Suggested Simplified and Meaningful Ratings System

[ctgottapee]

Star ratings: they suck;

initially i suggested Thumbs Up/Neutral/Down, but i think some members nailed it better
have only one rating called "Game Experience:" with three different ratings: "Impressed - Satisfied - Disappointed"
the tags or written feedback can explain it any further if need be.

Impressive = I would seek out and recommend others to play with/against this player
Satisfied{DEFAULT] = I have no objections to playing with/against this quality player again, nor should other players
Disappointed = I will probably refrain from joining games with this player and suggest other players avoid them too

this solves the most important aspect of what the ratings system is meant to do; tell you if someone should be avoided or not
most players are CC are average and play average games, so there is no reason bothering with those ratings and nobody really cares about them. their is no confussion.


your ratings score would be the result of two numbers:
percentage of people rating you Impressive / percentage of people rating you disappointing
so your score would be something like 21% impressed / 10% disappointed for a score of "2.1"
an ideal score would be 25% impressed / 5% disappointed = "5.0" rating
an awesome score would be 33% impressed / 3% disappointed = "10.0" rating

these calculations will allow a greater spread in the point system so every playe doesn't basically have the same score like they do now (4.6 or 4.7 or 4. which basically means nothing

ratings are per player, not per game, so players can improve their play to become higher rated and not be penalized for older newb/learning play which shouldn't affect their current rating. players have no rating for their first 8 games so newbs can throw off the scores.

also, players will have a rating based on the ratings they give, ie your a 2.1 rated player, and you give 3.4 ratings
this self moderates the feedback systems as players who give excessive Impressed/disappointed ratings can be monitored automatically. if you give half the people you play awesome ratings, then something is wrong; likewise for negative ratings.

!!players who go out of bounds with ratings will have their rating privledges taken away and all there prior ratings changed to Satisfied!!

this simplifies the system, one simple rating. also for average players you don't have to bother rating them as they automatically get the default average rating of satisfied.

[cicero]

your ratings score would be the result of two numbers:
percentage of people rating you Impressive / percentage of people rating you disappointing
so your score would be something like 21% impressed / 10% disappointed for a score of "2.1"
an ideal score would be 25% impressed / 5% disappointed = "5.0" rating
an awesome score would be 33% impressed / 3% disappointed = "10.0" rating

so 1% impressed /1% disappointed = "1.0" rating
... 49% impressed / 49% disappointed = "1.0" rating ?

Isn't there a lot of information lost there ? Those two players look very different to me - the first one doesn't really offend or impress anyone, the second one certainly polarises people into having an opinion one way or the other! But their ratings are the same under the suggested system ...

I know you're going for simplicity, but can the system be tweaked a little to address this?

[ctgottapee]

good points cicero, but that is intentional

this is because it allows good ratings to counterbalance the bad.
if half the people think your awesome, and half think your shit 49%/49%, then a 1.0 rating would be a justified measure for someone looking at you and deciding to play with you; you are a real crap shoot, just as much as a crap shoot as a 1%/1% player. also see how a half and half player has a 1.0 rating, a good number to indicate averageness. anyone with more negative ratings will be below 1.0 which is another simple indicator.

the overall percentage numbers would be listed on your profile, so if you needed more info you could have it, along with the tags and what not.
you could also just use those two numbers as the rating, ie a 49/29 player, but that number is not as easy and concise to discern with, and you don't get the beneift of equalizing the ratings out, nor having the numbers be similar to the standard used now.

of course there will always be the rare exception, but taking that into account destroys the simplicity and ease for the other 99.9% who need understandable ratings.


my system attempts to solve and improve on many areas
> point spread < widening the ratings spread to give more meaningful ratings, rather than just everyone ending up with the same rating as now
> meaning < the rating number has quickly discernable meanings
less than 1.0 more complaints than praises, warning
equal to 1.0, below average half and half player
1.0 to 5.0 range, where most players live
above 5.0, the exceptional players
> usefulness < this ratings system rates what players care about most, whether to join games or avoid games with other players; who cares if playerX gave you a 4star attitude... i just want to know if playerX would avoid you again so i can avoid you
> simplification < one simple user clickable rating with three simple clearly defined choices
> automation < the ratings system polices itself by keeping track of the ratings you give and receive so erroneous ratings can be moderated easily or even automatically, ie you can't rate more than 33% of people impressed/disastisfied
AND average rated players are rated automatically by default without any user intervention after the game.