Round the ratings correctly

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!
Post Reply
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

This is only a tiny issue, but it should also be very simple to resolve. I'm only really posting it because I should be studying and am a master procrastinator.

The ratings are currently rounded down in cases when they should be rounded up.

My ratings:
Attitude: 71x5
Gameplay: 72x5
Fair Play: 72x5, 1x1

Overall:
(71+72+72)x5+1=1076
1076/216=4.98184...

One does not simply round 4.98 down to 4.9.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Metsfanmax »

It is rounded correctly. For the overall score, zero-star ratings are counted (indirectly, in that it's basically summing up the number of stars you earned and dividing by the total number possible).
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

oh okay, thanks for clearing that up.

is that sensible though? it means by giving someone a 5 in one thing and not rating the other two fields you are giving that person an overall of 1,67. why not only calculate what has actually been rated?
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Metsfanmax »

Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?


It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.
User avatar
riskllama
Posts: 9026
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:50 pm
Location: deep inside Queen Charlotte.

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by riskllama »

so, if you got 2/5 for gameplay and 0/5 for attitude and the other one(i forget what it is right now), your rating for that particular game would be 2/15? i was always under the assumption that it would just be a 2/5.
???
Image
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

Metsfanmax wrote:
Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?


It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.


if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.
betiko
Posts: 10941
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: location, location

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by betiko »

I didn't know that when you didn t leave full ratings you were actually giving a 0 to the overall rating.
We agree that for a particular field, it s not counted in the average though right? I ve always given 1/1/1 as the worse rating possible when someone had been horrible. So i guess 1/0/0 is actually the worse rating possible?
Image
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Metsfanmax »

riskllama wrote:so, if you got 2/5 for gameplay and 0/5 for attitude and the other one(i forget what it is right now), your rating for that particular game would be 2/15? i was always under the assumption that it would just be a 2/5.
???


For the purposes of the overall rating, yes.

Nymeria Stark wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?


It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.


if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.


It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).

betiko wrote:I didn't know that when you didn t leave full ratings you were actually giving a 0 to the overall rating.
We agree that for a particular field, it s not counted in the average though right? I ve always given 1/1/1 as the worse rating possible when someone had been horrible. So i guess 1/0/0 is actually the worse rating possible?


For a particular field it's not counted, only for overall.
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

Metsfanmax wrote:
Nymeria Stark wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Nymeria Stark wrote:is that sensible though?


It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.


if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?

my knowledge of programming is small and i'm aware that estimate may seem embarrassingly ignorant to someone who knows their shit. then again i've watched mates who study IT do things that seem orders of magnitude more complex in like 20 minutes.


It's not about the amount of work, it's that people already know the rating system as it is, this change would involve suddenly re-rating a lot of people all at once and lots of people would probably not be happy about that. And it's also not clear in which direction we should fix it (make 0/5 count for the individual scores too, or don't make 0/5 ever count?).


i highly doubt many people realise giving a 5 and leaving 2 fields blank means leaving a worse rating than giving 2/2/2. im confident apart from people that have read it in their forum (to their surprise), almost everyone assumes 1/1/1 is the worst rating you can give.

can you explain why you think people might be unhappy if this mistake was fixed? no ones rating would get worse, only those who have lower ratings than they should have would be affected, in their favour.

it is very clear in which direction it should be fixed: make 0s not count at all. they are fields that have not been rated, not fields that have been rated 0 out of 5. if 0/0/0 were an option then that would be different.

as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.
User avatar
IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
Posts: 16847
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Gender: Male
Location: California

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by IcePack »

Actually, I also thought leaving 5-0-0 was good bcuz the zeros "didn't hurt".
Apparently that's not the case. I thought if I didn't have info to rate off of for a catagory I could still rate the player in the ones I had info for and not harm their score.

That makes sense, this doesn't :/
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
riskllama
Posts: 9026
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:50 pm
Location: deep inside Queen Charlotte.

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by riskllama »

I actually kinda prided myself on giving fair ratings - whups. sorry, all... :?
Image
User avatar
riskllama
Posts: 9026
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:50 pm
Location: deep inside Queen Charlotte.

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by riskllama »

perhaps some kind of announcement is in order? I think a lot of players were under the same assumption I was, eh?
Image
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Metsfanmax »

Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.


Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

Metsfanmax wrote:
Nymeria Stark wrote:as ive said, i dont think this is a big issue. i just consider the reasons youve stated for not changing it incredibly weak.


Perhaps, but ratings system fixes are pretty low on anyone's priority list. So unless there's some reason why this is particularly important, I don't have any interest in spending political capital on it.


the conversation is going in circles. now we're back to this.

Nymeria Stark wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
It is definitely not consistent; not sure about whether it's sensible. We have had this discussion about this particular issue a few times in the past and the general agreement was that although it's kind of messed up, it's not worth fixing.


if it's hours upon hours of work then i agree, but surely it wouldn't take more than a few minutes?


but im happy to agree to disagree. thanks for taking the time to reply. :)


riskllama wrote:perhaps some kind of announcement is in order? I think a lot of players were under the same assumption I was, eh?


i agree. people should know the ratings system is different than one naturally assumes so they can rate accordingly. i'll post in ccd.
mrswdk
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by mrswdk »

So if someone's really shit, is it possible to rate them 0/15 instead of 3/15? I was under the impression you have to leave at least 1 star for the form to submit.
Nymeria Stark
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 5:04 pm

Re: Round the ratings correctly

Post by Nymeria Stark »

mrswdk wrote:So if someone's really shit, is it possible to rate them 0/15 instead of 3/15? I was under the impression you have to leave at least 1 star for the form to submit.


1/15 is the lowest.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions”