Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » BoardGameGeek Related » BGG General

Subject: Are inactive users deleted? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Holmes
United Kingdom
Shipley
West Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi ... I was just wondering ... are inactive users deleted from BGG on a regular basis? It occurs to me that if we were to delete users who haven't logged-in in, say, the last 2 years, the game stats may be radically changed. Also, the game stats would reflect the current views of active users. Wouldn't this give the stats more credibility?

Mark
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No they are not, and yes this topic has been covered in Ad-infinitum. So as you can see the outcome of those discussions as they are not deleted.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mr_mrholmes wrote:
Also, the game stats would reflect the current views of active users. Wouldn't this give the stats more credibility?


"Credibility" is pretty vague, although I believe that most of the actual statisticians on here don't give the BGG rankings much credibility at all.

Whether it's more credibility to have stats that only reflect users active within the last X months, I don't know. But I'd like to have it as an option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(ʇllıʍ)
United States
Spokane Valley
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Are inactive users deleted?


You know, there are an awful lot of boardgamers who are pretty "inactive". I don't think they would take kindly to being deleted!
10 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Deleting inactive users would be very problematic in many ways.

Deleting a user would delete all forum comments, uploaded files, geeklists and geeklist items, etc by that user, destroying potentially much valuable content from the user.

Wiki edits, geekmail, etc from that user would be left with a dangling reference to a nonexistent user, or worse yet misleadingly to some new user who took the now-available deleted user's name.

Plus polls the user created or answered, geekquestions the user wrote or answered, etc etc.

Many headaches to be considered. Not worth it.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh P.
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mr_mrholmes wrote:
Also, the game stats would reflect the current views of active users. Wouldn't this give the stats more credibility?


Actually, it would give it less. The stats would only reflect what is trendy and hyped right now... oh wait, they kind of look like that right now anyway.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
DC
United States
Grand Rapids
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Not to mention that there's the question of: what is inactive? I don't think I signed on to BGG for about 3 straight months when I was starting my photography business. Since then, I've been rather "inactive" and only browsing, not contributing much. Should I be deleted?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mr_mrholmes wrote:
Also, the game stats would reflect the current views of active users. Wouldn't this give the stats more credibility?


It would make the ratings less informative. If the users who discussed some out-of-print game from the 1960s (for example) are no longer active on the site, it doesn't change the validity of what they had to say in 2003. If their contributions were removed, then the site wouldn't include any information about lots of old games.

The ratings are already skewed toward the new hotness. Eliminating old data would just amplify that effect.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Crispin
United States
Wilmington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Making it more obvious if the user has been inactive would be cool but removing any content or deprecating their ratings not cool.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Users should not be deleted. Their ratings should cease to be counted if they haven't rated in game in the last two years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A Derk appears from the mists...
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
I don't know the exact time, but their ratings do cease to be counted after a period...
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
Users should not be deleted. Their ratings should cease to be counted if they haven't rated in game in the last two years.

But why? Does someone's judgment about games become suspect simply because they are no longer an active BGG member? And not to be morbid, but there are (formerly) active users who have died. Should their ratings no longer be considered valid? People stop participating in BGG for many reasons - in almost every case I can imagine, it would not make me think that their opinions given earlier about games are no longer valid/useful/interesting.

Analogy: if you like the movie reviews of Roger Ebert (for example), and then for whatever reason he stops writing movie reviews, would the reviews he's already written become no longer valid for you?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
russ wrote:
But why? Does someone's judgment about games become suspect simply because they are no longer an active BGG member?


Their judgment is not suspect, but if the ratings/rankings are to reflect the overall tastes of the community, then people who are no longer part of the community should not have their opinions figure into the rankings.

Quote:
And not to be morbid, but there are (formerly) active users who have died. Should their ratings no longer be considered valid?


They'd still be valid and present, just not calculated as part of the overall ratings.

Quote:
People stop participating in BGG for many reasons - in almost every case I can imagine, it would not make me think that their opinions given earlier about games are no longer valid/useful/interesting.


Their opinions would still be present on the site. No one is advocating removing content.

Quote:
Analogy: if you like the movie reviews of Roger Ebert (for example), and then for whatever reason he stops writing movie reviews, would the reviews he's already written become no longer valid for you?


If Roger Ebert was part of a large movie-fan community, but then stopped participating in it, I would be fine with the overall rankings for the site no longer taking his personal rankings into account after a while. His reviews etc. can remain until he decides to delete them, so any fans can go read them if they like.

I think the discrepancy here is what the site rankings should reflect. I see them as a reflection of the community here, and as such see no reason to still include the ratings of people who have actively or passively abandoned the community. This isn't a slight on them, nor am I advocating deleting all their content.

