[26-Jul-2008] Ratings Reloaded

[DarkMalkin]

The new improved system is great. Twill said something about more to come, after enough tags... curious about that.

Now, browsing a little through my recently finished games, I realised almost no player has the Gameplay ratings... (tags were obvious)... kinda a lot of work of adding the gameplay... were I remember what happened...

Anyway, this system is much better and the tags offer a possibility to describe what the game "felt" like. Being able to answer to ratings is also great, since one of the things that really buged me on my 3rd or 4th game, here on CC, was a 3-3-3 rating for no good reason. Alright, maybe the fairplay and other one are opened for discussion, but as for attendance, I took my turns in less then 4 hours, as opposed to players who took 20+ hours and received from that player a 5 star rate for attendance. I received a 3-3-3 because I was a newbie. That's dumb. And all the discussion about the ratings was fairly pointless, as it was obvious (and someone said this... somewhere) that a 5-5-5 was positive, 3-3-3 neutral and 1-1-1 negative. Now that you can answer to a rating, you can point out to the unjustified ones.

Great job!

Edit: When I say the discussions were fairly pointless, I' reffering to how the ratings were used by most and how those discussions couldn't change that.

[fishydance]

I have one complaint though: Since positive ratings for Team-Play were obviously automatically translated into "Good Teammate" tags, I have now several of those tags from people, that I never was on a team with. I didn´t understand, why those people were allowed to give me a Team-Play Rating anyway. It´s kind of stupid ...

I concur. I have a bad team play rating from someone who was not on my team. I played one game against him and beat him. How is that team play rating relevant?

Another concern I have is the speed in casual games. I sometimes play with persons who are on the other side of the world. Often they are sleeping when I play, and I am sleeping when they play. It seems unfair to expect quick turnaround in such a situation, and giving (or getting) a low rating doesn't seem right.

[yeti_c]

Great stuff Lack...

Although - I'm wondering where the Tag Clouds are?!

Are they coming in the next update?!

C.

[rgbubba]

I agree, this rating system is what we needed. Thanks!

[Androidz]

Pretty good stuff but regiveing every1 gameplay star is dumb. :/

[retrocrush]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

[Optimus Prime]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to.

[retrocrush]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to.

I just think it's funny as hell that it allows you to put in contradicting tags. Lighten up. It's crazy that we're adding all of these options to make the feedback more detailed, when you could just flip the switch back to the old feedback system and have it all.

[pissedoffsol]

@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken

[Night Strike]

@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken

You've taken enough turns to be 99.5%, which would round up to 100%.

[hulmey]

@attendence

is this calculated going backwards too?

I KNOW i've deadbeated a few speed games and have missed some turns....

yet i show
Attendance:
100% of turns taken

You've taken enough turns to be 99.5%, which would round up to 100%.

i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!

[hulmey]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to.

You always seem to defend CC. Bit of sheep? We had a perfectly fine feedback system beore that neeeded a few tweaks here and there to perfect. This new system has been forced apon us!! Its like your mum giving you some sweets and then taking them away. So for godsakes like people complain if they want to without being so bloody annoying!

[Night Strike]

i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!

hulmey, do the math. Even if he does skip turns while losing, that is a max of 3 turns for a game that is at least more than 5 turns along. In some games, only 1 or no turns are missed. Playing over 2300 games and winning 50% of them means it's going to take a WHOLE lot of missed turns to actually change the stat by 1%. With that many games with many rounds in each game, being at only 98% IS a lot of missed turns.

Also, OP can defend CC if he wants just how you choose to attack it all the time. He was pointing out how the player purposefully used the tags in a way that they were not meant to be used. And if you're going to complain about the new system that "has been forced upon us", why have you left 122 ratings?

[Ditocoaf]

How was your experience with this player (in category X)?

Unhappy
Satisfied
Impressed

Rating your experience, rather than the other player per se. Solves a lot of issues, quickly.

[hulmey]

i doubt its correct at all. DomQuebec deadbeats all his gameswhen he is losing and has 98% which must be incorrect!

hulmey, do the math. Even if he does skip turns while losing, that is a max of 3 turns for a game that is at least more than 5 turns along. In some games, only 1 or no turns are missed. Playing over 2300 games and winning 50% of them means it's going to take a WHOLE lot of missed turns to actually change the stat by 1%. With that many games with many rounds in each game, being at only 98% IS a lot of missed turns.

Also, OP can defend CC if he wants just how you choose to attack it all the time. He was pointing out how the player purposefully used the tags in a way that they were not meant to be used. And if you're going to complain about the new system that "has been forced upon us", why have you left 122 ratings?

im going for my medal....I also got 98% attendance and i can asure that theres something very wrong. The new system aint working

ps...tags can be used how the player seees fit. And yes i will attack CC coz its going downhill. Its not what it used to be. But i try not to attack the individual coz thats bullying.

