Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » BoardGameGeek Related » BGG Suggestions

Subject: Weight game rankings on age rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now that we have a date (even if not always accurate) attached to game ratings, isn't it time to use that knowledge in the game rankings, so that newer ratings are more heavily weighted? An older rating, whilst it captured the feelings of the rater when entered, probably does not accurately reflect that same rater's views of the game now. So should be given less weight.

This might even encourage avid no 1 watchers to update their ratings on a more regular basis.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Now that we have a date (even if not always accurate) attached to game ratings, isn't it time to use that knowledge in the game rankings, so that newer ratings are more heavily weighted? An older rating, whilst it captured the feelings of the rater when entered, probably does not accurately reflect that same rater's views of the game now. So should be given less weight.

This might even encourage avid no 1 watchers to update their ratings on a more regular basis.
I would advocate the opposite. Older ratings would garner more weight.

So, there you have it. A problem to be avoided, rather than created.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randy Cox wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Now that we have a date (even if not always accurate) attached to game ratings, isn't it time to use that knowledge in the game rankings, so that newer ratings are more heavily weighted? An older rating, whilst it captured the feelings of the rater when entered, probably does not accurately reflect that same rater's views of the game now. So should be given less weight.

This might even encourage avid no 1 watchers to update their ratings on a more regular basis.
I would advocate the opposite. Older ratings would garner more weight.

So, there you have it. A problem to be avoided, rather than created.


An interesting perspective, but not one that has any merit in my eyes. Why would you think that older ratings would carry more weight? Ratings from gamers who have been around for a while, perhaps, but an old rating? One that has not been updated to reflect changed views from playing over a longer time, or changed perspectives about how good a game has to be to score x? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The best ratings of all are probably those from someone who has rated the game in the past, and has continued to update the rating as time goes by.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bauer
United States
Gilbert
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Bazinga!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would be possible to produce different ranking passed on your preference, then everyone can be happy.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sbauer9 wrote:
I would be possible to produce different ranking passed on your preference, then everyone can be happy.


I agree that being able to do your own sorting and filtering on any such basis would be a good feature.

But, FWIW, as far as rankings are concerned, I think there should be one, and only one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would advocate no weighting whatsoever and instead make a users ratings
'expire' annually. They'd have to "refresh" their ratings once a year (based on their join date) or they are not considered in the rating pool.

It would make the ratings more relevent to those that use the site.
It would remove old users' ratings from the ratings pool that no longer visit the site nor care about it.

2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not sure I agree with the central premise. While sometimes it can be true, I have many old ratings that haven't changed, but are completely "up to date" as to how I feel.

Forcing me to go and erase a few hundred ratings just to type in the same rating over top would royally suck.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Not sure I agree with the central premise. While sometimes it can be true, I have many old ratings that haven't changed, but are completely "up to date" as to how I feel.

Forcing me to go and erase a few hundred ratings just to type in the same rating over top would royally suck.


Unfortunately the topic is spreading over several threads.

There are two quite distinct points there. I fully accept that on the present system, where putting the same rating in again is a double click and a click, updating your ratings on a regular basis would be a pain.

That does not invalidate (at least in my mind) the basic premise that newer ratings should carry more weight than older ones.

And the way to fix the first problem is to fix the first problem, not to use it as a reason not to do the weighting. It would be trivial for them to add a feature to the site to let you do a mass 'refresh' of your ratings. Then you would need to just update the few (5-10%?) that may have changed ratings in your mind since you last did it, then hit the button et voila, all your ratings are now 'new', even those that did not change.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
I would advocate no weighting whatsoever and instead make a users ratings
'expire' annually. They'd have to "refresh" their ratings once a year (based on their join date) or they are not considered in the rating pool.

It would make the ratings more relevent to those that use the site.
It would remove old users' ratings from the ratings pool that no longer visit the site nor care about it.



