Conquer Club

lackattack wrote:Hmmm edbeard you might be influencing me. So instead of allowing retroactive rating of people you left feedback for, we just showing a frozen view of old feedback (link on profile) eh?

I'd be alright with that if we only showed old feedbacks that are less than 6 months old, so the old stuff would wither away and I can scrap it entirely after 6 months.

Folks, what do the rest of you think of this?

I think I was the first person to mention this a page or 2 back, so I'd go for it.

Timminz wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:If theres a guy that hands out straight 0s for everyone he plays, will that just be OK, or will there be some kind of system to stop him?

That seems like one thing that some people would do when they lose, or get pissed off. I once played a 1v1 speed game where the other guy just disappeared after a round or 2, got kicked for missing turns, and 2 or 3 days later left me a neg for "having no strategy". While I know that the majority of players are not like that jackass, I feel that some people are going to rate opponents at all zeros just because they get pissed off, or feel like being jerks. The anonymity of the internet is a wonderful thing.

Tim brings up a good scenario. Will people be able to see exactly who rated them and what ratings that same person has given other people (i.e. open viewing like current feedback)? Seems that would be the only way for people to know for sure others are just leaving bad ratings. With anonymity, I'm guessing some people will go on a witch hunt to find who did it once their rating drops a fraction of a point.

Honestly, did you not read the first post, Night Strike?

Yes, when the ratings are posted after the game is archived you will be able to see what rating was left, who left it, and what other ratings they have left. Just like the feedback is right now.

lackattack wrote:Hmmm edbeard you might be influencing me. So instead of allowing retroactive rating of people you left feedback for, we just showing a frozen view of old feedback (link on profile) eh?

I'd be alright with that if we only showed old feedbacks that are less than 6 months old, so the old stuff would wither away and I can scrap it entirely after 6 months.

Folks, what do the rest of you think of this?

OK, some thoughts on the whole "thing". It's a bit biased from a behind the scenes perspective, but hey, what can I say

Positives of keeping the transition period:
1) lose some/a lot of the old, but get rid of the old system completely, all it's flaws, problems and work.
2) You start most people out with at least a few ratings - this means that negs are more likely to average out and people are less likely to complain/feel hurt in the early stages of the system (from Jan-March of 2008, only 6.6% of ALL feedback left was negative so people will start off with a generally positive rating on average) <---BIG plus for me.
3) Retaliation from old feedback probably wont be that rife - For the same time period (jan-march) we deleted 0.82% of total feedback (or 13% of total negatives). Lets assume that all of that was because it was retaliatory (even though it's not) and then double it for retaliatory ratings based on negative feedback because there are 2 people involved and we are at a whopping 1.64% of new ratings are going to be retaliatory. Even if you calculated it as ALL negative feedback left will get a retaliatory rating that comes out to a MAX of 13.2% of the new rating system is retaliatory (if we assume all negatives were one sided and for every one negative there will therefore be a new retaliatory rating...which we all know isn't the case, but hey, it's a worst case calculation). Really? We're going to scrap the transition period because of a worst case abuse scenario or 13.2% and a likely abuse of 1% (18% of negatives were complained about. that means ~1% of total feedback was complained about. Lets assume every complaint was about or leads to a retaliatory rating giving the 1% abuse).

Positives of keeping feedback viewable at least for a little while.
1) reduce the possibility of retaliation - retaliation could start us off with a wave of "he left me a retaliatory rating - delete please" and we can only come back with "sorry, we don't do that, it will average out in the long run if you behave well...or use the mutual withdraw"
2) You save the majority of the information from before that you would have lost...but you still keep the old system with all its flaws (if we wanted to make it disappear, it would probably make more sense to have it removed once someone drops off the scoreboard for the first time. At current attrition rates, the only people left with old feedback would be the die hards who are probably going to want to keep it anyway...and in 6 months or a year when they have 300 ratings, it might not matter so much anyway and we can be rid of the system finally then.)
3) no need to pre-populate the wall and we can really push the "the wall isn't the new feedback" that seems to have been lost in the conversation. (this would be the main reason to keep viewable feedback rather than transitions for me.)


I also think a lot of the people who read this thread early on and said or thought "ooh, transition, nice I like that" and then never came back are going to be a bit surprised if they find that it's suddenly changed.

Twill wrote:

lackattack wrote:Hmmm edbeard you might be influencing me. So instead of allowing retroactive rating of people you left feedback for, we just showing a frozen view of old feedback (link on profile) eh?

I'd be alright with that if we only showed old feedbacks that are less than 6 months old, so the old stuff would wither away and I can scrap it entirely after 6 months.

Folks, what do the rest of you think of this?

