Make the default rating 5 stars instead of 1

[Ditocoaf]

Let us say I play 20 games.
I Deadbeat in 5 of those games.
Let us say games are 2 player seq.
In 1 (one) of those games, I have best dice, best cards, and very happy in chat, very helpful, very fair, very fast in taking my turns....

Ratings arrive for my 20 games:

Attendance Ratings only:

42stars - for 14 games that I played out to the end I receive recommended 3 stars (14*3)
5 stars - for the 1 game I had best dice, and very happy in chat, very fast in taking my turns....
5 stars - for the 5games I deadbeated, wasted time (5games * 1star)

52 stars received for 20 games--- average 2.6 stars for attendance.

I deadbeated every fifth game, I deadbeated 5 out of 20 games and my attendance rating is 0.4 below recommended 3 stars.


Assuming that I receive recommended 3's in other 2 categories (where I did not do anything wrong), my average rating would look like:
Attendance 52 stars average 2.6
Fair play 60 stars average 3.0
Attitude 60 stars average 3.0

Total ratings 172 stars average total rating 2.865

This is only 0.135 star below recommended 3 stars for a habitual deadbeater.

wow... that's a major flaw in the system.

now, see, if the standard for a player who misses no turns is 5, then those 1-star ratings would hurt your score more.

[FabledIntegral]

Not really - it shows that you are a below average player concerning attendance. Statistics class tells you that outliers throw off the mean. Just as the single 5 threw off your mean. However in the end, it might be slightly skewed, yet it's still accurate, no? That shows that people who don't deadbeat won't ever get those 1's, so assuming they also played 20 games, got maybe 2 5's, 2 4's, and the rest 16 3's, now have a rating of 3.3, aka slightly above average. You think that for a mere 4 games out of 20 or something, that it should reflect that he is a consistently above average player? Definitely not. I agree that the system might be *slightly* skewed, as a lot of people are still going on the grade scale where 70% = average instead of 50%. It's harder to judge the differences considering we're only out of 5 stars.

I DO admit though, the slightly skewed system could be potentially better having 4 stars as average. HOWEVER, I would much rather have it as explained with 3 stars being standard than 5 stars, which completely defeats the purpose of hte system. And yes, the star system is a universal system.

[BaldAdonis]

...a bunch of numbers, blah blah blah....
Total ratings 172 stars average total rating 2.865

This is only 0.135 star below recommended 3 stars for a habitual deadbeater.

Players should be giving you 5s in the good 15 games, and 1s in the ones you left. That'll give you 75+5 = 80 over 20 games, so 4 stars, which is
1 star below recommended
by people using a logical system.

You still look better than those dummies tossing out 3s, but anyone paying attention will know not to play you.

[Ditocoaf]

Not really - it shows that you are a below average player concerning attendance. Statistics class tells you that outliers throw off the mean. Just as the single 5 threw off your mean. However in the end, it might be slightly skewed, yet it's still accurate, no? That shows that people who don't deadbeat won't ever get those 1's, so assuming they also played 20 games, got maybe 2 5's, 2 4's, and the rest 16 3's, now have a rating of 3.3, aka slightly above average. You think that for a mere 4 games out of 20 or something, that it should reflect that he is a consistently above average player? Definitely not. I agree that the system might be *slightly* skewed, as a lot of people are still going on the grade scale where 70% = average instead of 50%. It's harder to judge the differences considering we're only out of 5 stars.

I DO admit though, the slightly skewed system could be potentially better having 4 stars as average. HOWEVER, I would much rather have it as explained with 3 stars being standard than 5 stars, which completely defeats the purpose of hte system. And yes, the star system is a universal system.

yes... actually, if I had finished any games by now, I would be using 4 stars as average. I admit I have been using 5 stars as a counter to 3, which does seem wrong to me, and also to keep this argument going. Because as long as this argument is going on, that shows that it is still too unclear and subjective a system, and needs further clarification. I'll be happy once this argument is almost impossible, because the system is so clear.

[FabledIntegral]

Not really - it shows that you are a below average player concerning attendance. Statistics class tells you that outliers throw off the mean. Just as the single 5 threw off your mean. However in the end, it might be slightly skewed, yet it's still accurate, no? That shows that people who don't deadbeat won't ever get those 1's, so assuming they also played 20 games, got maybe 2 5's, 2 4's, and the rest 16 3's, now have a rating of 3.3, aka slightly above average. You think that for a mere 4 games out of 20 or something, that it should reflect that he is a consistently above average player? Definitely not. I agree that the system might be *slightly* skewed, as a lot of people are still going on the grade scale where 70% = average instead of 50%. It's harder to judge the differences considering we're only out of 5 stars.