Given the few very vocal opponents to the basic principle, I think you might struggle to get that accepted. Nevertheless, what we would be arguing about would be what the weightings should be, not whether there should be any. I would be inclined to make the cut off older than that (5 years, perhaps), but have a weighting that reduces in some manner between 100% at within a year old and 0% at, say, more than 5 years old. But I think we need to accept the basic premise before we argue about the detail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randy Cox wrote:
I would advocate the opposite. Older ratings would garner more weight.

So, there you have it. A problem to be avoided, rather than created.


I agree, I think older rating should garner more weight. Looks like we have a zero sum game here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
An interesting perspective, but not one that has any merit in my eyes. Why would you think that older ratings would carry more weight?
Several possibilities:

1) You believe more in first impressions than later coercion by fanatics
2) You figure that a person who played and disliked has just as much of an opinion as one who recently played and disliked. Why should my old, correct impression be less valuable than someone's recent, equally correct impression?
3) You dislike Cult of the New hype

I could come up with others.

Anyway, I did a check against SI Baseball. It has 91 total ratings, going back officially to 2003 (though the dates are still wonky, as my rating was given no later than 2003 and it shows as 2008, probably because I've updated other things about my collection record since then).

Anyway, if you weight towards the new, it's composite average is 7.18. Giving more credence to the older ratings brings it up to 7.45. The absolute average is 7.29.

And in this case (an older game), I trust those older ratings more than those who are seeing the game through recent (a.k.a. "younger") eyes.

But here's the best reason to weight towards "old"...

If recent votes get more credit, I can game the system if updating my rating from 10 to 9.9 and back to 10 gets more credit because it's a "fresh" rating. I cannot make my high (or low) rating carry more weight to game the system if that requires me to go back in time and alter my rating. :)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randy Cox wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
An interesting perspective, but not one that has any merit in my eyes. Why would you think that older ratings would carry more weight?
Several possibilities:

1) You believe more in first impressions than later coercion by fanatics
2) You figure that a person who played and disliked has just as much of an opinion as one who recently played and disliked. Why should my old, correct impression be less valuable than someone's recent, equally correct impression?
3) You dislike Cult of the New hype

I could come up with others.

Anyway, I did a check against SI Baseball. It has 91 total ratings, going back officially to 2003 (though the dates are still wonky, as my rating was given no later than 2003 and it shows as 2008, probably because I've updated other things about my collection record since then).

Anyway, if you weight towards the new, it's composite average is 7.18. Giving more credence to the older ratings brings it up to 7.45. The absolute average is 7.29.

And in this case (an older game), I trust those older ratings more than those who are seeing the game through recent (a.k.a. "younger") eyes.


Try reading my posts instead of putting words in my mouth that I never uttered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Randy Cox wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
An interesting perspective, but not one that has any merit in my eyes. Why would you think that older ratings would carry more weight?
Several possibilities:

1) You believe more in first impressions than later coercion by fanatics
2) You figure that a person who played and disliked has just as much of an opinion as one who recently played and disliked. Why should my old, correct impression be less valuable than someone's recent, equally correct impression?
3) You dislike Cult of the New hype

I could come up with others.

Anyway, I did a check against SI Baseball. It has 91 total ratings, going back officially to 2003 (though the dates are still wonky, as my rating was given no later than 2003 and it shows as 2008, probably because I've updated other things about my collection record since then).

Anyway, if you weight towards the new, it's composite average is 7.18. Giving more credence to the older ratings brings it up to 7.45. The absolute average is 7.29.

And in this case (an older game), I trust those older ratings more than those who are seeing the game through recent (a.k.a. "younger") eyes.


Try reading my posts instead of putting words in my mouth that I never uttered.

Thus far, I have put no words in your mouth. I simply answered your question. Are you objecting to the general use of "You" instead of "One," which I feel sounds stodgy?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
I would advocate no weighting whatsoever and instead make a users ratings
'expire' annually. They'd have to "refresh" their ratings once a year (based on their join date) or they are not considered in the rating pool.



Screw that. Last time I played some of the game on my list are a couple years ago. My rating of that game hasn't changed until I play it again. Then possibly it still wouldn't change.

