Conquer Club

you always give X/15. leaving a field blank when rating someone gives them a 0. if you rate someone 5/0/0 because you liked one aspect and don't have enough info to rate the rest, you are not giving them 5/5. you are giving them 5/15, worse than if you rated 2/2/2.

so stop giving decent people 5/5/0 and start giving cunts 1/0/0 rather than 1/1/1.

Quite the assumption.

Extreme Ways wrote:Quite the assumption.

yes, i would like to see some sort of empirical data backing these claims... perhaps some graphs, coloured pie charts, examples, data sets... i look forward to seeing this information...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:Quite the assumption.

yes, i would like to see some sort of empirical data backing these claims... perhaps some graphs, coloured pie charts, examples, data sets... i look forward to seeing this information...-Jésus noir

No, the claim that I probably misunderstood the rating system. I shouldve been clear.

How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

Donelladan wrote:How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

I read the post in the suggestion forums, so my opinion had been confirmed. I had been told a 0/5 was worse than 1/5 before, but never really got proof for it.

maybe the mods should better explain this on the ratings page...

riskllama wrote:maybe the mods should better explain this on the ratings page...

OMG, HELL NO! NO YOU DIDN'T!!!!!! You nasty. U b like tell ling da mods to be like cross spreading d word 2 d people. U trippin homs. They b, nah, 4get dat. we b kool rite now A.

Consistency, explanations and logical progression, from a site and a team that doesn't even monitor it's suggestions section. You sir are a funny quadruped.

Extreme Ways wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

I read the post in the suggestion forums, so my opinion had been confirmed. I had been told a 0/5 was worse than 1/5 before, but never really got proof for it.

so, that is incorrect? this is kind of all over the place. can you make one clear and concise statement that even I will be able to follow? no graphs needed, just break it down in really small words for me!!!-Jésus noir

Extreme Ways wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

I read the post in the suggestion forums, so my opinion had been confirmed. I had been told a 0/5 was worse than 1/5 before, but never really got proof for it.

Knowing that if you give someone 3 times 0/5 you actually aren't giving them any ratings, it wouldn't be register, this is clearly illogical that giving someone 1/5 then 0/5 and 0/5 is actually worse than a 1/5,1/5,1/5.
And not exactly correct either, since the 0/5 does decrease the overall ratings, but your ratings in each category isn't influenced by the 0/5 but only by the rated one. ( well I am not 100% sure of that but that's what I understood from the suggestion).

My point was, I think OP is right and probably many people misunderstood how the rating system works.

i'm lost by this thread. I always thought "leaving 0/5" meant no rating in that particular area.

I thought if you left 5/5 5/5 0/5 it meant overall rating was 5, and the worst rating you could leave was 1 and not 0.

The posts in this thread so far doesn't clarify it for me..

what is it, does it mean 0 out of 5 or does it mean No Grade?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=221633&view=unread#unread

Your answer is in the linked above.

The answer is 0/5 doesn't count for each of the three category :
Fair Play
Gameplay
Attitude

But it count for the overall rating.

Clear ?

Donelladan wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

I read the post in the suggestion forums, so my opinion had been confirmed. I had been told a 0/5 was worse than 1/5 before, but never really got proof for it.

Knowing that if you give someone 3 times 0/5 you actually aren't giving them any ratings, it wouldn't be register, this is clearly illogical that giving someone 1/5 then 0/5 and 0/5 is actually worse than a 1/5,1/5,1/5.
And not exactly correct either, since the 0/5 does decrease the overall ratings, but your ratings in each category isn't influenced by the 0/5 but only by the rated one. ( well I am not 100% sure of that but that's what I understood from the suggestion).

My point was, I think OP is right and probably many people misunderstood how the rating system works.

It's still clickbait title, which is probably ok for attracting people in here, but something I very dislike myself. I was taking a friendly jab at that, I know Nymeria.

Donelladan wrote:https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=221633&view=unread#unread

Your answer is in the linked above.

The answer is 0/5 doesn't count for each of the three category :
Fair Play
Gameplay
Attitude

But it count for the overall rating.

