Ratings Reloaded - Community Consultation - UPDATED

[Kitchen Sink]

Can we just go back to the old system? The old system provided an easy to read snapshot of players. I can understand what it means to have 12 negative feedbacks and 24 positive. I am not so sure though what it means to have a 4.2 average rating; isn't that good/above average?

The new system is already distorted. No one is sticking to the ratings guidlines. A 3 is listed as average, yet how many of us would be happy to recieve straight 3 ratings? We seem to have fell into everyone starts at 5, and only significant game events will reduce from that. The other shortfall of the new system, as has been mentioned over and over, is the inability to provide feedback.

[hulmey]

Can we just go back to the old system? The old system provided an easy to read snapshot of players. I can understand what it means to have 12 negative feedbacks and 24 positive. I am not so sure though what it means to have a 4.2 average rating; isn't that good/above average?

The new system is already distorted. No one is sticking to the ratings guidlines. A 3 is listed as average, yet how many of us would be happy to recieve straight 3 ratings? We seem to have fell into everyone starts at 5, and only significant game events will reduce from that. The other shortfall of the new system, as has been mentioned over and over, is the inability to provide feedback.

Around 6 of my clan mates have freeium and sadly arent going to renew their membership coz of the new ratings system. CC will eventually see finiancial sense and chnage back to the old system (hopefully)...When my membership runs out i wont renew it and i will not promote the site any more.

[Diamonds14]

Can we just go back to the old system? The old system provided an easy to read snapshot of players. I can understand what it means to have 12 negative feedbacks and 24 positive. I am not so sure though what it means to have a 4.2 average rating; isn't that good/above average?

The new system is already distorted. No one is sticking to the ratings guidlines. A 3 is listed as average, yet how many of us would be happy to recieve straight 3 ratings? We seem to have fell into everyone starts at 5, and only significant game events will reduce from that. The other shortfall of the new system, as has been mentioned over and over, is the inability to provide feedback.

Around 6 of my clan mates have freeium and sadly arent going to renew their membership coz of the new ratings system. CC will eventually see finiancial sense and chnage back to the old system (hopefully)...When my membership runs out i wont renew it and i will not promote the site any more.

This site is still a great site and should still be recommended to new people. Lackattack, there will always be people who disagree with the new system especially when we dont know all the information. What might be helpful is to give us the pros and cons for both the new system and the old system [EDIT] So that we can know the same things that you know and we can understand why you dont the old system back.. Ive been gone for two weeks and my last post was on page 8 (or so) but i did some reading and you said that people who want the old system back should work with you, the thing is we are. I dont mean to offend you, if this does, but i dont think you are being very open minded on the issue. You have seen already several examples of people who are not going to renew their accounts to this site because of the new system. Is that better than making X number of players a little angry about someone's bad written comment?

Im trying to work with you guys, sorry if that is going against you pre decided notion of keeping the new system.

Diamonds.

[saywhat]

How about lets have NO ratings... less work and nothing to bitch about!!!! What a concept!!!!!

[Gregrios]

How about lets have NO ratings... less work and nothing to bitch about!!!! What a concept!!!!!

As dumb as that sounds, it's a damn good idea.

Instead of people finding out info from ratings or feedback, just let them find out for themselves. If they don't like who they are playing then just put them on the foe list. Afterall, that's what the mods say when confronted with a sticky situation.

Sometimes the best solution doesn't come from adding more concepts but to simply simplify the concept in question.

[Tracita]

I think it is ridiculous that people would quit cc b/c of the ratings change. Afterall, what makes cc great is the game, of course, and its creators/administrators, etc. If our politicians cared as much for our feedback and we participated as much in the governance as the administrators of cc and its membership, we would truly have a democracy. Not artfully said, but you get the point.

A hybrid of stars and commentary I think would do the trick.

[MasterGuns]

HarlandD

The accused are suspected of:

Other: This Player leaves Bogus negative ratings for other players. has a strong pattern of doing so.

Example: Gives poor marks for attendance even though the other player missed No turns.
Example: Gives poor marks for attitude even though the other player said nothing in the game chat.

Game number(s): (there are several more games/ occurrences than the two listed below)
Game 2734368
Game 2799424

Comments:
1) Please resolve by removing all negative feedback left by this players for other players such as myself.
2) remove the medal he was awarded for leaving bogus ratings
3) warn player that further abuse will be rewarded with account termination, include current game policies, procedures, rules & conditions

[Quicksigns]

If you have 100 ratings 5-5-5 and 1-1-1 your overall rating will still be 5-5-5.

I give only 3's for everything as it's the average.