OK, some thoughts on the whole "thing". It's a bit biased from a behind the scenes perspective, but hey, what can I say

Positives of keeping the transition period:
1) lose some/a lot of the old, but get rid of the old system completely, all it's flaws, problems and work.
2) You start most people out with at least a few ratings - this means that negs are more likely to average out and people are less likely to complain/feel hurt in the early stages of the system (from Jan-March of 2008, only 6.6% of ALL feedback left was negative so people will start off with a generally positive rating on average) <---BIG plus for me.
3) Retaliation from old feedback probably wont be that rife - For the same time period (jan-march) we deleted 0.82% of total feedback (or 13% of total negatives). Lets assume that all of that was because it was retaliatory (even though it's not) and then double it for retaliatory ratings based on negative feedback because there are 2 people involved and we are at a whopping 1.64% of new ratings are going to be retaliatory. Even if you calculated it as ALL negative feedback left will get a retaliatory rating that comes out to a MAX of 13.2% of the new rating system is retaliatory (if we assume all negatives were one sided and for every one negative there will therefore be a new retaliatory rating...which we all know isn't the case, but hey, it's a worst case calculation). Really? We're going to scrap the transition period because of a worst case abuse scenario or 13.2% and a likely abuse of 1% (18% of negatives were complained about. that means ~1% of total feedback was complained about. Lets assume every complaint was about or leads to a retaliatory rating giving the 1% abuse).

Positives of keeping feedback viewable at least for a little while.
1) reduce the possibility of retaliation - retaliation could start us off with a wave of "he left me a retaliatory rating - delete please" and we can only come back with "sorry, we don't do that, it will average out in the long run if you behave well...or use the mutual withdraw"
2) You save the majority of the information from before that you would have lost...but you still keep the old system with all its flaws (if we wanted to make it disappear, it would probably make more sense to have it removed once someone drops off the scoreboard for the first time. At current attrition rates, the only people left with old feedback would be the die hards who are probably going to want to keep it anyway...and in 6 months or a year when they have 300 ratings, it might not matter so much anyway and we can be rid of the system finally then.)
3) no need to pre-populate the wall and we can really push the "the wall isn't the new feedback" that seems to have been lost in the conversation. (this would be the main reason to keep viewable feedback rather than transitions for me.)


I also think a lot of the people who read this thread early on and said or thought "ooh, transition, nice I like that" and then never came back are going to be a bit surprised if they find that it's suddenly changed.

I agree with part 1 of positives for keeping transition period and think all feedbacks positive negative and neutral should just go to the wall, I know some people do not even respond or leave feedback and there wil probaly be a lot of people who never touch there wall so you can see all that is said, The new system will give everyone a sense of new start and hopefully most [people will move forward with that and let old vendettas die and move forward...

No negatives and neutrals to the wall... remember, it's not a feedback replacement.

Positives to the wall yes because the majority don't want to lose them, some hold sentimental value from people long since gone, a good portion are jokes one would write on a wall anyway, and not everyone is going to go re-rate someone, but this way they can see what's on the person's wall from before and remember why they liked them.

it would be very nice if we can keep our old posts!!! even on the wall!!

hiitsmestevie1 wrote:it would be very nice if we can keep our old posts!!! even on the wall!!

yeah not keeping the old ones would really piss some people off.

it would be nice to keep the old feedback somewhere in the mix. maybe have a place where it states this player had XXXX postive feedbacks and xxxx neg feedbacks before new system was installed

i think its a good idea. go ahead with it.

the current feedback being lost doesnt matter to me as i can just get it again

I personally dont care for feedback but as a chat mod I have fielded alot of questions about the new system. The majority of concerns were whether they would keep there positive feedbacks. Most members dont read through these threads and seek an abridged version most times in chat.

So I felt the need to post this as a heads up on quite few members opinions.

I am fine with this as long as the ones i have will be moved or at least most, to my wall, as that is the way I am understanding it. Is this a correct assumption?

I think one thing that should be done is that there should be a minimum number of ratings needed for the 'players with ratings 2 points lower than me can't join games with me' system to go into place. Maybe 20 ratings or something. This will prevent a few bad (and possibly undeserved) ratings early on from messing with what a player can do.


Responding to Twill's post, I think even a few people having retaliatory ratings makes the whole thing screwy. Just because it's only 1% doesn't mean it's fine. Also, we don't know how many people will make retaliatory ratings because before there was a moderation system to prevent abuse (people won't break the rules if they know it won't do anything). Now, there is no moderation and only mutual removal. If people are going back to re-rate old games, then it's probably more likely that people will re-rate the players who they gave negative feedbacks. There are less negatives to rate than positives and honestly are more important to helping other players. Since I know it's likely I'll be negatively rated, it's beneficial to me to rate these people lowly as well to try to get a mutual removal. If they don't rate me or don't give me a low rating, I can always remove the low rating I gave to them.

