewer and fewer), it might be nice to see a link to that old rating. However, those cases grow fewer and fewer and unless it is just an easy program, might not be worth the effort required.
ADDED SOLUTION:
A lot of people cannot be bothered to rate a person every game, especially if you play the same person over and over. If the ratings are averaged, it might be nice to be able to rate someone for several games at once. They would all get the same rating and the numbers would be averaged. (that is, if you previously gave someone an average of 4.9 for 10 games and now want to rate them for 50 games with all 5's.. the formula would be
{4.9*10+5.0*50}/60= ).
Potential issue/solution: There is the potential for someone to get really angry and then rate 20 games negatively, even though they have previously enjoyed playing that person. If this is allowed, it should probably be only allowed for positive ratings ... say ratings of 4 or more (or whatever limit is decided). If you want to rate more specifically than that, then you should just rate individually.
PROBLEM #3:
It is difficult to find patterns under the current system. Everybody has a bad day, but unless someone is a complete jerk, it is rare that I would put them on my ignore list for just 1 game. A pattern of less than wonderful behavior is a differant story. The only way to know under the current system is to go back and visit each previous game. That is a royal pain and just not worth the bother in most cases. Should I play someone I have given all 2's or 3's before, I might do it ... but only if I have played just a few games.
SOLUTION A: Now, you click on "rate this person" and you see how you rated them last and options to change.
Adding in a link to the games you have played with that person would make it much easier to go back and verify. It would be really nice to know how you have rated someone before, but since ratings are not retained (?), that is not possible. A compromise might be to allow someone to designate a game as "one to watch". If someone acts like a jerk, (or is outstanding), I can designate that as a "game to watch". Then, in the future I can look back and see if it was just one game out of 50 or if there is a pattern. Ideally, this should be "saved" temporarily, or maybe appear as a type of "pop up" screen, so that you can go between this and the ratings screen easily.
SOLUTION B: Allow a person to enter a private comment, a "note to self" the shows up when rerating a person. (There'd need to be some indication that there is a note -- differant star color, or just a tag next to the rating, etc. ) This would allow you to note if there was some "borderline" situation. Maybe someone missed a turn (even deadbeat) or complained about losing dice or ???... either its not enough for you to want to "permanently" give them a lower rating, or maybe you have played fine games with them before and want to just give them the benefit of the doubt for a bit. You could type in a note ("threw tantrum once", or "deadbeat, but really looked like it was a computer issue ... etc.).
PROBLEM 4:
The current system is just TOO subjective!
I don't have a real issue with the 5 star system. I think 3 was clearer, but 5 could be better if the ratings were explained better. I believe we all understand that ratings are subjective. People DO feel differantly about differant issues and you will always have the plain jerks who just think its fun or cute to give all 1's (or whatever the equivalent is). Still, this system is well beyond that. Again, when I read experienced player after experienced saying, basically that they wish the ratings were real, but since they aren't they will jusy give all 5's... it is an issue.
That is maybe all 5's is OK, IF it actually means something! Shoot, most people got positive ratings under the old system. That was fine. The problem now is that those all 5's mean nothing. Nor does a rating of 4 or 3 .
SOLUTION:
Define the specific ratings more clearly, citing specific behaviors.
The difficulty with this is that the pickier, the clearer, the definitions, the more likely someone will not use them and others will complain. There are 2 ways to see this. The first is that most CC people try to do a decent job of rating. (the currently leaning towards all 5's is actually a part of this .. most people are more worried about unduly rating someone down than giving too high a rating). The few jerks will be there, but just as in the past, a poor rating by one or two people just does not matter. Its a consistant pattern that matters. The other possibility is to use Jiminski's community moderated idea (see link viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53597) or a variation.
The biggest issue mentioned to date is the need to reveal a personal email account when using the e-ticket process. Those having access to that information in CC are carefully "vetted", NOT possible for random volunteers. However, it seems like that e-ticket system could change. That is, why would it be necessary to use the current "e-ticket" system? What about creating a pm type box instead. pms could enter the box and then be randomly referred to specific community members (on a rotating basis). They would only judicate. If an issue was deemed worthy, THEN the jury would send a specific request to the mods to delete/take action on an issue.
One option is NOT available ... to require mods and admin to monitor ratings. It is NOT possible, so do not suggest it!
I have taken all the issues I can think of into account here. If there are any others, I will edit.
I know this post is long, but I think doing a full and complete evaluation is better than a "one by one" patch and fix.