I DO admit though, the slightly skewed system could be potentially better having 4 stars as average. HOWEVER, I would much rather have it as explained with 3 stars being standard than 5 stars, which completely defeats the purpose of hte system. And yes, the star system is a universal system.

yes... actually, if I had finished any games by now, I would be using 4 stars as average. I admit I have been using 5 stars as a counter to 3, which does seem wrong to me, and also to keep this argument going. Because as long as this argument is going on, that shows that it is still too unclear and subjective a system, and needs further clarification. I'll be happy once this argument is almost impossible, because the system is so clear.

I think 4 is a decent compromise, because 5 is ridiculous - there's nothing to rewards *better* play. What's the incentive. I dare anyone to find any system where the top rating is the average!

[BaldAdonis]

I think 4 is a decent compromise, because 5 is ridiculous - there's nothing to rewards *better* play. What's the incentive. I dare anyone to find any system where the top rating is the average!

It's not about play, it's about behaviour. You're not measuring how good they are, but how nice they are.

Systems where the top rating is average are quite common. Think up any thing that most people or objects qualify for, but still has to be rated with varying levels lower than that. Things like literacy (can you read? Yes = perfect. Below that, levels of inability, from lack of comprehension to not recognizing letters) or food grades (Safe to eat? Yes = perfect. Below that, levels of concern for preparation practices).

[Hrvat]

Not really - it shows that you are a below average player concerning attendance.

0.4 below average??? With 5 games deadbeated. That shows nothing. If I was looking at a Feedback page, there would be red -ve's popping up everywhere...

You think that for a mere 4 games out of 20 or something, that it should reflect that he is a consistently above average player? Definitely not.

a) I do not care if he/she is above/below average... I want to see that player deadbeated, that player is rude..., that player cheats,
b) mere 4 games out of 20? That is substantial deadbeat sequence (at least in my book)
c) all scores will average out over the time (hiding potential players I do not wish to play like yourself for example)

I DO admit though, the slightly skewed system could be potentially better having 4 stars as average. HOWEVER, I would much rather have it as explained with 3 stars being standard than 5 stars, which completely defeats the purpose of hte system.

The purpose of this system is...: our hard working Mods do not have to do their Mod-ing.

And this system score/stars WILL average itself out (mod quote), so there is noway that we will be able to select players that are Not abusive, that are Not jerks.... because scores/stars will average out "-ve's"

And yes, the star system is a universal system.

No it is NOT universal:
a) everyone is allocating numbers of star they wish to (5 for average play, 2 for good play, 1 for having a bad day...)
b) there is no Check of any kind, there is no moderation, so system is NOT and will never be Universal

[FabledIntegral]

I think 4 is a decent compromise, because 5 is ridiculous - there's nothing to rewards *better* play. What's the incentive. I dare anyone to find any system where the top rating is the average!

It's not about play, it's about behaviour. You're not measuring how good they are, but how nice they are.

Systems where the top rating is average are quite common. Think up any thing that most people or objects qualify for, but still has to be rated with varying levels lower than that. Things like literacy (can you read? Yes = perfect. Below that, levels of inability, from lack of comprehension to not recognizing letters) or food grades (Safe to eat? Yes = perfect. Below that, levels of concern for preparation practices).

By better play I meant behavior - whatever.

Literacy is a very poor example for two reasons. There is not a scale to choose from, there are two answers. You have one or the other, therefore it is not pertinent to the discussion.

If you DO want to make it relevant, you can use literacy in terms of reading level as a scale. The top reading scale could be considered college reading level. If you take the AVERAGE reading level, it is nowhere near the top, considering college reading level and vocabulary is very rare and reserved for the top tier of readers, when in comparison to the entire population.

Concerning food, it's the same thing. "Safe to eat" is not a scale, or measurement, or some type of system as I mentioned, so once again your point is irrelevant. If you want a scale on quality of food, you could differentiate between beef for example, such as choice, prime, etc. Prime being the best cut, yet definitely not the standard rating. You're including yourself in Yes/No scenarios where you are NOT rating the QUALITY of an object, which is what we are concerned with.

Concerning Hrvat - you are again wrong. I am referring to the star system as being universal in that it's used in many different ratings and is always consistent. Just because individuals are retarded does not detract from it being a universal system. I think it's your poor vocabulary that you simply don't understand what "universal" even means, and are somehow interpreting it different than it's actual meaning. It has nothing to do with how people individually are rating it on CC obviously, and whether or not people are giving what has been official (which you also failed with your technicalities) has nothing to do with the system itself on how it should work and what should be standard.

[Hrvat]

Check out ratings left by
Astroheat

LOL so much for Universal rating system.