Furthermore, you don't really remember how people played one or two years ago so the ratings are pretty much BS. The rating system is supposed to be factual and really reflect what other people think of your play. It seems like old ratings would mostly be for starting people out with a few ratings. I don't see the point.


Like I said, a better way to held out the problem of the early stages of the system is to have a minimum number of ratings. This helps out new players as well because a negative rating early on won't screw them up.

Additionally, the system of not being able to join games with people if your rating is too low could be started a couple months after the new system comes into play. This allows people to build up a rating.

wicked wrote:No negatives and neutrals to the wall... remember, it's not a feedback replacement.

Positives to the wall yes because the majority don't want to lose them, some hold sentimental value from people long since gone, a good portion are jokes one would write on a wall anyway, and not everyone is going to go re-rate someone, but this way they can see what's on the person's wall from before and remember why they liked them.

Yes thats all i want, nice easy simple.

UPDATE

Based on public input, here are our latest plans on what to do about old feedback: Keep them temporarily viewable (link on profile) for a transition period of 3-6 months. No feedback scores will be printed, wall will not be pre-populated, no conversions of feedback->ratings. We'll decide how to deal with old feedback comments at the end of the transition period when the wall and ratings have had a chance to mature. We think this is the least controversial approach

We are also planning to delay low rating blocks until we have more experience with the new ratings system.

when roughly are u looking at implementing new system??

I still feel that there should be an announcement box at the top of the "My Games" page with a link to this thread before this idea is implemented. Actually, I think it should be done immediately, since we are pretty well agreed that this implementation will happen.

I think it is a damned shame the feedbacks are going to be done away with.

Fantastic lets get it moving forward

wicked wrote:No negatives and neutrals to the wall... remember, it's not a feedback replacement.

Positives to the wall yes because the majority don't want to lose them, some hold sentimental value from people long since gone, a good portion are jokes one would write on a wall anyway, and not everyone is going to go re-rate someone, but this way they can see what's on the person's wall from before and remember why they liked them.

Yeah but some people treasure there Negative(for some abnormal reason) and even collect them others have joke negs they like also and neutrals are split with some being actually positive(you can only leave 1 positive) and other negative if people can just erase what they do not like what is the problem with prepopulating all so everyone can be happy???

lackattack wrote:UPDATE

Based on public input, here are our latest plans on what to do about old feedback: Keep them temporarily viewable (link on profile) for a transition period of 3-6 months. No feedback scores will be printed, wall will not be pre-populated, no conversions of feedback->ratings. We'll decide how to deal with old feedback comments at the end of the transition period when the wall and ratings have had a chance to mature. We think this is the least controversial approach

We are also planning to delay low rating blocks until we have more experience with the new ratings system.

all smart choices. taking the look and see approach is the best way to avoid trouble. good job.

i liek teh sound of this new rating system to replace the current feedback system.

Where is the option to opt out.I'm not interested in what ppl think about the way I play..I know I am excellent.

lackattack wrote:UPDATE

Based on public input, here are our latest plans on what to do about old feedback: Keep them temporarily viewable (link on profile) for a transition period of 3-6 months. No feedback scores will be printed, wall will not be pre-populated, no conversions of feedback->ratings. We'll decide how to deal with old feedback comments at the end of the transition period when the wall and ratings have had a chance to mature. We think this is the least controversial approach

We are also planning to delay low rating blocks until we have more experience with the new ratings system.

do what your going to do an get it over with. the last few years have done well for this sight if you want to throw a chunk of that away go ahead.

Overall i would say this sounds like a very good feedback system. I like the idea of stars instead of messages, they will be far easier to interpret than all the shit people like me write in the feedback box. I think pre-populating the wall is a good idea, seems a shame to delete all the creative and inventive writings people like me write in the feedback box.

For the undecided areas, i like the idea of user-regulated feedback system including mutual withdrawls. It would seem fair to me that people moderate their own feedback. Feedback is a usually a trivial issue for 'mods,' who weren't even present in the game to know properly what happened. This might even encourage more resposible feedback leaving ...no, don't make me laugh, ha. As for low rating blocks, i would say low-rating blocks should not apply to private games. Mr reasons are not clearly enough formed to write them down but private games are private, so leave them alone please.

...*5.0 good work

Rob M

yup thats what i had in mind as well rocketry.

i would like my wall to be pre-populated but i guess those will a lot of negs wouldnt like that too much.