Conquer Club

Agree with the idea, except that not rating should not count at all

The 'average' rating should be the average of... ratings... not the average including unrated games



'YES' is winning 69 vs 68

I think you'll need a much bigger ratio of yes to nos to convince the moderators to change the rating system. I would look for an 80% in favour of change if any changes were to be made.

The way the current ratings system is used is fucking stupid. That's a fact.

wrestler1ump wrote:Or allow people to give each person they play a negative, neutral, or positive. Then they can still use the words that are currently used.

That is a much, much better idea than the stars system.

The ratings submitted by each individual should be normalized instead of normalizing the total cc community ratings. This way, regardless if an individual tends to give more above or below average ratings, all the ratings given by them will average the cc community's definition of "average". This method would also effectively normalize the total cc community ratings, since each contributors average rating would be the same. Also, each individual's submissions could be adjusted to fit a standard bell curve, making sure a person who gives predominantly 1s and 5s wouldn't skew the data more than a person who predominantly gives 2s and 4s. The average deviation between each grouping of three rating types could be calculated for each individual, then adjusted to match the average deviation between rating type groupings for the entire cc community. This third adjustment would magnify differences between the three rating types given for individuals that tend to give the same, or similar ratings for the three types. All said and done, people could fill in ratings intuitively without messing up the rating system.

Factoring in a "no rating" as a 0 is going to affect people who play lots of games. Right now, I hardly ever leave ratings unless I'm playing someone that I haven't left a rating for and who played particularly well. If this is implemented according to the suggestion, many of my opponents are going to be negatively impacted.

I note that the OP played a total of 115 games on this site, and he had only completed 15 games when he proposed this. There are people here with tens of thousands of games.

macbone, I addressed that on the last page. Quoting.

Metsfanmax wrote:

bigWham wrote:This Suggestion has been moved from Submitted with Questions:

- Setting a default rating of 0 will tend to penalize players that play more games. This needs resolution.

No, it will not, to zeroth order. If we assume that the rating rate is constant among all types of players, then people who play lots of games will receive the same percentage of ratings from their games as people who play few games. It is that percentage that matters in calculating the rating, not the absolute number of ratings the player receives.

I think the first order effect is not likely to penalize them either, since people who play lots of games are probably at least as likely to leave ratings on games as people who don't, and they may even leave ratings more often (due to, say, wanting to obtain the ratings medal, etc.).

One way that we could completely eliminate any concern about this is to only activate this for games in which you have left at least one rating. If you don't leave any ratings for a game, then perhaps we should just not trigger this.