[BaldAdonis]

You've never worked with illiterate people, have you?
There are levels of illiteracy. They fall into ranges, and depending on where the person places you can decide what sort of teaching they need. If they fail on word comprehensions, then they benefit most from reading what they can often and from vocabulary drills. If they fail grammar recognitions, then they're usually best dealt with by talking in a moderated group to understand how structures work. If they have trouble recognizing letters, there are other (indepth) strategies. If they cannot develop grammar independently (ie. they were isolated from language during developmental years) then they will never develop it (this is extremely rare).

Food grades in the US are not the only ones in the world. I understand that your government sees it fit to pass/fail producers (leads to a lot of corruption when they're close, doesn't it?) but a lot of other countries have a A-E scale, detailing what sorts of things would have to change to make it suitable.

Like I said, I'm sure you can think up some other systems on your own if you try. It's alright to admit you have no idea what you're talking about

(Maybe if you want to hold that "star ratings" are universal, you should stop bringing up restaurants. The most famous stars there are for three levels of greatness).

[cicero]

This was the original post:

Concise description:
I think it would be better if the initial number of stars being given to a person should be 5 instead of one.
Specifics:
Often times when u are leaving a negative it is because the player was weak in one paticular aspect of the game not all around. so having the rating start at 1 isn't fair if a person forgets to change all the others considering feedback will not be removed by the mods. Another variation of this is to have the feedback ratings set so that a person only leaves feedback for another player if s/he manually moves the ranking up/down

This subsequent post seems to me to have clarified the point adequately:

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Make it so there are less feedback mishaps with players leaving lower feedbacks then they meant to.

Default should be blank - so if you don't want to rate you don't have to.

At the moment the default is blank - which is NOT 0 stars. It's "Unrated".

Assuming that the OP meant the same thing by "initial" that yeti meant by "default" then I think we're done here?

I'd suggest that further discussion about when 5 stars, 1 star etc are appropriate isn't a bug or a suggestion ... but probably better in a new thread in General Discussion?

[FabledIntegral]

Check out ratings left by
Astroheat

LOL so much for Universal rating system.

it's still universal. You're absolutely impossible, you don't understand the meaning of universal, and in your ignorance I don't think I can argue any further with someone so dense.

You've never worked with illiterate people, have you?
There are levels of illiteracy. They fall into ranges, and depending on where the person places you can decide what sort of teaching they need. If they fail on word comprehensions, then they benefit most from reading what they can often and from vocabulary drills. If they fail grammar recognitions, then they're usually best dealt with by talking in a moderated group to understand how structures work. If they have trouble recognizing letters, there are other (indepth) strategies. If they cannot develop grammar independently (ie. they were isolated from language during developmental years) then they will never develop it (this is extremely rare).

Food grades in the US are not the only ones in the world. I understand that your government sees it fit to pass/fail producers (leads to a lot of corruption when they're close, doesn't it?) but a lot of other countries have a A-E scale, detailing what sorts of things would have to change to make it suitable.

Like I said, I'm sure you can think up some other systems on your own if you try. It's alright to admit you have no idea what you're talking about

(Maybe if you want to hold that "star ratings" are universal, you should stop bringing up restaurants. The most famous stars there are for three levels of greatness).

If I recall, you asked about literacy, NOT illiteracy? Hence my response. Huge difference with what you are referring to. Now you're asking about ILLITERACY, something of the related subject, but you, as you just said, have different levels of illiteracy. If you have different levels of illiteracy, then you would, IF including literacy in part of your scale, include the different levels of literacy in your scale, no?

I don't understand your part on A-E scale, which is exactly what I was saying. We have an A-E scale on cleanliness of restaurants for example, yet A isn't the standard grade given out. We have multiple choices on beef, which I said... includes Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner. I was merely making the point that neither Prime nor Choice would be the most common, it's reserved for what is above and beyond.

I think I'm misunderstanding your point - as I view it accepting what I was saying. My point was that yes/no or pass/fail systems do NOT fall under the same system where you're rating on a range, aka a scale of 1-10, A-E, 1-star to 5-star... maybe you could clarify me what exactly you're trying to say. I was saying show me a system/scale where 10 would be the average rating given out, or 5-stars would be the average rating given out, or A would be the average rating given out.

[KLOBBER]

I regularly leave all 5's as a default for anyone who plays with me, and everyone else on the site should adopt my personal rating preferences, or be subject to banishment due to abuse of the system.

[Thezzaruz]

I regularly leave all 5's as a default for anyone who plays with me, and everyone else on the site should adopt my personal rating preferences, or be subject to banishment due to abuse of the system.

Klobber stick to the dice threads, there you make sense at least.

[KLOBBER]

I regularly leave all 5's as a default for anyone who plays with me, and everyone else on the site should adopt my personal rating preferences, or be subject to banishment due to abuse of the system.

Klobber stick to the dice threads, there you make sense at least.

I make sense all the time, but those with half a brain can only perceive my sense half the time.