Clear ?

THanks


It makes no sense the way it works then. I've heard forever that those who "didn't know" thought it was 0 out of 5, and for those "who knew"it meant no rating in that category. A lot of "wrong" ratings floating around then.

Should be one way or the other, not "both".

Btw, have you guys seen Rasberry's rating, it's 2.7 now, lower than dildobaggins'. Must be hard to keep it that low.

ras goes by "dildoberry" now...

Extreme Ways wrote:

Donelladan wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How do you think the ratings works EW ? I am curious !

I read the post in the suggestion forums, so my opinion had been confirmed. I had been told a 0/5 was worse than 1/5 before, but never really got proof for it.

Knowing that if you give someone 3 times 0/5 you actually aren't giving them any ratings, it wouldn't be register, this is clearly illogical that giving someone 1/5 then 0/5 and 0/5 is actually worse than a 1/5,1/5,1/5.
And not exactly correct either, since the 0/5 does decrease the overall ratings, but your ratings in each category isn't influenced by the 0/5 but only by the rated one. ( well I am not 100% sure of that but that's what I understood from the suggestion).

My point was, I think OP is right and probably many people misunderstood how the rating system works.

It's still clickbait title, which is probably ok for attracting people in here, but something I very dislike myself. I was taking a friendly jab at that, I know Nymeria.

hmmm the internet must be rubbing off on me. i didnt notice that was what it was when writing the title, but now that you say it i reckon thats what i was subconsciously doing.

Last I knew, rating a 0/5 for attitude doesn't affect the player's attitude rating, but does impact their overall rating.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Last I knew, rating a 0/5 for attitude doesn't affect the player's attitude rating, but does impact their overall rating.

Yeah, that's the way it is, but it's counter-intuitive. I'll bet 99% of the members don't realize that's how it works. It isn't formally documented.

Dukasaur wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Last I knew, rating a 0/5 for attitude doesn't affect the player's attitude rating, but does impact their overall rating.

Yeah, that's the way it is, but it's counter-intuitive. I'll bet 99% of the members don't realize that's how it works. It isn't formally documented.

I can only speak for myself, but that makes no sense at all. Why would you count it towards one sort of rating and not towards the other? Is this a mistake that they won't bother to fix, because it's not that important or is there an actual explanation for using this kind of system? Can't think of any kind of logical explanation myself, but I haven't got all the knowledge. Please enlighten me!

- JBlombier

JBlombier wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Last I knew, rating a 0/5 for attitude doesn't affect the player's attitude rating, but does impact their overall rating.

Yeah, that's the way it is, but it's counter-intuitive. I'll bet 99% of the members don't realize that's how it works. It isn't formally documented.

I can only speak for myself, but that makes no sense at all. Why would you count it towards one sort of rating and not towards the other? Is this a mistake that they won't bother to fix, because it's not that important or is there an actual explanation for using this kind of system? Can't think of any kind of logical explanation myself, but I haven't got all the knowledge. Please enlighten me!

- JBlombier

Your guess is as good as mine. I'm sure the only person who knows is lackattack. He implemented the new ratings system way back in '09 or whenever and never looked at it again. BigWham upgraded the ratings graphics so that the stars do their pretty dance when you mouse over them, but he didn't touch the core algorithm as far as I know.

Dukasaur wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Last I knew, rating a 0/5 for attitude doesn't affect the player's attitude rating, but does impact their overall rating.

Yeah, that's the way it is, but it's counter-intuitive. I'll bet 99% of the members don't realize that's how it works. It isn't formally documented.

I am in one of the 99%. When you mouse-over the stars, the second star from the left is labelled "Bad" first star from the left is labelled "No Rating", not "Worse than Bad". which would imply that it is treated as a N/A and not counted.

If it is ignored in one rating and counted in the overall then I would guess it is an oversight that nobody has been bothered to correct

Nymeria, next time you play xtratabasco just agree with him when he talks about his conspiracy theories and he will give you 5's across the board.