Ratings [merged threads]

[jiminski]

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

Nope. The mathematical average of 1 through 5 is undoubtedly = 3... Anyone failing to realize that needs a math course (just above kindergarten level should do it ).

how long did you ponder that post ? : )

so what would the 'average' mark be if it was out of 10?
6 i suppose... well perhaps it would prove to be in most empirical studies but that is not the purely mathematical premise which you suggest.

[Matroshka]

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

Nope. The mathematical average of 1 through 5 is undoubtedly = 3... Anyone failing to realize that needs a math course (just above kindergarten level should do it ).

how long did you ponder that post ? : )

so what would the 'average' mark be if it was out of 10?
6 i suppose... well perhaps it would prove to be in most empirical studies but that is not the purely mathematical premise which you suggest.

Actually the average of 1-10 is 5.5

You are including 0 in your average Jiminski, which isn't an option in our rating system

[PLAYER57832]

Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

This is not a problem of education, it is a problem of a system that goes against basic human nature.

A couple of distinctions in players.

1. MOST people are here for fun. As such, our "goal" in CC is to have nice, pleasant games ... win or lose. We do our best. Sure, we enjoy winning, but our day is generally not ruined if we happen to lose ... even if the rolls/drop were completely one-sided.

Giving a 4 or 5 makes sense here. Being pleasant increases the chance of others being pleasant in return. The reason most of us (and I count myself here, yes) will give lower ratings is to point out something specifically wrong. In my case, I will give a 3 if someone misses a turn(s), but apologizes and seems to have a reasonable excuse. If they don't ... a 2 or maybe a 1. If they deadbeat without apology or excuse, a 1 ... else either a 2 or 3 or just a blank, depending. (I left a blank for one or two who missed on Father's Day, but in other cases I gave a high rating) Otherwise, we want to encourage and reward more pleasant behavior ...ergo 4 or 5.


A 3 is "OK", but too many people see it as a negative. Also, it just doesn't give folks the nice feeling that saying "you are above average" does.

2. A few are "hard core" about rank. These include some generally nice folks who just plain like intense competition of any kind. In general, thye will play with those not at their level and move on. Some even take the time to try and help those with lesser skills. They definitely deserve all 5's in attitude and fair play.

BUT, there are a large number of these folks who see ONLY the rank... who either rise or quit. Usually these are the ones who will moan and groan about "playing lower ranks", "bad dice", etc. I consider them plain poor sports. These are folks I would just as soon AVOID.
My goal is NOT to reach "conquerer". If I do ... fine. If I don't (and it is highly unlikely, given my skill level) I STILL enjoy the games! It can be frustrating for anyone to get a streak of losses... but, I also know they will end. If it goes on long enough I may joke a bit aobut it, try to lighten my mood, but I WON'T go screaming to the mods about "dice being rigged" or "unfair opponents" ...etc.

Many of the lower ranked folks in this category are the ones who want so badly to see skill. The higher ranked players tend to feel that rank does tell. They might argue that they should not have to play lower ranked players, because they know that luck is certainly a part, but they do not see it as the overriding factor. Some of these folks can make pleasant opponents, but many do not.


3. There are also those who might, in other circumstances, be quite pleasant folks, but who use the anonymity and nature of the internet to "play the jackass". And a few just plain jerks all around. As long as they keep it to their "own kind", all is well and good. In the old system, these folks typically had extremely high negatives and more often than not ended up getting banned unless they kept to their "own kind". (some do/did ... that is fine).


The problem now is that you don't know who is who. Over time, the super high ratings and the super low ratings will pull themselves out, but only for those who play lots and lots of games. To even find this out, you have to actually go into someone's profile. And, unless you happen to have had experience with some of the rater's, you don't know which might have left honest ratings and which are just idiots.

Nor is it even truly easy to pick out the individual components. If someone deadbeats, that perhaps should only result in a "1" in attendance. BUT, in reality, folks will say "this is a poor sport with a poor attitude" as well.

To the casual player, those distinctions matter a great deal. I don't worry if someone misses games because they have a bad internet connection or their religion prevents them from playing on certain days. I DO care if someone stomps off every time they lose.

