I've been participating in the GeekMod system for a while and currently I feel a little bit blind in terms of how I'm doing in terms of average. For example, considering the image GeekMood, my matches for approval are 158 out of 180 (88%) and my matches for declined are 37 out of 61 (61%). Does this mean that I tend to be too much strict therefore my rating for declined is far lower than for the approvals? Is this a normal trend? Who is the perfect GeekMooder and how is his/her average?
Well, your comment above is partially right. To get the whole Picture, we need to go further in the analysis.
WHAT HAPPENED IN MY CASE
BGG Aprroved 182. From those, 160 were approved also by me and 22 were declined by me
BGG Declined 61. Frome those, 37 were declined by me and 24 were approved by me
It means that all over, I approved 184 images and I declined 59 which is nearly the same rate as the BGG. So my problem is not beeing soft or strict. It is just a matter of taste. The Outcome of my performance was 5,3 GG (1,6 for the approvals and 3,7 for declines)
ESCENARIO 1: THE STRICT REVIEWER
BGG Aprroved 182. From those, 120 approved also by the strict reviewer and 22 were declined by the strict reviewer
BGG Declined 61. Frome those, 55 were declined by the strict reviewer and 6 were approved by the strict reviewer
It means that all over, a strict reviewer approved 126 images and declined 117 (fifty-fifty). The Outcome of the performance of the strict reviewer would have been 6,7 GG (1,2 for the approvals and 5,5 for declines).
ESCENARIO 2: BRUTAL REVIEWER
BGG Aprroved 182. From those, 0 approved by the brutal reviewer and 182 declined by the brutal reviewer
BGG Declined 61. Frome those, 61 were declined by the brutal reviewer and 0 were approved by the brutal reviewer
It means that all over, a brutal reviewer approved 0 images and declined 243. This brutal strategy could generate hate among the people that usually post images but it is not bad in terms of gold. The Outcome of the performance of the brutal reviewer would have been 6,1 GG (0 for the approvals and 6,1 for declines).
ESCENARIO 3: HAPPY CLAPPY REVIEWER
BGG Aprroved 182. From those, 182 approved by the happy clappy reviewer and 0 declined by the happy clappy reviewer
BGG Declined 61. Frome those, 0 were declined by the happy clappy reviewer and 61 were approved by the happy clappy reviewer
It means that all over, the happy clappy reviewer approved 243 images and declined 0. This extremely soft strategy could give you a lot of friends, but in terms of gold is not performing very well. The Outcome of the performance of the happy clappy reviewer would have been 2,43 GG (2,43 for the approvals and 0 for declines).
ESCENARIO 4: THE PERFECT MATCHER
BGG Aprroved 182. From those, 182 approved by the perfect matcher reviewer and 0 declined by the perfect matcher reviewer
BGG Declined 61. Frome those, 61 were declined by the perfect matcher reviewer and 0 were approved by the perfect matcher reviewer
It means that all over, the perfect matcher reviewer approved 182 images and declined 61. This is nearly impossible in reality, but you can take the example as a reference. The Outcome of the performance of the perfect matcher reviewer would have been 7,9 GG (1,8 for the approvals and 6,1 for declines)
All an over, it seems that the current rewards tend to favor the tough reviewers. Paying 10 times more for declined match than for an approval match could lead to a “game strategies” that systematically decline the images because clearly you will get more gold at the end (and thus considering that the impact of your massive declines will lead to another distribution of the approvals/declined different from the 182/61 of the above example, so the strict and the brutal reviewers would have get even more gold).
Of course the current rewards could be good in case that the admins think that there are too much images in BGG and therefore they have to limit the number of new images approved, but in my opinion, the GG for the approval matches should be a little bit higher. 0,02 for example.
With this rewards you will get the following scenarios:
Myself: 3,2 for the approval matches and 3,7 for the approval declines = 6,9 GG
The strict reviewer: 2,4 A + 5,5 D =7,9 GG
The brutal reviewer:0 A + 6,1 D = 6,1 GG
The happy clappy reviewer: 3,6 A+ 0 D= 3,6 GG
The perfect matcher reviewer: 3,6 A + 6,1 D = 9,7 GG
The happy clappy strategy is still the worst but you can see now that the brutal reviewer strategy has been punished and people will have more incentives to be strict but fair. Furthermore, the average reviewers like me with slightly different tastes (mi total average for images is 81%) will get more gold than the systematic and brutal reviewers.
If BGG don’t change the current rewards it means that people interested in the images but also in the gold should adopt a slightly tough strategy in order to maximize the income…
Of course if somebody don’t care about GG, then there is no need to change any strategy and you should stick to what you consider it should or it should not be approved. Anyway, it would be interesting to know other peoples ratios and statistics in how are they doing.
- Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:19 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:49 am
M s b S
Re: GeekMod History.How is people doing? Give us some feedback!
[...]my matches for approval are 158 out of 180 (88%) and my matches for declined are 37 out of 61 (61%). Does this mean that I tend to be too much strict therefore my rating for declined is far lower than for the approvals? [...]
Actually this is just the opposite, I suppose. I think the percentages are calculated based on the final decision - so the 61% means: take all the images you voted for. Now take only the ones that were declined. Out of those, you voted "decline" for 61%. For the other 39% you voted "approve" - which means you are quite forgiving I think.
OK. Now that I had a quick peek at the GeekMod history I don't know how it's calculated. And I don't know how I got the idea I described above...
EDIT: Ok, so I ran a lil' experiment. I voted to Decline a good image, the image was approved. It increased the Total count in the Approved part of the stats. This proves my description above. So, mboschbo, I suppose you're not that strict after all
- Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:11 am (Total Number of Edits: 3)
- Posted Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:53 am
M s b S
Re: GeekMod History.How is people doing? We need some feedba
Nice work on the calculations!
Personally, I feel I am a rather strict modder. Although I'd rather say "demanding" - sounds much better . I think I know what a good image is in terms of quality (sharp, not too small, focused just where it should be, cropped to remove the distractions, etc.). So unless the image meets my (quite high) quality standards, I tend to reject it (with a comment which I try to make useful). Now as for the content - the relevance is the key for me. The criterion I apply is: "Does this picture tell me anything about the game?". It can be the board layout, it can be the pieces, the people playing, whatever - but I must find it useful (or potentially useful, if I were interested in the game).
Get up, get up, get up, get down, fall over.
My list here should answer your question, but in summary you are pretty average, perhaps slightly better than average at matching declines.
- Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:03 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:54 pm
Re: GeekMod History.How is people doing? We need some feedba
I should have guessed that there was a list about geekmod matches... You did a great job and definitely puts light on our performance.
I just would like to reinforce the idea (now supported also by your statistics)that the reward for the approvals is in my opinion less than it should be. The tough and brutal reviewers that tend to sistematically decline images have an average score lower than the rest of the people but in terms of Gold they get more than people with a higher average.
Of course the admins are trying to encourage the decline through giving more gold for it, but the ratio should be more balanced in order to avoid that somebody who is sistematically declining images got rich at the end of the day.