Should someone take their turns each time 5 mins after the previous player then I'll give more stars for attendance. If I notice someone is waiting 23 hours before each turn I'll give 2 stars perhaps. If the deadbeat i'll give 1 star.

The difference between a guy that takes 23:59 minutes to take his turn and the guys that deadbeats is only 1 minute. They are the same in my book.

That has to be dumbest thing I have ever read!! Sounds to me like you get confused on what kind of game you join. You need to jump over to speed games for that kinda time limit. A lot of people sit down and take their turns all at once during a day. If they miss a turn give them a 4, miss 2 turns a 1 or2 , kicked out, then give them a 1 and the foe list. No wonder this new rating system is so messed up. Welcome to my foe list.

On the old system, if someones rating was a 12+ and 32-, you knew there was a problem with them. If it was 200+ and 6-, they were high quality players. Plain and simple. Now, all it takes is a couple of "Clueless Cooks" not understanding how it works, ( or worse yet, they think they do and do more damage than the clueless ones) to mess up a great players image. Why try to fix the old, if it is not broke?!

[lackattack]

I'm making progress on these changes and I'm probably going to be able to throw in the "Star colour distinction - new ratings/old rating" suggestion.

I'm getting to the part about making ratings relative to each rater's "average rating left" and I'm having second thoughts. It won't fully solve the problem - some people will still typically leave 5's and others will still typically leave 3's and get complaints about it. Also the solution is quite hard to explain and understand.

I'm looking at other suggestions brought up:

* 4 stars (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) with no "average", so people could typically leave 3 with less controversy.
* 3 stars (1-Bad, 2-Good, 3-Very Good) so that "average" would be more positive sounding as "Good".
* 4 stars with a cap on how often you can rate 1's or 4's. For example, only one "extreme" rating per game to force ratings to be more moderate and therefore (hopefully) accurate.

What do you guys think? I need some more feedback!

[animorpherv1]

A) No caps. If people deserve all 5's, and you can only give them 1 5, well, they'd be pissed.

B) Have you read any of the above people wanting the old system back? I completly agree with them, especially know with the caps.

[Opera Man FL]

Hey Lack. There is no such thing as a perfect system. I think I told another member that any rating system is only as good/fair as the person using. Recently, when I questioned another member's rating of me, I did so in a PM to that member. He explained it and offered to remove it if I desired that. I replied accepting that offer, but also acknowledging that he had the right to develop a method to use the system. I don't use the system the way he does, but he is even-handed in how he applies it. Therefore, the best thing for me was to try to understand. Based on our "back and forth messages," I'm convinced that we would gladly play each other again and there would be no problem.

As CC members, perhaps all of us should realize that frequent, open-minded and non-judgemental communication between members is the best starting point. Don't assume anything based on a rating. If you disagree with how someone rates you, ask questions personally. As for using the system to decide whether to play someone, if a rating leaves you with questions, consult the member's games to see if you find anything you believe supports the rating. If you do, play others; if you don't join the game and use CC for the purpose intended: play a world domination game with other lik-minded people around the world.

Thanks for the site, Lack.

[oaktown]

I imagine that as we get more and more used to the new system it won't seem so bad - right now I get upset if somebody leaves me 4s, even though I recognize that it is still above average.

Still, if I actually have concerns about a player I will go into his/her old feedback to see what folks had to say way back when. Numbers are meaningless when you're trying to figure out if a player understands the concept of team games, or is likely to break a treaty.

Seems like the ideal system would have the 1-5 (or 1-4 if that is the way you're going, lack) star ratings, but you could also leave written feedback that displays your rating next to it. Then I could see that somebody is a 4.1 (which is lower than anybody i've played so far), pull up the feedback, and scroll down to see why they've gotten some low marks.

[OliverFA]

This one seems fair to me:

I think ratings should have a "moving average" like a stock does. BAsically, the rating would mature and fall off so if someone gave you undeserved 1's, after 90 days, they would no longer count. I think this would be easy to institute, and make it so people wouldn't complain so much about bad ratings. Plus I could regain my 5.0, instead of the 4.8 I have.

Using moving averages, bad players have a chance to change and behave properly. Likewise, for players that get crazy, it would be reflected in ratings much sooner.

[polarbeast23]

This one seems fair to me:

I think ratings should have a "moving average" like a stock does. BAsically, the rating would mature and fall off so if someone gave you undeserved 1's, after 90 days, they would no longer count. I think this would be easy to institute, and make it so people wouldn't complain so much about bad ratings. Plus I could regain my 5.0, instead of the 4.8 I have.

Using moving averages, bad players have a chance to change and behave properly. Likewise, for players that get crazy, it would be reflected in ratings much sooner.