I completely understand that the mods could not keep moderating the old system. I also understand that subjectivity WILL be a part of any player-ratin syatem. BUT, right now there are so many ways, so many different reasons for people to rate that they mean nothing. Even over time, only the MOST extreme cases will be pulled out. Even then, you won't know why. That "why" is far more critical than the actual rating.

[XsaladX]

but i find we need player skill as a rating or just bring the feedback system back

[Thezzaruz]

so what would the 'average' mark be if it was out of 10?
6 i suppose... well perhaps it would prove to be in most empirical studies but that is not the purely mathematical premise which you suggest.

Completely missing the point again I see.

The average of 1 through 5 is = 3 (not 2.5 as you said)
The average of 1 through 10 is = 5.5 (completely irrelevant to this discussion though)

The average rating left in a 1 through 5 system however is something totally different (as you said and I agreed with) as that is based on behavior and not on math.

[alster]

in a recent game I got a 1 for attitude and I was wondering what do you class as a bad attitude? I did nothing that I would mark down for but it made me think what do other people look for?

Well. You did deadbeat in a speed game.... The 1-ratings are not completely out of the blue perhaps.

[PLAYER57832]

but i find we need player skill as a rating or just bring the feedback system back

You have that already ... its called your rank. And, it is far more objective than any player rating system.

[JoshyBoy]

Cheeses sliced if CC isnt going to change it then SHADDUP!

[Fruitcake]

The whole system is open to far worse abuse than the previous system. I dispute the idea that this has been progress, it has been put in place with little forethought and little planning for the problems that have and will occur.

It is quite tyical of this site to rush something like this, and please do not say it was a long time in the making, because something this complicated takes months even years of planning to do correctly. With a full ad hoc group to review, discuss and work through the wrinkles. Instead these ad hoc groups spend months talking about the scoring system and the dice with pretty much damn all being done about anything that came out.

I have recently received 2 stars from Lizards of OZ for all categories, when he/she never even bothered to turn up to play and was kicked from the game!

If this whole system had been properly thought through, the idea that a deadbeater would be able to post scores would have been reviewed and some kind of system of check put in place.

[snifner]

then if you want a perfect rating, behave. be nice, play fast and work like a team in team games. if not: you'll just be average. or maybe slightly above average.

There well never be a perfect score with this system.
If everyone on this site entered all 3's 90 % of the time, in 6 months the lowest score would be 2.5 and the highest score well be 3.5 and thats it.

Welcome to the Special Olympics where you can be average too.

[snifner]

How about just making it a 4 star system.

Then you rate how good or how bad someone was or just leave it blank if you truly have nothing to say or didn't pay attention.

[detlef]

How about just making it a 4 star system.

Then you rate how good or how bad someone was or just leave it blank if you truly have nothing to say or didn't pay attention.

How 'bout you stop pretending that whatever you're saying will somehow become important if you increase the font?

Seriously, stop and think for one freaking second if what you just offered is any meaningful change at all. This systems has issues beyond issues. However, one of them just doesn't happen to be how many stars we use as our basis. Really? When did this epiphany strike you? I mean, it's pure genius. Somehow all the randomness, the arbitrary nature of how ratings are given, the fact that mean spirited can give undeserved ratings, and the multitude of other issues will just vanish if we just started using a 4 star system instead of 5. Why didn't I think of that?

[saywhat]

How about just making it a 4 star system.

Then you rate how good or how bad someone was or just leave it blank if you truly have nothing to say or didn't pay attention.

How 'bout you stop pretending that whatever you're saying will somehow become important if you increase the font?

Seriously, stop and think for one freaking second if what you just offered is any meaningful change at all. This systems has issues beyond issues. However, one of them just doesn't happen to be how many stars we use as our basis. Really? When did this epiphany strike you? I mean, it's pure genius. Somehow all the randomness, the arbitrary nature of how ratings are given, the fact that mean spirited can give undeserved ratings, and the multitude of other issues will just vanish if we just started using a 4 star system instead of 5. Why didn't I think of that?

very well said.

[snifner]

This systems has issues beyond issues. However, one of them just doesn't happen to be how many stars we use as our basis. Really? When did this epiphany strike you?

No need to be a jackass, smartguy. Did you read my previous post? Do you expect every poster to address every issue? Cry me a river.

