Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For definitions #8-10, I suggest that the examples of frequency be noted that they are not to be taken literally. Perhaps they could be put in italics and noted that these are hyperbole or something like that.

#8 Reads: "... Probably I'll suggest it and will never turn down a game." [Emphasis added]

The current problem is that the word "never" would imply that if challenged to a game of Duel of Ages by my 8 year old at 10pm on a school night I'd have to drop it to a 7 or say "yes". No one could rate a game with a 7.

Similar problems exist with the word "always" in #9 and #10.

I'm assuming that this isn't really a change in definition, but more of a clarification of what the current definitions really mean.

In Anal-Retentiveness,

K

P.S. Please don't give me geekgold for this close-to-worthless suggestion.
4 
 Thumb up
0.03
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Dennis
United States
Covington
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
kieron wrote:
P.S. Please don't give me geekgold for this close-to-worthless suggestion.


Oops!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Lloyd
United States
North Reading
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
kieron wrote:
... The current problem is that the word "never" would imply that if challenged to a game of Duel of Ages by my 8 year old at 10pm on a school night I'd have to drop it to a 7 or say "yes".

Well-stated, and very funny! I've had the same thought myself, although perhaps not in such detail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
R: Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, Never
Use the proverbial "grain of salt" and everything will be fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave M
United States
Montoursville
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
Luke the Flaming wrote:
Use the proverbial "grain of salt" and everything will be fine.


Er, what is this "grain of Salt" of which you speak?

Here, I've been forced to play countless games at ridiculous hours because I mis-interpreted my cat's meowing as a challenge. (Turns out he really just wanted a scritching... but I digress.)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to play Twilight Imperium 3 at 2:00 AM on a work-night, with a *cat*!!?? shake


In all seriousness though, I do agree with the original poster's comment. Using absolutes in the game rating does make it difficult for those of us who have trouble with "shades of gray".

Dave
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Karp
United States
Rockville
Maryland
flag msg tools
admin
Developin' Developin" Developin!!
badge
100 geekgold for OverText, and all I got was this stupid sentence.
Avatar
mbmb
This issue was discussed in this recent thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/156110

The short answer is, to always and never, append "within reason." But really, I think I'd favor replacing the rating scale with something like the scale I post in that thread. Unfortunately, with everyone having rated their games on the old scale, there might be resistance to a new scale.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
dakarp wrote:
This issue was discussed in this recent thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/156110

The short answer is, to always and never, append "within reason." But really, I think I'd favor replacing the rating scale with something like the scale I post in that thread. Unfortunately, with everyone having rated their games on the old scale, there might be resistance to a new scale.


Yeah, I don't think we can change the scale since everyone would have to re-rate...the only thing we can do (easily) is to clarify definitions for future ratings.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Davis
Australia
Canberra
flag msg tools
Avatar
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
dakarp wrote:
This issue was discussed in this recent thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/156110

The short answer is, to always and never, append "within reason." But really, I think I'd favor replacing the rating scale with something like the scale I post in that thread. Unfortunately, with everyone having rated their games on the old scale, there might be resistance to a new scale.


I really liked your ratings there daniel. I wouldnt have a problem changing my ratings according to the new scale, but then again I havent rated that many compared to lots of people out there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Karp
United States
Rockville
Maryland
flag msg tools
admin
Developin' Developin" Developin!!
badge
100 geekgold for OverText, and all I got was this stupid sentence.
Avatar
mbmb
kieron wrote:
dakarp wrote:
This issue was discussed in this recent thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/156110

The short answer is, to always and never, append "within reason." But really, I think I'd favor replacing the rating scale with something like the scale I post in that thread. Unfortunately, with everyone having rated their games on the old scale, there might be resistance to a new scale.


Yeah, I don't think we can change the scale since everyone would have to re-rate...the only thing we can do (easily) is to clarify definitions for future ratings.
I didn't actually intend my scale to be a change, rather a clarification. Everyone's existing rating should be about the same, +/- 1 rating at most, on the new scale as on the old one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
dakarp wrote:
Unfortunately, with everyone having rated their games on the old scale, there might be resistance to a new scale.


Pretty optimistic, I'd say. A lot of people use their own rating system and don't care in the slightest what the guidelines say.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren M
Canada
Fort Vermilion
AB
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Re: Recommended Ratings Definition Clarifications: Always, N
I'd say many people have never even seen the little rating guidelines that pop up when you want to rate a game... in the end all the subjectivity in the ratings is perfect as we are all rating very subjective experiences with boardgames.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nexttothemoon wrote:
I'd say many people have never even seen the little rating guidelines that pop up when you want to rate a game... in the end all the subjectivity in the ratings is perfect as we are all rating very subjective experiences with boardgames.
Darren that's true, but there's quite a few comments out there that show people aren't rating subjectively.

I realise, just rehashing this whole discussion, that the most useful and immediate adjustment would be that the word "rating" should be removed from the game pages et al. It should say "My Reaction" when we get to input and "Player Reaction" where the total is presented. Or something similar.

Each time we "Rate" a game we are likely to feel we're making a public assertion of how generally "good" the game is. So many people feel they need to try to make a statement on behalf of everyone else, such as Scott's original dilemna in that other thread.

The reality is, there's enough gamers here that the ratings system would be a fair bit more useful if everyone really did rate just their own subjective reaction.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.