I like this idea

That way, If I don't like how someone rated me, I can foe them and in time, their rating no longer stains my reputation.

[stickamus]

I really like these ideas

[epdidy]

i think the ratings system is preatty good as it is but should have also have a coment that the rater type with it explaining why a person got this good/bad rating.

[a.sub]

just a random thought, how about in games where there are 4+ ppl we could hav it so that u r required to leave ratings for everyone. BUT for each person, the most common answer is taken. i know that makes no sense so lemme clear it up with an example, lets say i am playing a game with 7 other ppl, 5 leave me 4 star ratings, one leaves me a 5 and the 7th guy is biased and gives me 1 star, well now the most common answer is 4 stars so i get 4 stars. that way biased ppl would basically hav their vote thrown out, and if everyone thinks a guy is a nut then he will get a low rating anyway.
i also think we should go with a 3 star system but instead of three stars we should hav it so u can check mark one of three boxes labeled
[*] poor
[*] average
[*] good
that way the "average" is predetermined and every one is on the same page.
what do u guys think?


also i think we should have "flags"
so next to ur name u can get flags for
[*] deadbeating
[*] breaking a truce
[*] cheating
and anything else u like this way if someone is a habitual deadbeater we will know

[dalliance]

hey guess what we now don't know who the good players are because everyone i have seen play has above a 4

[walnutwatson]

I agree about showing the amount of turns missed.

I only play 24 hour games and as long as everyone takes a go every 24 hours I don't care whether it's 1 hour after mine or 23 hours after so I've just been giving everyone who doesn't miss a go 5 stars.
After all, how can you justify giving someone a less than perfect score for sticking to the rules perfectly, ie. taking their turn within the time you've all agreed to play to.

[ctgottapee]

i would change from 5 star ratings to this

Rating: Thumps Up - Thumbs Neutral - Thumbs Down
calculated per player, and a player can change their rating from a prior game if they play with you again to indicate improvement or otherwise
this rating method is a simplified and easy way to indicate, would i play with this player again, and there is no ambiguity with what a 5 star or 3 star means

thumps up = I would seek out and want to play with this player again and RECOMMEND them, opponent or teammate
thumbs neutral = [DEFAULT] I'm ok with playing with this player again; fine player no problems, opponent or teammate
also could be I'm not sure, I don't care, there was not enough play to decide, etc
thumbs down = I would not play with this player again and suggest AVOIDING them, opponent or teammate


now how exactly you tally the ratings into a point system that is meaningful is difficult
my suggestion is a two percentage listing
first number in green with a thumbps up icon after it / second number in red with a thumbs down icon after
the first number is the percentage of players played in which you received a thumbps up, ie you received 7 thumbs up from people and have played with 30 people total so your thumps up percentage number is 23
the second number is the percentage of players played in which you received a thumbps down, ie you received 2 thumbs down from people and have played with 30 people total so your thumps up percentage number is 13

neutrals and no votes are not calculated as they mean nothing; they basically mean this player is no different than your average CC player

so your score is 23+/13-
this lets me know what i need; that of all your games, about 1/4 think you are exceptional, which is great, and about 1/10 thought you were not worth playing with, which is small warning.

you also get a ratings left score too; players who appraoch a certain threshold, say 50% of either thumbs up or down could receive a warning or restricted from ratings others; more than half the people you play with should not be awesome or shitty. you could code the interface to not allow people to give ratings once they cross a certain threshold. so if you've rated over 25% of the people you played thumbs down, you can't use thumbs down until the percentage lowers. it will automatically lower once you play enough people to increase your total player count

the thumbs are per player, not per game, so a player can improve and you can play with them again and change their thumbs rating.

to handle disputes, players can change the ratings they have given to a neutral vote at any time, but can only give a thumbs up or down after a game. you can't retaliate but you can have second thoughts and remove an unsound rating.

it seems the problem with the ratings system is that no player wants to be a bad player (low rated)
so if they get low ratings, they complain about them and/or retaliate
really all a ratings system needs to do is weed out the people others have played with and wouldn't want to play with again; there are just too many variables and not enough reliability to trust other unknown player's ratings.

also, the comments need to come back; there needs to be a way for players to express themselves, offer feedback, etc

I'm making progress on these changes and I'm probably going to be able to throw in the "Star colour distinction - new ratings/old rating" suggestion.

I'm getting to the part about making ratings relative to each rater's "average rating left" and I'm having second thoughts. It won't fully solve the problem - some people will still typically leave 5's and others will still typically leave 3's and get complaints about it. Also the solution is quite hard to explain and understand.

