>> Descriptive tags for ratings

[PLAYER57832]

What about descriptive tags as ratings ?

So, in principle, instead of ticking 4 boxes for ratings and however many boxes for the descriptive tags why not just tick however many boxes for descriptive tags? And, inherent in those tags are the ratings?

Just for illustration consider this as an example for the attitude rating ...
(I know the tags aren't perfect/complete )

[ ] really friendly
[ ] coached me
[ ] ?????

[ ] friendly
[ ] polite
[ ] fun

[ ] said nothing
[ ] ?????
[ ] ?????

[ ] attempt to order me about
[ ] said nothing
[ ] ?????

[ ] rude
[ ] abusive
[ ] ?????

First set of tags is "5 stars", second set "4 stars" etc ...
I can choose tick three.
There could be more than three at each star level ...
Note the some duplication of tag descriptions is allowed so that if, to you "said nothing" is "3 star" behaviour - fine. Or if, to you, "said nothing" is "2 star" behaviour - again fine.

Thoughts ? Extensions ? Variations ?

I like this idea.

P.S. Although I like the humor in Yeti's descriptions, I think we need something more directly descriptive .
To pick just one example -- "turtle" can mean slow ,shy,an avoider of trouble, or it can mean resistant (and probably other things as well) depending upon the culture.

[wicked]

the rating system still doesn't rate much for me. if you're going to refine it further it would be good to see some options that more acurately describe a player's skill level. the only useful indicators of this at the moment are the ratings left by veteran higher ranked players. but even then it varies widely as to how players rate one another. so none of it really means much to me. keep trying though

We have that, it's called their score. Also, there's a suggestion to add "gameplay" attribute to the ratings, you might want to visit that discussion.

[gdeangel]

Concise description:

• A feature to add descriptive tags to a rating, to provide some explanation.

Specifics:

• When you leave a rating, beneath the input section for stars, there would be a bunch (say, 10 to 20) of descriptors with a checkbox next to each one. You would check off any that apply (say, up to 3). These descriptors would appear alongside the stars on the recepient's ratings page.
• Because their time is better spent hunting multiple accounts and answering support tickets, staff would not investigate "unfair" ratings tags. Members would still have the option of discussing with the author directly, and tags should go live along with the "Allow written responses to ratings" suggestion.
• Examples of tags: Deadbeat, Timely, Friendly, Rude, Sore Loser, Trustworthy, Backstabber. If you have any to add please share!

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Members will be able to better express themselves when leaving ratings.
• Members will understand the reasons behind ratings.

EDIT: Please give your input on this suggestion!

Tags suck. For example, go look at the way people use tags films on IMDB... they just plain suck. Good in theory, sucky in practice. Bad idea lack.

[wicked]

Why/how do they suck?

[hulmey]

the rating system still doesn't rate much for me. if you're going to refine it further it would be good to see some options that more acurately describe a player's skill level. the only useful indicators of this at the moment are the ratings left by veteran higher ranked players. but even then it varies widely as to how players rate one another. so none of it really means much to me. keep trying though

We have that, it's called their score. Also, there's a suggestion to add "gameplay" attribute to the ratings, you might want to visit that discussion.

score doesnt prove skill...Score may mean someone is good at one game type or certain settings. Its not respective of someones true skill

[KLOBBER]

the rating system still doesn't rate much for me. if you're going to refine it further it would be good to see some options that more acurately describe a player's skill level. the only useful indicators of this at the moment are the ratings left by veteran higher ranked players. but even then it varies widely as to how players rate one another. so none of it really means much to me. keep trying though

We have that, it's called their score. Also, there's a suggestion to add "gameplay" attribute to the ratings, you might want to visit that discussion.

score doesnt prove skill...Score may mean someone is good at one game type or certain settings. Its not respective of someones true skill

Yes it does.

What does not prove skill is comments by irrelevant individuals whose sole qualification is that they happen to have played a game with the member in question.

[wicked]

Let's see how we can tie this back into how to do these tags so that you guys get the info you want out of them.

[hulmey]

the rating system still doesn't rate much for me. if you're going to refine it further it would be good to see some options that more acurately describe a player's skill level. the only useful indicators of this at the moment are the ratings left by veteran higher ranked players. but even then it varies widely as to how players rate one another. so none of it really means much to me. keep trying though

We have that, it's called their score. Also, there's a suggestion to add "gameplay" attribute to the ratings, you might want to visit that discussion.

score doesnt prove skill...Score may mean someone is good at one game type or certain settings. Its not respective of someones true skill

Yes it does.

