Concise description:
Several people said they liked parts, but not all of my previous suggestion, so I am dividing it up.
Specifics:
Instead of the current rating erasings your previous rating of the person, average it.
((current rating * no of previous games with that player) + new rating)/ new # games with that player
If you have multiple recent games (not archived yet), then you might need to rate them all together, but that many games is easy enough to review or just remember.
Exception: if the person has not rated ANY previous games, then a default rating of either all 4's or all 3's would be used.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Right now, to rate someone honestly, you have to go back through all your previous games. That just takes too much time, even for those who really want to rate fairly. This way, you could rate someone just for the game(s) you just played. That would lead to people rating more fairly.
The rating needs to be averaged for each person, so that the "all 5's" you might get from your "buddies" won't overshadow the 10-12 less stellar ratings from others. Just as before, some people will always rate poorly (some people are just jerks), but those few poor ratings will quickly become meaningless (effectively dissappear) if you play reasonably.
If someone does not wish to re-rate, then the previous average will remain as the rating. This keeps people from not rating and then "poof" rating someone poorly because of one game. The exception, giving a "neutral" rating if you did not rate the person before at all, would prevent someone from playing 100 nice games, then having one nasty experience count for all 100 games. The assumption would be that if you played them before, you were reasonably happy with their playing. Everyone can have a bad day. You can foe them, but one bad experience should not erase the 100 good games completely.
Everything else would stay the same.
