Moderator: Community Team
dazerazer wrote:Okay so here's my opinion. (Not sure if this was already mentioned as I did not spend a lot of time reading 15 pages of replys.)
If you all want a better response from ratings, try changing the format of how we can rate players. As it stands, we have to go to our "recently finished games" page and click on each individual player for the games leave a rating where it then takes us back to that page and we have to rinse and repeat.
For me personally, if we had a ratings page that had a list of players we could leave ratings for with empty stars under each of their names and a tiny map and hyperlink of the game we played with them next to their name (in case we needed to remember which game it was) it would be soooo much easier to leave ratings as it would not take nearly as long. We could then just hit "Save Ratings" at the bottom of the page and BOOM... easy cheesy!
For example the ratings page could be something like this:
"You can leave ratings for 5 people:
1. Master Fenrir (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags (set to hide by default unless you want to leave a tag then click show and check said boxes)
2. John Deere (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags
3. BKWill (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags
4. ccatman (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags
5. tdans (insert game number / map )
Fair Play xxxxx ; Gameplay xxxxx ; Attitude xxxxx
Show/Hide explanatory tags
SAVE RATINGS or UPDATE RATINGS"
So that is my thoughts on it. If you want to implement a new rating system all together I would start first with something like this. Make it less cumbersome to leave ratings and then reevaluation of a new ratings system might be more welcome by all.
temporos wrote:Concise description:
- Migrate from a "1 to 5" star system to a "-2 to +2" star system.
Specifics/Details:
- Right now: 1 is bad, 5 is awesome.
- Migrate to: -2 is bad, +2 is awesome.
- Migration should be retroactive.
- Lack of a rating should be counted as a 0 or "average" rating.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
- Right now, the average player rating is about 4.8 stars: well above the 3 star "average."
- If the scale is adjusted such that "average" is 0, anything below average is negative, and anything above average is positive, the average player rating will naturally stabilize around 0.
- If a player does not wish to leave a rating for his opponents after a match, it counts as a 0 or "average" rating.
- This proposed system will encourage a more intuitive and reliable measure of a player's attitude, gameplay, and sociability.
- Players would be compelled to leave a rating only if they wish to leave an above or below average rating for another player.
- Players aren't left jaded when someone leaves them a less-than-5-star rating (i.e., everybody wins).
Darwins_Bane wrote:I feel like this has a reached the conclusion of its discussion, moving to submitted.
TheForgivenOne wrote:temporos wrote:Then, at this point, I guess my question changes to, "Why bother with a rating system at all?" Regardless of your intention, your response is a strong argument for never rating anyone and ignoring those ratings which are given.
I rate every now and then, so i'm not saying it's pointless. If i do see someone with a 4.0 rating, then obviously they aren't fun to play with. But if you start punishing players, all because someone decides not to rate, then there will be more outcries from everyone.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
PLAYER57832 wrote:There are problems, but this won't fix anything.
macbone wrote:My job is pretty interesting. We have ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely unacceptable, 5 being excellent, but truthfully, if we're rated at 3, we're below our threshold, which is really somewhere around 4.1.
Victor Sullivan wrote:
-Sully
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.
- Clarify the problem that this suggestion is solving and whether or not there are simpler solutions (For example, wording changes to the ratings)
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.).- Clarify the problem that this suggestion is solving and whether or not there are simpler solutions (For example, wording changes to the ratings)
There are not simpler solutions because people will always rate other players too high if there is a negative incentive for rating players too low (peer pressure). The wording itself is accurate -- it's just that people ignore the wording.
bigWham wrote:ok, this is fair enough and i do see the point. if i were implementing a rating system from scratch i would do it this way... however it is going to very difficult to prioritize the effort required to make this change.
Metsfanmax wrote:bigWham wrote:ok, this is fair enough and i do see the point. if i were implementing a rating system from scratch i would do it this way... however it is going to very difficult to prioritize the effort required to make this change.
I understand that this is not going to be high on the priority list, but I still think it's the right thing to do so I wanted to leave it in Submitted either way. I don't think saying 'we can never do this' is valid because it implies that we do not care that much about the meaningfulness of our rating system (so then why do we have one?). I'll let you decide if and when you think this fits in your development schedule. If you prefer to formally veto it on grounds that it is less important than other things, please say so and move it to Rejected.
universalchiro wrote:@degaston: whatever dude you win, you have it all figured out. You have out smarted even God.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users