I'm looking at other suggestions brought up:

* 4 stars (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) with no "average", so people could typically leave 3 with less controversy.
* 3 stars (1-Bad, 2-Good, 3-Very Good) so that "average" would be more positive sounding as "Good".
* 4 stars with a cap on how often you can rate 1's or 4's. For example, only one "extreme" rating per game to force ratings to be more moderate and therefore (hopefully) accurate.

What do you guys think? I need some more feedback!

[ctgottapee]

also turn ratings could be down numerciall as well

what percentage of turns do you complete on time, and a second rating of how fast overall do you complete them within the time limits. these numbers could be on your profile page, calculated at the end of each game.

also the teamwork star ratings should go away and be replaced with seperate scores/rankings for individual games and team games, this automates the process. when your listed next to an individual game, your individual score would show, and likewise for team games. your profile would show both scores

[joesdad]

get rid of this stupid ratings and bring back the feedback. twas a lot more intresting and informative. lol

[PROFITS]

I think the rating system is cool. Nothing's perfect. The only thing I would change is the players on the opposite team shouldn't be able to rate you on teamwork. I've had several players from other teams give me average ratings for teamwork, and it's brought my ratings down on teamwork. I've sent pm's to a few, but no response or change. Usually the cooks and cadets.

=============================================

UPDATE

I'm making progress on these changes and I'm probably going to be able to throw in the "Star colour distinction - new ratings/old rating" suggestion.

I'm getting to the part about making ratings relative to each rater's "average rating left" and I'm having second thoughts. It won't fully solve the problem - some people will still typically leave 5's and others will still typically leave 3's and get complaints about it. Also the solution is quite hard to explain and understand.

I'm looking at other suggestions brought up:

* 4 stars (1-Very Bad, 2-Bad, 3-Good, 4-Very Good) with no "average", so people could typically leave 3 with less controversy.
* 3 stars (1-Bad, 2-Good, 3-Very Good) so that "average" would be more positive sounding as "Good".
* 4 stars with a cap on how often you can rate 1's or 4's. For example, only one "extreme" rating per game to force ratings to be more moderate and therefore (hopefully) accurate.

What do you guys think? I need some more feedback!

=============================================

After two weeks of experience with the new ratings system and a lot of important input from Conquer Club members like you, it's pretty clear that it could use some fixing.

So here is a 4-point plan to address the major problems with ratings, based on ideas brought up in this forum:

Problem: We want to know the reasons behind the stars, but written comments lead to too many complaints.
Solution: Introduce descriptive tags that you can attach to ratings, to explain them. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: There is too much inconsistency - some people follow our scale and leave 3 for an average player, others typically leave 5.
Solution: Display average rating left (ARL) on each rating and factor it into your overall rating score. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: We have few options when left "unfair" ratings.
Solution: Allow written responses to ratings. >> discussion topic <<

Problem: We want to rate gameplay behaviour that affects the game experience for others, but doesn't fall under "Fair Play".
Solution: Introduce an attribute for Gameplay (which would include teamwork). >> discussion topic <<

None of this is set in stone and we need you input! Please comment on the individual solutions in their respective topics and comment on our overall approach here.

Thanks for helping us make a better Conquer Club!

EDIT: Due to popular demand I've added a 5th point to the plan...

Problem: Attendance should be automated, not a rating!
Solution: Add attendance stat to player profile, remove it from ratings. >> discussion topic <<

[thenobodies80]

For me 4 STAR with :
1 very bad
2 bad
3 good
4 very good

but i think that should be a good idea to do this:

1 star very bad
2 stars bad
3 stars good
4 stars verygood
(a symbol) = no possible to give a rating/no opinion

I think is better than a "zero" star like it is now, because some people don't let a rating or give three star rating not to let a choice empty.

Thenobodies80
The Italian Conqueror Usergroup

[grunion]

I am with the group that thinks that written feedback was a lot more useful way of selecting opponents and partners than stars about "fair play" and such. When deciding who to play with, I care if they are a deadbeat, are clueless as to strategy, and are a whiner or jerk in in-game chat, so stars can be useful for those purposes. The attendance star should be automated - excellent if they average all turns within half of the allocated time, good if they never miss a turn, and on down from there to one if the are eliminated for missing too many turns. I would prefer a rating for "strategy" over "fair play" since that is the biggest cause of confusion. But written comments are the most useful. I also agree that obscenities should be banned in feedback and the current system can be used to help curb retaliatory feedback.

I do kind of like the thumbs up/thumbs down idea, like digg. Maybe we should have that for forum comments too, an easy way to say you agree or disagree with a comment.