And of course I see all the other problems with the system.
And to me the biggest being, if everyone on this site entered all 3's 90 % of the time, in 6 months the lowest score would be 2.5 and the highest score well be 3.5 and thats it.

Switching to a 4 star system solves most of this particular issue.

1 Star = Never took a single turn or missed too many turns & was rude ect...
2 Stars = Missed a few turns or deadbeated the end or something.
3 Stars = Above average. Didn't miss any turns and played fair.
4 Stars = Played a perfect game. Took fast turns. Played smart. Enjoyed playing with the person.
If you thought the person was average in some area leave it blank.

As far as the ARL, I never said I was against that or any other suggestion.

[snifner]

very well said.

What was well said?

I understand the "How 'bout you stop pretending that whatever you're saying will somehow become important if you increase the font?" cap.
I deserved that one... but the rest of the rant was retarded and irrelevant.

[indianmike]

So far I have not seen anybody just rave about how much they LIKE the new system. In a poll I saw more half the respondants diapproved. I still think it's fuqqed. I think the best way I can express my unhappiness is with my pocketbook. If it isn't remedied then I think I won't renew my premium membership. I can live with four games just fine, I usually have six going and not playing the other two wouldn't really be a hardship. I just got premium to help support the site. And I think if you're really unhappy you should do the same. Money talks, bullshit walks. Seems to me if I have no say in the way things are run then I'll just go do something else, no matter how much I admire lack and wish him the very best.

[detlef]

This systems has issues beyond issues. However, one of them just doesn't happen to be how many stars we use as our basis. Really? When did this epiphany strike you?

No need to be a jackass, smartguy. Did you read my previous post? Do you expect every poster to address every issue? Cry me a river.

And of course I see all the other problems with the system.
And to me the biggest being, if everyone on this site entered all 3's 90 % of the time, in 6 months the lowest score would be 2.5 and the highest score well be 3.5 and thats it.

Switching to a 4 star system solves most of this particular issue.

1 Star = Never took a single turn or missed too many turns & was rude ect...
2 Stars = Missed a few turns or deadbeated the end or something.
3 Stars = Above average. Didn't miss any turns and played fair.
4 Stars = Played a perfect game. Took fast turns. Played smart. Enjoyed playing with the person.
If you thought the person was average in some area leave it blank.

As far as the ARL, I never said I was against that or any other suggestion.

Solves what? It changes absolutely nothing other than the average score goes from 3 to, well about 2.5. Wow, imagine that. Doesn't that clear things up!

My point remains, quite simply that the issues with the system lie entirely with the fact that the ratings are given out completely arbitrarily and simply changing the arbitrary range from 1-5 to 1-4 will not change that one iota. I must say, however, that's mighty fancy set of standards you have. Do you really think that the number four is so special as to make it impossible to come up with one that goes from 1-5 that does the exact same thing? That, is really my point here. That you bothered to make a post saying, in bold faced large type, no less, that the answer was to just change from 5 to 4 stars. As if that would have any impact at all.

Now, I understand that my methods can be rather coarse and even rude. I'm guessing it really hurts badly when you put all that effort into making your type face large only to have it pointed out that you said nothing at all of merit. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't change the truth. You call my challenge to your rather well thought out plan to be "retarded and irrelevant" but I'm afraid you're going to need to explain why.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with your basic premise. But Lack created several thread that seem to be generating some real ideas for solutions.

I like the check box system, because at least you know why someone rated how they did. EXCEPT, people do lie .... and deceive themselves into blaming others because they cannot accept that they are really the one with the problem (be it strategy, attitude or whatever).

I like the written comments, though I most just looked at totals and read the negs. (I of course read my own pos). And I think worries about untrue comments are much less worrisome than untrue checks. Over time, you can pretty well tell who is a jerk by the comments they leave as much as the ones they get. Language, the other big issue can be programmed. Just change certain words automatically to **** or to #$@#

Editing comments after playing would sometimes be nice. BUT, that would mostly apply to turning a negative into a positive (you always could leave multiple negs), and I put those few I gave negs on my ignore list.

I like the idea of automating the attendance rating. A percentage would quickly be too low to be significant (everyone would be a 99% or higher). Straight numbers would be OK
2/15/10000 would mean 2 deadbeats, 15 missed turns out of 10000 games.

Some people want average turn length. I don't believe it would be very informative, but if enough people want it, I'd say put it in the profile.

