Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Chess Variant Pages Rating System. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A good thing about a new system is that there is something rated between Good and Poor. If I rate something 'Good', I think it is Good and not the second best out of three possible ratings. A problem with popularity lists is that it could become a competition. Comments should be used to give feedback, to ask and answer question or something like that. Feedback and discussion can be used as inspiration for new projects. I think it shouldn't be about who scores the most comment-points.
In my opinion, Terrible = this chess variant is so bad that I am not going to waste my time assigning it a Poor rating (perhaps requiring me to put more thought into my review than the inventor put into his game). So the question is: who will actually be using your new 'Terrible' rating? And how long until someone starts abusing the 'Terrible' rating?
💡📝David Howe wrote on Thu, Mar 23, 2006 04:48 PM UTC:How about: 0 Poor 1 Below average 2 Average 3 Good 4 Excellent As with any rating system, it will only be as good as the quality of its inputs. If people are generally thoughtful, honest and objective, then I think the system will work well. As others have said, the more valuable input is the more qualitative vs. the quantitative, although quantitative input can have some value that qualitative input does not have. So the more ways we give people to give feedback, the better. I do hope that people will avoid abusing the system for personal gain. Such acts decrease the value of the system overall and are damaging in the long-term.
For that matter, any rating scale at all can offend game inventors (including the 4-tier one we are using right now). Still, we need a rating scale. It can be comparable to helpful advice. I don't think adjectives should be used at all (including the ones in our current system). When someone's game receives a below-average rating, bad words trigger people to get upset and feel insulted moreso than numbers.
'How about: 0 Poor 1 Below average 2 Average 3 Good 4 Excellent' well that is the best i've heard. using numbers is good idea too, so as not to upset people, then i guess you could rate 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
i think the rating system in place is just fine, what is the point of 'neutral', what is that, it isn't even a rating, and isn't 'none' pretty much the same.I will address the second, fourth, and fifth independent clauses of this sentence.
2. The point of a 'neutral' or 'average' rating is to allow users to express ambivalence.
4. Correct. As the system now stands, anyone can skim the rules of a game, think about it for thirty seconds, and proclaim that it's the best thing ever. But someone who has played a game numerous times, or analyzed in detail, and comes to the conclusion that it's nothing special (neither very good nor very bad) has no way to express that opinion and have it taken into account in the computation of the game's average rating. The fact that 'Neutral' or 'Average' is not a rating in the current system is the primary reason why change is desirable.
5. Correct. 'None' is not at all the same as 'Neutral' or 'Average'. 'None' is not a rating, communicates nothing about the user's opinion of a game, and has no effect on the average/overall rating. But a neutral rating would communicate something (i.e. that the user considers the game to be neither very good nor very bad) and does affect the overall rating.
In my opinion, in order for a rating system to be useful, it must include one rating which corresponds to neutrality, and at least two ratings on each side, so that both positive and negative opinions can be expressed with various degrees of intensity. The current system satisfies neither of these criteria and is therefore not useful. The proposed system satisfies both, and I think it could be useful if used properly (a big 'if'). It's interesting to note that the labels (ranging from 'Poor' to 'Excellent') are still biased toward boosting people's egos, but this is relatively unimportant: the meaning of the ratings is carried by their underlying numerical values, as long as it is clear which is the neutral rating.
i am guessing we are keeping 'none', so as to make comments on a game but not rate. now this is no big deal, but .. Thomas, i understand 'average', but as far as 'neutral' is concerned, it does not mean 'ambivalence', which means ... 1.The coexistence of opposing attitudes or feelings, such as love and hate, toward a person, object, or idea. 2.Uncertainty or indecisiveness as to which course to follow. where as neutral means .. 1.Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. 2.Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground. 3.Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other. so technically, i cannot see how 'neutral' is a rating, or showing anything at all towards a game.
If it's the choice of words that bothers you, I readily concede that 'Neutral' is not the best possible word for this new rating. 'Average' is significantly better, but still not perfect.
On another topic, I'm not sure I like the proposed popularity ranking. I'm guessing that under this system, the most 'popular' items on these pages would be the Rules of Chess FAQ, an old flame war regarding the Gothic Chess patent, and Navia Dratp.
yes it is just the word, i don't think it is precise, it could lead to confusion or whatever. thinking about the rating system, i just reckon there needs to be something between poor and good, probably average is fine. if you look at how people rate, 95% rate excellent or good, that is probably because there is no average rating. most people don't bother about rating a game poor. this year, members have rated games 30 excellent, 20 good and 5 poor, and that poor rating recently got 3 poors because of people naming games 'grand chess 2' and 'grander chess'. non-members rated in a similiar fashion, bit more excellents, bit less goods, around same poors. i know i am not going to ever rate a game poor, it could be my taste in games, or i can't bother to rate a game i don't like. also i would never rate a game average, and wouldn't be surprised if people mainly didn't either, but maybe i'm wrong with that. about 'popular' ... are you saying the 'most popular' thingy is worked out by amount of comments? ... that can't be good, that would mean 'gridlock' would be a very popular game, and i'm pretty sure/unsure no one has ever played it. (woops sorry mr leno, just remember i did rate your game excellent)
I'm glad my tongue-in-cheek proposed worded descriptions amused some people as they did me. While I agree that using words like 'beneath contempt' to describe a variant may hurt people's feelings, I do think there is a serious reason to use a number system that includes 1 through 10. I do not think that 1 through 5 allows as much flexibility in analysis. A '4' in a 1 - 10 system is less harsh than 'Poor' in a 1 - 5 system. I think there is a serious purpose in having a rating system which allows a certain depth of analysis. That is so we can list pages according to their rating. This will allow visitors to the site, including ourselves, to sort through variants according to apparent quality. Of course, popularity will not always translate into quality, but at least we can have some sorting mechanisms in place that will help guide us through an increasingly prolific site. I would like to see all 10s rated together, all 9.4's rated together, all 5.32's rated together, etc (averages derived from cumulative ratings). This would encourage people to really take seriously the art of critiquing games. Does a game really deserve the rating of 10? People can go to the page on which 10s are listed and say one way or the other, thus influencing the way in which the games are listed. I would also like to ask that we take seriously the idea of separate rating systems for different aspects of games 'playability' 'originality' and 'appearance.' Again, the advantage is to evolve sorting mechanisms (sorting according to playability, etc). It would also help the designer to know what people did or didn't like about the games. I would also like to hear some feedback for a separate rating system in place for Game Courier post-game analysis, so that people who have actually played games can then have a chance to rate them. At the end of a game, there could be an option, 'Do you want to rate this variant?'