What does not prove skill is comments by irrelevant individuals whose sole qualification is that they happen to have played a game with the member in question.

let take you for example...your score proves u like to take points of deadbeaters

[hulmey]

wow first thread I've seen were more moderators are posting than CC members

[jiminski]

wow first thread I've seen were more moderators are posting than CC members

yeap i spotted that too Hulmey; Wicki sits here like a mix between Count Basey and a night-club bouncer (i do like it ^^ )

It did make me a little peed off at first, after Klobber was allowed to troll/Spam and ultimately ruin our suggestion thread on the same subject, with no mod intervention at all* ... and then I was warned for flaming whilst trying to engage him, humour him and then ultimately defend against him.

Anyway it is nice to see a suggestion getting the sites backing


*hey maybe Klobb was correct and the idea was in fact 'idiotic' anyway.

[wicked]

If you guys aren't here to discuss TAGS, please refrain from posting.

[alster]

I don't believe that these TAGS would be an improvement. The new system is good. "Keep it simple stupid" is generally a good advice. This system is easy (to use and read/browse), not very complicated and provides some kind of peer-review of players. TAGS would just make it more complicated to use, a longer time to review and not really counter any problems that the new system is flawed with (e.g. strange ratings handed out).

[jiminski]

If you guys aren't here to discuss TAGS, please refrain from posting.

hehe

don't like em; won't use em

but i really do respect the effort to try and meet the problem.

[hulmey]

not many people commenting!! what does that tell you CC? We dont want tags

5 effort
1 product

[yeti_c]

not many people commenting!! what does that tell you CC? We dont want tags

5 effort
1 product

Would you rather

a) Ratings
b) Ratings & Tags

C.

[hulmey]

not many people commenting!! what does that tell you CC? We dont want tags

5 effort
1 product

Would you rather

a) Ratings
b) Ratings & Tags

C.

neither

[yeti_c]

not many people commenting!! what does that tell you CC? We dont want tags

5 effort
1 product

Would you rather

a) Ratings
b) Ratings & Tags

C.

neither

Then you're SOL.

C.

[saaimen]

It seems to me that this all getting really complicated. First we decide how many stars to give then we leave some tags that may or may not accuratly describe how we felt they played and then we need to have a system were we can respond to these tags. It would make a lot more sence to me just to bring back the old system. That we can say what we like in our own words. The easyest way to deal with complaints about inapropriate feedback is to leave it up to the players to work out. Plus its pretty easy to see when a player has left inapropirate or unfair feedback based on the reply and on the game chat ect. if you care enough to look for it. I guess I just really like the old system, it seemed a lot more personal and gave the site a better feeling of comunity.

The ratings are meant to give you an overall image of a player. If someone had 100-10 feedbacks in the old system, you're not really going to read all of those positives, are you? Although there could be a lot of nice and interesting characteristics of that player described in them. With this system, you could have a quick look, and then, if you wanted to, get deeper into it.
A lot of people don't get this, I think. Improvements are in the making and the developers even ask you to make suggestions yourself. So try to input ideas that would make you like the system better instead of just saying it sucks. (This is not directed to you personally, Kid, but to every Ratings-hater who seems to have a problem adapting.)

[PLAYER57832]

I agree absolutely that plain old written feedback is the best, but that has already been dismissed by Lack. The current system, though, just doesn't give enough real information that people want to see... or a place for people to record.

I don't know if folks would use this system or not. I would say that there should be no more than 4, maybe 5 tags. Fewer might even be better.

Once the tags get "shaken out" a bit better, perhaps there could be some kind of open community trial (NOT just posted here in the forums ... folks here tend to be the "same old crew").


Oh, and per the old "nobody's commenting, so the idea must be bad.." The same people tend to visit the forum, so if there is nothing new to add... there is nothing new to add. That's all.

[e_i_pi]

I like the new tags system, and am more inclined to leave feedback for everyone because of it. I like the scope it allows. Now, when a player is average but fun to play with, I can reflect that. Beforehand, I could only leave 3 stars, and then suffer reprisals due to the 5-star benchmark problem.

Considering there are about 22 negative tags, 2 neutral, and 11 positive, may I suggest the following tags?

• Polite
• Coordinates well
• Coordinates poorly
• Observant

[saaimen]

I like tags, the ratings system is getting better.
One thing, Lack, you think it's possible to make the horizontal black line between a rating and its tags below it grey instead of black?
That way it's more obvious which tags line belongs to which rating.
The line between tags and their response could be the same grey.
Then, below the tags (or the response, when given), the black line is good as it is now, showing the end of that 'group'.