Re: [piecepack] Scrap the ratings?

[Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...>]

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:08:52PM -0400, Dave Boyle wrote:
> I'm seriously thinking of yanking the whole rating system from the games
> page on piecepack.org.

I used to be strongly in favour of the rating system, but considering
recent abuses, I'm not so sure anymore.

> The instructions you see every time you rate a game are pretty simple:
> 
> "Please enter a rating for your overall enjoyment of the game.
> Please only rate games that you yourself have actually played.
> Enter a rating from 1 (not at all enjoyable) to 10 (immensely enjoyable)."
> 
> Does anyone out there actually use it as intended?  It seems to me like
> people are voting to achieve an effect, to lower or raise a game's rating,
> rather than to rate their enjoyment of the game as it was intended.
> 
> Kidsprout Jumboree getting two 1's.  People voting on games they have not
> played.  Cats living with dogs.  It's pandemonium!

Well, even factoring out my own self-interest in seeing KidSprout
Jumboree being rated highly, I agree that its getting two 1s is pretty
ridiculous, considering it beat out some pretty fine games in the
contest.

I do vote my true opinion about a game, not to achieve an effect;
however, this may not be true of other people.

As for people voting on games they have not played, the request
"Please only rate games that you yourself have actually played" is
somewhat ambiguous.  I've played Reversi _scores_ of times, just not
with a piecepack set.  To rehash an analogy I used in email to Karol,
if someone tells me that little globs of peanut butter make great
pieces for Checkers, I don't need to be a neurosurgeon to realise this
will be an awkward way of playing the game.  In the same way, but to a
lesser degree, I can see that the piecepack (three of them, no less)
is an awkward set of equipment for Reversi.

> Seriously, if the ratings don't represent what they are supposed to
> represent, then they are misleading rather than informative.  Better to
> remove them entirely than misinform visitors to piecepack.org.
> 
> Am I wrong here?  Does anyone feel strongly one way or another?

Here's an idea, Dave.  What about linking each game to a Comments
page, where people can describe what they do and don't like about the
game.  You can make it so people can stand up for their opinions by
leaving their names and email addresses, or can post as "Anonymous
Coward", the way they do on Slashdot.  (Naturally, a comment by an
Anonymous Coward won't count for much.)  The Comments page could also
include a brief description of the game, comments by the designer, and
so on, something like a page for a game at BoardgameGeek.

You can retain the rating system by having a field where people can
enter a rating from 1 to 10, but these numbers don't necessarily have
to be averaged -- a glance over the page should give an idea of the
range of opinion.

Ron

p.s. I agree that cats living with dogs is an abomination.

-- 
         Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... & rwhe@...
           Center for Ludic Synergy, Seattle Cosmic Game Night, 
Kennexions Glass Bead Game &  Positive Revolution FAQ: http://www.ludism.org/
Home page & Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/