I would like to see how many negs/bad ratings folks have left, as well as the ones they got.

At the very least, if the current rating system is kept (and it looks like it won't be.. just my guess), the # of people rating should be listed as well as the totals. I would actually like to see 3 seperate totals (again, if the system is kept .. I prefer a return to the old system, just unmoderated). AND, I would like some clearer guidelines on ratings. What does average really mean? .. etc.

A final small point (which I posted IN suggs and bugs) ... I believe only team mates should be able to rate for the team rating ... not opponents. They only see the "result" which is really a skill rating, not how and why stuff happened.

[Robinette]

So far I have not seen anybody just rave about how much they LIKE the new system. In a poll I saw more half the respondants diapproved. I still think it's fuqqed. I think the best way I can express my unhappiness is with my pocketbook. If it isn't remedied then I think I won't renew my premium membership. I can live with four games just fine, I usually have six going and not playing the other two wouldn't really be a hardship. I just got premium to help support the site. And I think if you're really unhappy you should do the same. Money talks, bullshit walks. Seems to me if I have no say in the way things are run then I'll just go do something else, no matter how much I admire lack and wish him the very best.

Wow... I really understand this...
not that I care about the ratings, mind you, but I really understand the concept...

here... this is how i reacted to an issue that i did care about:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53785

[IronE.GLE]

This rating system is a joke. I received a 2 on attendance from some guy and I took every turn within a few hours. He gave the other players 5 on attendance and they usually took anywhere from 15-20 hours to take their turns. This is clearly an abuse of the system, and he did it because he knew I would leave him a bad rating for attitude, which was a well earned 1 rating.

So with the rating system, we still have the same problem of vengeful abuses of the system yet we have no way to make a rebuttal for anyone that actually payed attention to the feedback. Now I understand that the constant whining about feedback was putting a lot of pressure on the mods to "police" feedback abuse, but at least victims of the abuse had the opportunity to write an explanation of how the abuse came about. Now we have no recourse whatsoever. All one can do is play an insane amount of games to offset the abusive ratings. I honestly don't see how this rating system is going to cut down on abuse, simply because the assholes of the site will leave you unwarranted bad ratings as a preemptive strike.

Change it back to the feedback system and let each individual respond to any negative feedback and let that be the end of it. There is no need for the admin or mods to police feedback anyway, and I foresee this rating system being a far bigger problem than the feedback system ever thought of being.

[IronE.GLE]

How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

[Soloman]

How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

[IronE.GLE]

How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know...

Yet still the education campaign? Still we see massive reports of abuse?

I'll agree that there is no abuse proof system, but without giving people a chance to respond to abusive ratings, this system is more prone to abuse than the feedback system.

[IronE.GLE]

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Oh, so now it is the people who frequent the forums that are the problem rather than the people who leave 1 ratings when they lose?

[detlef]

Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

What a pompous, self important remark.

You are quite staggering you really are. You 'educate' do you? What a shame you did not put as much effort into thinking through the huge and many issues that would come attached to such an ill thought, ill prepared, poorly structured, and I dare say, highly negative move as the new ratings.

then you go on to say .... we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out....

Staggering. So let's think about this stupid and inane remark.... We will implement something we have not fully considered, foist it on a paying public and sit back and see what happens!!! I am amazed at the complete and utter idiocy attached to all of this.

Has it not occured to you that the reason you are seeing the lowering of the numbers is because of abuse of the system!!!!!

Yep, inspired by the fact that Solomon and wicked were patting each other on the back about how the ratings coming down must mean that people are beginning to realize that 3 should be the default rating. Why, look at Solomon's for instance. He must be proud that his is lower than most at 4.3. Surely this is the result of getting the deserved 3s that one should get for just showing up and playing. Wait a minute. What's that? Out of the 38 ratings he's gotten, he's only got 3s 3x? That he's still pretty much getting nothing but 5s with a smattering of 1s and 2s bringing it down?

What about wicked. Surely she must be taking this whole, "Don't give out 5s for no reason" message to the streets. Which, of course, explains why her rating has...Oh sorry, 5s across the board for her. Never mind.

