Conquer Club

This is only a tiny issue, but it should also be very simple to resolve. I'm only really posting it because I should be studying and am a master procrastinator.

The ratings are currently rounded down in cases when they should be rounded up.

My ratings:
Attitude: 71x5
Gameplay: 72x5
Fair Play: 72x5, 1x1

Overall:
(71+72+72)x5+1=1076
1076/216=4.98184...

One does not simply round 4.98 down to 4.9.

It is rounded correctly. For the overall score, zero-star ratings are counted (indirectly, in that it's basically summing up the number of stars you earned and dividing by the total number possible).

oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

is that sensible though? it means by giving someone a 5 in one thing and not rating the other two fields you are giving that person an overall of 1,67. why not only calculate what has actually been rated?

Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.

so, if you got 2/5 for gameplay and 0/5 for attitude and the other one(i forget what it is right now), your rating for that particular game would be 2/15? i was always under the assumption that it would just be a 2/5.
???

Metsfanmax wrote:

Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.

if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.

I didn't know that when you didn t leave full ratings you were actually giving a 0 to the overall rating.
We agree that for a particular field, it s not counted in the average though right? I ve always given 1/1/1 as the worse rating possible when someone had been horrible. So i guess 1/0/0 is actually the worse rating possible?

riskllama wrote:so, if you got 2/5 for gameplay and 0/5 for attitude and the other one(i forget what it is right now), your rating for that particular game would be 2/15? i was always under the assumption that it would just be a 2/5.
???

For the purposes of the overall rating, yes.

Nymeria Stark wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.

if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.

It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).

betiko wrote:I didn't know that when you didn t leave full ratings you were actually giving a 0 to the overall rating.
We agree that for a particular field, it s not counted in the average though right? I ve always given 1/1/1 as the worse rating possible when someone had been horrible. So i guess 1/0/0 is actually the worse rating possible?

For a particular field it's not counted, only for overall.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Nymeria Stark wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?

It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.

if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.

It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).

i highly doubt many people realise giving a 5 and leaving 2 fields blank means leaving a worse rating than giving 2/2/2. im confident apart from people that have read it in their forum (to their surprise), almost everyone assumes 1/1/1 is the worst rating you can give.

can you explain why you think people might be unhappy if this mistake was fixed? no ones rating would get worse, only those who have lower ratings than they should have would be affected, in their favour.

it is very clear in which direction it should be fixed: make 0s not count at all. they are fields that have not been rated, not fields that have been rated 0 out of 5. if 0/0/0 were an option then that would be different.

as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.

Actually, I also thought leaving 5-0-0 was good bcuz the zeros "didn't hurt".
Apparently that's not the case. I thought if I didn't have info to rate off of for a catagory I could still rate the player in the ones I had info for and not harm their score.

That makes sense, this doesn't :/

I actually kinda prided myself on giving fair ratings - whups. sorry, all...

perhaps some kind of announcement is in order? I think a lot of players were under the same assumption I was, eh?

Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.

Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.

Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.

the conversation is going in circles. now we're back to this.

Nymeria Stark wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:
It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.

if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

but im happy to agree to disagree. thanks for taking the time to reply.

riskllama wrote:perhaps some kind of announcement is in order? I think a lot of players were under the same assumption I was, eh?

i agree. people should know the ratings system is different than one naturally assumes so they can rate accordingly. i'll post in ccd.

So if someone's really shit, is it possible to rate them 0/15 instead of 3/15? I was under the impression you have to leave at least 1 star for the form to submit.

mrswdk wrote:So if someone's really shit, is it possible to rate them 0/15 instead of 3/15? I was under the impression you have to leave at least 1 star for the form to submit.

1/15 is the lowest.