You seem to see the site rankings as ... well, maybe you should explain it. Perhaps something that should reflect every opinion of every person who has ever registered an account and rated a game, even if it was one game in 2003 and they now have nothing to do with the hobby?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Kevin. No material should be erased, especially no forum posts. But if Derk's right (and he probably is) and ratings for users who haven't logged in for a certain number of years aren't used in calculation for the ranking list, then I'm all fine with that. Leave the ratings they give, but just don't count them.

(And instead of the bayesian average, use Steinley's Pairwise Comparions! )
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
dysjunct wrote:
I think the discrepancy here is what the site rankings should reflect. I see them as a reflection of the community here, and as such see no reason to still include the ratings of people who have actively or passively abandoned the community. This isn't a slight on them, nor am I advocating deleting all their content.

You seem to see the site rankings as ... well, maybe you should explain it. Perhaps something that should reflect every opinion of every person who has ever registered an account and rated a game, even if it was one game in 2003 and they now have nothing to do with the hobby?

Indeed, that seems to be the discrepancy. For me, the ratings reflect the opinions of gamers, not necessarily the opinions of gamers who continue to be active participants in BGG. I'm personally interested in what gamers in general think about a game, not just what currently active BGG members think. The more informed input into the ratings, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

For me, someone's rating is part of the content/value they added to the site, so deleting their ratings would seem as odd to me as deleting their forum comments, reviews, game comments, geeklists, geekmails, etc.

E.g. pick some currently active user whose ratings and reviews you greatly respect and follow. If that user ceases to be active at BGG, you say that their reviews should stay - so why not their ratings also?
4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
russ wrote:
dysjunct wrote:
I think the discrepancy here is what the site rankings should reflect. I see them as a reflection of the community here, and as such see no reason to still include the ratings of people who have actively or passively abandoned the community. This isn't a slight on them, nor am I advocating deleting all their content.

You seem to see the site rankings as ... well, maybe you should explain it. Perhaps something that should reflect every opinion of every person who has ever registered an account and rated a game, even if it was one game in 2003 and they now have nothing to do with the hobby?

Indeed, that seems to be the discrepancy. For me, the ratings reflect the opinions of gamers, not necessarily the opinions of gamers who continue to be active participants in BGG. I'm personally interested in what gamers in general think about a game, not just what currently active BGG members think. The more informed input into the ratings, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

For me, someone's rating is part of the content/value they added to the site, so deleting their ratings would seem as odd to me as deleting their forum comments, reviews, game comments, geeklists, geekmails, etc.

E.g. pick some currently active user whose ratings and reviews you greatly respect and follow. If that user ceases to be active at BGG, you say that their reviews should stay - so why not their ratings also?


Yikes, I'm failing my Communication Roll.

I am not saying that someone's ratings should be DELETED. Nothing should be deleted unless the users choose to delete their own content themselves.

What I am saying is that I'd like a way to view the site ratings/rankings without only the ratings from active users figured in. The ratings (etc.) from inactive users would still be there for anyone to go look at as they choose.

The nice thing is that it's fairly easy to please both camps: Just have a toggle at the top of the rankings page: (View Rankings|View Rankings From Active Users Only).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
dysjunct wrote:
Yikes, I'm failing my Communication Roll.



Quote:
What I am saying is that I'd like a way to view the site ratings/rankings without only the ratings from active users figured in. The ratings (etc.) from inactive users would still be there for anyone to go look at as they choose.

The nice thing is that it's fairly easy to please both camps: Just have a toggle at the top of the rankings page: (View Rankings|View Rankings From Active Users Only).

Ah, OK! Sounds reasonable! Options are good.

Still, I'm curious if you can explain why you'd only want to see ratings by currently active users. If someone gets shipped off to war or a jungle research project in the Amazon and has no internet access, or simply decides they're spending too much time online and not enough time playing games with family and friends, or dies, or goes to live in an Amish gaming community with no computers, or whatever, why would their ratings suddenly cease to be valid/interesting/useful? If their ratings were interesting while they were an active BGG user, why would their old ratings cease to be interesting later when they stopped rating games?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
russ wrote:
Still, I'm curious if you can explain why you'd only want to see ratings by currently active users.
[snip]
If their ratings were interesting while they were an active BGG user, why would their old ratings cease to be interesting later when they stopped rating games?


I guess because I'm mostly interested in how the current BGG community sees games. I think it's a little silly to look at the BGG rankings as some kind of objectively true list of the value of games. So the only thing really left is to treat it as a snapshot of what a certain group of people think. I don't dismiss the valuable contributions made by formerly active users, but by removing themselves from (at least) the BGG end of the hobby, we aren't able to tell if their opinions have changed, or if a new game has come out that has completely replaced an old game for them, or something else.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Booker Hooker
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is where I have an issue with inactive users. I just did a 'find gamers' search, and 13 or so users came up. At least 3 of them hadn't logged in since 2005, and only 5 of them had logged in this year (and 3 of those not since January or February).

It would be nice to have inactive user names dithered or something.

Does the same thing happen in the trade match up list? I've never looked to see...
2 
 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.