Conquer Club

Concise description:

• I propose that we change the way that the Overall Rating (shown on our profiles) is calculated to reflect the true average of all ratings left by our opponents.

Specifics:

• Have the Overall Rating be the average of all ratings left to a user.

Can't see it being something that the db that stores the ratings can't easily do as it is both mathematically simpler and includes less calculating steps than the current way it is calculated.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• We won't have an Overall Rating that differs from the actual average of our ratings and from the average rating of the 3 attributes that are rated (Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude).
• Keeps some sort of trust and validity of the Overall Rating.

I'll re-post my table from the other thread. This suggestion is that we use the calculating described below as "True Avg". Also, here is a link to the "Rating Glitch [Bug]" thread where this discussion started.

Thezzaruz wrote:

"Overall Rating" is as it is calculated today
"Average of Category Avg" is the average of a players averages for the 3 attribute ratings
"True Avg" is the average off all ratings left to a player (19 values).

Essentially you want the current Rating of 4.1 to become 4.4...
So how does this alter the trust/validity of where it is now?

Awhile back someone proposed that each player begin with a 3 rating (currently average)
and over time let their aquired ratings raise or lower it as warranted. I think this is much
closer to actually giving the Ratings some meaning once again.

oVo wrote:Essentially you want the current Rating of 4.1 to become 4.4...
So how does this alter the trust/validity of where it is now?

I'm not really bothered in the exact number, only that it is a true representation of the ratings left. And for the user in the example/table his ratings page would show:
Fair Play - 4.1
Gameplay - 4.7
Attitude - 4.3
Overall - 4.0
How can the Overall be the lowest? Is the player infact worse than what his opponent have rated him???

oVo wrote:Awhile back someone proposed that each player begin with a 3 rating (currently average)
and over time let their aquired ratings raise or lower it as warranted. I think this is much
closer to actually giving the Ratings some meaning once again.

I fully agree with the problem of people having their own system to decide what the ratings mean is an even bigger issue with the rating system than the issue in this thread and it should be fixed too. Can't see why that would mean that this issue shouldn't also be fixed though.

I would rather see the average of the categories over the average of each individual rating.

lancehoch wrote:I would rather see the average of the categories over the average of each individual rating.

Why? Why would yo not want the actual average of the ratings gotten???

Thezzaruz wrote:Why? Why would yo not want the actual average of the ratings gotten???

Because it makes more sense; there are categories, they should be averaged.

lancehoch wrote:Because it makes more sense; there are categories, they should be averaged.

No actually it makes no sense at all since if you take an average of another average you have inherent mathematical flaws that means you will get a result that differs from the correct one, if there is any ratings left unrated.

Correct is all relative. Like I don't think it was correct to make a new thread for this when we already had one. It in a sense was a bug thread, that users could suggest fixes for it doesn't change that.

If you have a "true average" then the attribute with the most votes will get the most weight. I think all 3 attributes should be weighted equally. For that we need an average of the 3 attribute averages.

TruePurple wrote:I think all 3 attributes should be weighted equally.

I don't agree, I think we should respect the ratings left (or not left) but the opponents. i.e all ratings should be weighted equally.