See, that's sort of the rub, isn't it. For whatever reason, wicked and co. will feel this system is beginning to work as long as, in general, everyone's ratings start to get closer to 3. That there's as much reason to believe that this could just as easily happen as the result of people giving 1s because they're pissed off that they lost is not something worth worrying about it seems.

I cannot control what ratings I retrieve why not try commenting on the ratings I have left which is in my realm of Control. You 2 since there are 2 quotes here that I am replying to, have done nothing but flame because your arguments hold no weight. You know how the system was designed yet instead of being part of the solution you rather belittle those attempting to use it properly and just add to the problem. This system is not perfect but I believe it is better and less emotionally charged then the old one.

That I guess is the problem most of the opponents of this new system are just very emotional and rather then use logic and facts as a basis for things like to lash out rebel and throw a sissy fit over matters. There is no abuse proof system with some tweaks and education this system could be less vulnerable to abuse. The only way to get an abuse free system all will agree on is to get rid of anyone who is abusive and make sure all agree on using the system as it is intended to be used...

Well, truth be told, I think the system is crap so I'm not really bothering with it all (as you can see from the fact that I'm not using it). I simply find it amusing that plenty are employing the, "have faith it will all work itself out" approach despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support that it will and massive amounts to the contrary. Talk about arguments that have no weight? Physician, heal thyself. That's the thing, our arguments are laden with very concrete and logical notions based in human nature and the fact that, so far everyone is behaving exactly how we said it would play out. Who's the one making arguments without weight?

My latest missive was due to the fact that you and wicked were congratulating each other on the fact that, since the average rating is going down, the system must be working. I was merely pointing out the rather inconvenient fact that, while some ratings were going down, there's little reason to believe it was because of what you were saying. Too bad.

A recap of my concerns with the rating system. You tell me which of these are bound to simply correct themselves.
1) There is no consensus what-so-ever about what should be the norm. You guys talk about educating people and yet have done little to sway the minute percentage of people who actually visit the forums, nor have you taken it up with those you've been playing against in game chat as reflected by the fact that both you and wicked, like everyone else, are getting an overwhelming amount of 5s. So, how's this word going to get out, let alone get drummed into everyone's heads enough to change their basic instinct.

Let me tell you a story. I bought a lamp from e-bay. When it showed up, some of the hardware was messed up. It wasn't a big deal, 15 minutes and a $4 part later and I was in business. None the less, I felt that experience deserved no better than a "neutral" rating. I mean, I'm rather certain it was damaged in shipping and it wasn't such a big deal that I should leave a negative but, I mean, I did have to fix it before I could use it so, positive wasn't in order. After all, this damage was not mentioned by the seller.

When I submitted my rating, e-bay made sure that i'd done everything I could to resolve the issue with the seller before I left such a rating. A neutral! In CC terms, a 3. So, they are of the opinion that you shouldn't say anything but unqualified praise for someone unless you've thought long and hard about it. Now, I think that's sort of lame, but it's pretty damned obvious that is the prevailing mentality. So, it's a bigger deal than just here. That's the funny thing, I 100% agree with you that 3 should be the default. I just also understand that's not going to fly with the group as a whole. If I leave somebody a 3, it will be a lower score than they're getting from everyone else and will thus be, by nature a poor grade.

So, in this respect, the only thing standing between this system being completely random and useful is to completely change human nature. Something that I think is a rather ambitious task.

2) This version of ratings is far more inclined to be tainted by angry abusers than the other one. Every single day there's somebody complaining about getting a 1 for no good reason. Yet, unlike the previous system, these stick. Which is fine, because everyone is going to have them and they'll all even out. Of course, that doesn't make the ratings anymore an accurate reflection of the player which is the only real reason I can imagine having them.

So, go ahead and wait it out or give it a little tweak here and there, but forgive me for realizing that unless everyone stops acting like everyone, it will remain a completely arbitrary system that provides precious little insight into what kind of player we all are. We're flaming these threads because we're tired of the patronizing bullshit that you guys keep serving up. "Once we get everyone trained.", "Have patience, it will all make sense to you soon enough". Sorry dude, but plenty of us are smart enough to recognize something that isn't remotely close to working when we see it.

Oh, and sorry, one last thing. What response, short of ordering up a glass of koolaid to drink alongside you would you not consider a flame? In light of the rather plain fact that neither side of this argument has a monopoly on civil discourse.