[Ditocoaf]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right? All you are doing is making yourself look immature. If you don't like the tags, don't use them. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. It really is that simple. Nobody is forcing you to do anything on this site you don't want to.

I just think it's funny as hell that it allows you to put in contradicting tags. Lighten up. It's crazy that we're adding all of these options to make the feedback more detailed, when you could just flip the switch back to the old feedback system and have it all.

The old feedback system required too much moderation.

If we went back to the old system, you'd complain as soon as some noob said something stupid in a negative feedback, and demand that they remove it. And so would half the players on this website. And they don't have time to deal with all those issues.

[hulmey]

there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to

[Ditocoaf]

there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to

I think they are letting people complain... that's what you're doing, aren't you? And you're right; it's a good thing that they are. Because those initial complaints are what helped this flawed new system take a step in the right direction. Hopefully it'll keep improving, as the site has since it started.

[hulmey]

there are work arounds and the system could have been tweaked. But hey they made the choicand now they have to leave with it. If people want to complain thats there right and choice.

Not every company makes the right choices, but the excellent company recognizes the wrong choices and trys to do it all it can to make things as best they can for both parties!

The revised rating system is a step in the right direction but still let people complain if they want to

I think they are letting people complain... that's what you're doing, aren't you? And you're right; it's a good thing that they are. Because those initial complaints are what helped this flawed new system take a step in the right direction. Hopefully it'll keep improving, as the site has since it started.

opinions are like farts, every1 has one

[yeti_c]

opinions are like farts, every1 has one

Jesus christ - get the quote right... your version just doesn't make sense.

It's

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

C.

[maique]

I just rated my opponent quick, slow, talkative, and silent. Thanks for the helpful tag upgrades.

Seriously? You complain about the system and then go straight for abusing it? You aren't proving a point, you do realize that, right?
[...]

erm... actually, he is. If he can do it, anyone else can. he's actually being quite helpful, if you ask me, which you didn't. but then, you weren't exactly being helpful yourself.

Also, he's not abusing the system more than it allows itself to be abused. If the CC management don't want moderation, and insists on tags, they're gonna have to be parsed.
Between this and the random twit lying and swearing on feedback, even if it weren't moderated, i think i'd rather have good old feedback.

And, pressing on with the idea of going back to feedback, i wouldn't think that banning certain language in feedback would be the right move, either. There are always ways around this and it's not really CC's place to moderate language. Furthermore, implementing a count of how many players have foe'd a given user would pretty much marginalize the jerks (whilst also stepping over the problem of tactical foe'ing which would be of neglectable number), leaving it up to each to decide wether they want to play with the "outcast" or not.

So suggestions for goin back to feedback:

• No moderation
• One liners >> fewer characters = less trouble
• Only posted when game's been archived >> pretty obvious
• Response to feedback should also be editable for the same 5(?) days after which, like feedback, it can only be removed >> prevents further and recurrent abuse**
• Adding a counter for amount of times a user's been foed >> useful in a non moderated environment

** like a player who one day decided to swap all his filth-ridden, fallacious responses (to all the negative feedback he'd ever received) to "gg like to play again" and such.

[lancehoch]

So suggestions for goin back to feedback:

• Response to feedback should also be editable for the same 5(?) days after which, like feedback, it can only be removed >> prevents further and recurrent abuse**

If you are going to have it be "editable" for 5 days, should the rating appear in those 5 days, or should it remain hidden like the original rating does?

[maique]

If you are going to have it be "editable" for 5 days, should the rating appear in those 5 days, or should it remain hidden like the original rating does?

that's a very good question. I guess it could be visible, since there's not going to be any retaliatory feedback to a response.

[sideoutshu]

Good additions. The only problem is that if you are going to a new system, you should really reset to old ratings. People were formerly using "fair play" as a game play rating. Now that they are differentiated, there is no way to tell what the "fair play" rating is for. It could mean either:

1. the guy is a cheater;

2. The guy has bad strategy;

two very different things that will certainly affect desire to play with that individual.

[Roveriver]

I'm curious how greatly participation on the site has multiplied over recent months. The more people who use it, the more diverse and complicated it would seem. To say the site is getting worse would simply mean to me that you're just wishing for the good old days. Changes are occurring in order to correct problems, and no change is perfect.
Obviously, allowing entirely liberal feedback has caused problems with abuse and that's why CC is limiting feedback to tags ~ which enables us to tell what's behind the rating provided. If we want to be more detailed in commenting about a game, leave a message or write on someone's wall on their profile.

Just my humble opinion. I like what I've seen so far, and look forward to future improvements.