The issue with average

[owenshooter]

Saying the ratings are flawed, so soon, is similar to getting bad dice in 2 games, and saying there must be something wrong with them.

No, it's like saying I have a brain and can predict where the ratings are going. You don't have to experience everything for an extended amount of time to know that it isn't good.

And if the real average does end up north of 3, when 3 has been set as "average" by the mods, then there is a flaw in the system. The flaw is that people don't like to be average, so they give higher than average marks. I don't need another month of the system to know that.

hmmm, let me look at you, hephestes, and rate you in my own way. not being rude, just showing you how MY process works. you've been here for 3 months, have played 175 games, won 25% of them and have 10 positive feedbacks (mostly from low ranking players). as of now, you are a 4.9 rated player. if it were the old system, i would consider you a below average player and not expect a very good match from you. not trying to slag you, just telling you how i personally used the tools on players pages to determine if i wanted to play them. so, based on your old rating, i predict you will shake out around a 3-3.2... i am giving 5's and 4's to players i enjoy games with, just like i only handed out positive feedbacks to people i enjoyed games with. soooo, by my standards, i am going to look at your 4.9 and mis-interpret the type of player you are, and get in a game, and possibly be disappointed. it is all relative to how we all perceive the new ratings to be. and Timminz is right, contrary to all the spam going up in the forum, average is more than likely going to shake out to be inbetween 4-5, just like feedback was skewed to the positive side, more than the negative. if you saw a player with 10 negs, you knew they were trouble. more? drop the game!!! not trying to slag you, just giving how i would look AT YOU as a player based on the old and new systems.-0

[Simon Viavant]

I have the same problem with school grades. When teachers make us rate papers of other people, there can be catagories out of four, like effort, neatness, mla bullshit, etc, and I think three out of four seems pretty good. Then after I'm done I wonder "How the hell did I give him a C, I thought his paper was good?" I agree, the lowest rating I've seen on anyone is a 4.2. I always end up giving people fives. You have to give a 5 for attendance in most cases. In fairplay, that's kind of yes or no, not really out of 5 so I have to give a five. In additude, unless someone's a douche I feel like an asshole if I don't give them a five. If there was a catagory for strategy, I could give a real rating I think.

[jbrettlip]

There's an issue with the new ratings, or at least with the perception of them. The basis of this can be illustrated with the following quote: "The average person thinks he isn't." That is where the problem lies. In today's society, especially American society, people are conditioned to believe that they are special, that they are important because there is a belief that if people aren't told this their feelings will get hurt or they will have poor self esteem or some such nonsense.

So how does this apply to ratings? Well that's simple if we look at the guidelines given by Lack and Co regarding number of stars in a rating.

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent

Hrm, that doesn't seem consistent with what people do (I'm including myself in this). People assume that if they play a good game they should be rewarded with a 5 or at the very worst a 4. This just doesn't make sense. In an 10 player game if you pick random players you ideally would have 1 person with a 1, 2 with a 2, 4 with a 3, 2 with a 4, 1 with a 5. That would be the closest fit to a bell curve. If 100 people are rated then theoretically 2 should get a 1, 14 should get a 2, 68 should get a 3, 14 should get a 4, 2 should get a 5.

In reality I get somewhat insulted if I get a 3 and I'm very insulted if I get a 2. I recently get a rating finalized in a game where a guy gave me a 2 and I was kinda upset about it. The more I think about it the more I realize that neither I nor anyone else should really be expecting a 5. Do I log on and take my turns? Yes. Do I try and take them quickly? Yes. Does that make me 'Excellent'? It shouldn't, it should make me roughly average or above average.

So that's my thoughts. Did I really have a reason or a point to make, kinda but not really. I was just bored at work and thought I'd throw you guys some reading material

American society????Sounds racist to me...

[Gypsys Kiss]

There's an issue with the new ratings, or at least with the perception of them. The basis of this can be illustrated with the following quote: "The average person thinks he isn't." That is where the problem lies. In today's society, especially American society, people are conditioned to believe that they are special, that they are important because there is a belief that if people aren't told this their feelings will get hurt or they will have poor self esteem or some such nonsense.

So how does this apply to ratings? Well that's simple if we look at the guidelines given by Lack and Co regarding number of stars in a rating.

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent

Hrm, that doesn't seem consistent with what people do (I'm including myself in this). People assume that if they play a good game they should be rewarded with a 5 or at the very worst a 4. This just doesn't make sense. In an 10 player game if you pick random players you ideally would have 1 person with a 1, 2 with a 2, 4 with a 3, 2 with a 4, 1 with a 5. That would be the closest fit to a bell curve. If 100 people are rated then theoretically 2 should get a 1, 14 should get a 2, 68 should get a 3, 14 should get a 4, 2 should get a 5.

In reality I get somewhat insulted if I get a 3 and I'm very insulted if I get a 2. I recently get a rating finalized in a game where a guy gave me a 2 and I was kinda upset about it. The more I think about it the more I realize that neither I nor anyone else should really be expecting a 5. Do I log on and take my turns? Yes. Do I try and take them quickly? Yes. Does that make me 'Excellent'? It shouldn't, it should make me roughly average or above average.

So that's my thoughts. Did I really have a reason or a point to make, kinda but not really. I was just bored at work and thought I'd throw you guys some reading material

American society????Sounds racist to me...

You want to get your hearing checked in that case.