'oh yes i agree, 'zhouxia' is crap'
Really, Christine, you need to go easier on your own inventions and be tougher on other people's games :>)
I reserve 'Excellent' ratings to games that are clearly in the top five percent, 'Good' ratings to those in the next twenty percent that have some points of interest, and 'Poor' ratings to ... oops!. We are all aware that the majority of games posted here are poorly designed, will never be played on Game Courier Preset, and may not even get a single comment on their pages. 'Poor' ratings are sort of warning signs posted in a more or less random fashion about this web site. We should spend our precious time studying and playing games of proven quality.
|
I only rate a game poor if the game's rules do not adequately describe how to play the game in question. Sometimes, someone has a half-baked idea for a variant, and they don't take the time or energy to even fully describe the variant, much less make a Zillions ZRF or Game Courier preset for the variant. If a game is fully fleshed out, or has a Zillions rule file, or even a game courier preset, I will plain simply not rate the game poor.
If I think there is an issue with the mechanics of a fully described game, I will discuss my issue in an unrated game comment. This gives me an opportunity to discuss whether my concern is really a legitimate concern with other chessvariant.org editors and the game's inventor. I will usually suggest how I would fix the game when bringing up the concern. As just one example, I feel Hex chess may have problems. The consensus, however, is that these are probably not legitimate concerns. Speaking of Game Courier, could someone please index my game courier preset for my take on Carrera chess. - Sam |
It is good to see a well-thoughtout proposal which actually requires that the raters play at least one game of what they are to evaluate... of course I already imagine there will be complainers. Of the system's steps, I really like number 4, which says a lot, and I quote: 4. Any ratings submitted would have to be accompanied by a textual explanation explaining the reasons for the particular ratings. Only after review by the editorial staff would a rating be accepted. Raters must have played at least one game of the variant they are rating. Very nice David. Well done and well written.
💡📝David Howe wrote on Wed, Jun 7, 2006 08:57 PM UTC:Another possible system might involve awarding points over time (everyone gets N points every M days). The points would be of the 'use it or lose it' type, so that point hording would not be possible.
Or perhaps a 'free market' system, where each rater starts out with N points, which the rater uses to 'buy' the right to rate a particular entry from the entry's owner. Eg. Dave has 10 points. He buys the right to rate Peter's Anti-King Chess, which Peter is selling for 3 points. Dave now has 7 points left, and Peter has 13 (assuming he had 10 before the transaction).
The down side to these schemes is that they discourage free expression by putting certain artificial limits on expression.
Here is another idea: Have no ratings at all. Just two rows (A) and (B): (A) This is what I like about this game: (B) This is what I don't like about this game:
David Howe wrote:
It may lead to a rater 'buying' points by rating some large number of entries as 'Okay', not because they want to rate those entries, but because they want to gain points.
True enough. But this would be a problem only if those 'Okay' ratings were dishonest. To put a different spin on this, it gives people incentive to rate games they would normally neglect. The overall effect of this would be to make ratings more representative of a game's overall appeal. Also, the need to buy points to give high or low ratings might encourage a person to take a closer look at games he has passed over before, and he might find some new favorites before getting the extra points he needs.
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 23, 2006 04:39 AM UTC:Good ★★★★This seems to be making everybody who wants a tighter and more informative rating system happy, but it may take a while for the games to actually make it to the 'rated' stage, as it requires 5 individual ratings. Next, how do I sign up? As far as I'm concerned, every game I post I want rated, so is there an automatic sign-up? I've currently got 4 public presets, 2 of them with a rook option. How do I get them put into the rating pool? And how do the 2 presets with the optional rook get rated? Does someone have to play all [preset] versions of a game to rate it? And any other games I get posted? Can they go in automatically? I guess that's enough questions for now. Thanks. I'm interested in seeing how this works out. I hope it does well.
💡📝David Howe wrote on Fri, Jun 23, 2006 05:37 AM UTC:Hi Joe, >> Next, how do I sign up? Go to any of your game pages (the quickest way to do that is to go to your information page, and click on the 'Items this person invented' link. Any of the items under the 'Game' section can be submitted for entry in the rating system. Just display the web page for the game you want to submit, and you'll see near the bottom, right above the author/inventor line, a link to 'Submit this game to be available for rating!'. Click on that link and follow the instructions. You have 7 games you invented, so it shouldn't be too much of an effort for you to submit them individually. I just hope Ralph Betza doesn't try to submit all his! ;-) Note that only GAME pages may be submitted for rating. If you have a game courier or zillions item that you want to submit, just create a game page for it first, and then submit the game page. I am limiting ratings to game pages to avoid one person rating game X's zillions page, while another person rates game X's game courier preset and yet another person rates game X's game information page. All for now. Please continue with the feedback, and thank you for the kind words. My experience tells me I will be making lots of changes to this system, so don't be shy about suggestions.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.