I reject your reality of who's ratings are important. I personally would weight someone who's been on the site a while and rates a game, than that of some chump off the street who just found out that there is such a thing as a game other than Monopoly and decides to rate a game that I've been playing on and off for years.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
The best ratings of all are probably those from someone who has rated the game in the past, and has continued to update the rating as time goes by.
It's hard to update a 10 to be "better." Why go and change it to 9.9 and back to 10 just to get more credit. It makes a person look wishy-washy to see that their rating for games are all recently changed when, in fact, they've had that same view ("10") for years and years and it hasn't changed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
I reject your reality of who's ratings are important. I personally would weight someone who's been on the site a while and rates a game, than that of some chump off the street who just found out that there is such a thing as a game other than Monopoly and decides to rate a game that I've been playing on and off for years.


So do I, as I have posted elsewhere (the topic is spreading). The best ratings, in my mind, are those from well established members who first rated the game some time ago (ie it is not just a first impression) and have, in some manner, reconfirmed their rating more recently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:

So do I, as I have posted elsewhere (the topic is spreading). The best ratings, in my mind, are those from well established members who first rated the game some time ago (ie it is not just a first impression) and have, in some manner, reconfirmed their rating more recently.


But I have many rating of game that I haven't played in years. But those ratings aren't any less important in the grand scheme of things. Most of those game I listed in that thread I didn't touch the rating at all, because I still believe that is where they belong. So for games that I rated "years" ago will probably not change much. Therefore, for those I haven't played in a while are probably still valid in my mind where they are. But I certainly don't think removing those rating and forcing me to "re-rate" games I have already rated is a good idea. Period.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
Not sure I agree with the central premise. While sometimes it can be true, I have many old ratings that haven't changed, but are completely "up to date" as to how I feel.

Forcing me to go and erase a few hundred ratings just to type in the same rating over top would royally suck.


With what I'm thinking, in your case it would mean simply pressing a "refresh" button to update all your rating dates in one fell swoop when the time came. You'd only need to change those ratings of the ones you want, and not have to re-enter any of them. They sit in 'limbo' meaning they are 'expired' until you refresh them.

I like the idea. Makes the ratings relevent to those that use the site and is not at the whim of some BGG programmers' idea of what 'weightiness' to give older ratings, which would be completely subjective and likely cause much debate.

Here's my idea:

You join on May 1, 2010, and over the course of the following 11+ months rate 100 games. On May 1, 2011, a year later, you get a geekmail telling you your ratings are about to 'expire' and would you like to refresh them so they can continue to be considered in the ratings pool. If you say 'yes', they get timestamped then. Of course, you are always free to go through and change your ratings as you see fit.

Something to consider, for sure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
markgravitygood wrote:
I would advocate no weighting whatsoever and instead make a users ratings
'expire' annually. They'd have to "refresh" their ratings once a year (based on their join date) or they are not considered in the rating pool.



Screw that. Last time I played some of the game on my list are a couple years ago. My rating of that game hasn't changed until I play it again. Then possibly it still wouldn't change.

I reject your reality of who's ratings are important.

Uh, ok. So, you reject my reality that those who actually use the site and have opinions on games is important. Interesting.

You have that right, BUT...

MWChapel wrote:

I personally would weight someone who's been on the site a while and rates a game, than that of some chump off the street who just found out that there is such a thing as a game other than Monopoly and decides to rate a game that I've been playing on and off for years.


Now wait one second. YOU were that "chump" at one point, were you not? That is why 'weighting' ratings is a bogus idea. They should just expire annually. You eliminate from the ratings pool those "chumps" you speak of that pop in, create a user - "ILoveMonopoly" - , rate some games, then disappear off the face of the earth, and you eliminate those that don't care about the rating system enough to hit a "refresh ratings" button when asked via geekmail.

Fascinating angle. Good luck with that. Seems borderline Elitist to me...

Just sayin'.

Edit: I see your source of confusion. I am strictly speaking of the datestamp on the rating, not changing the rating itself, as it seems (from above) a user would have to change the rating numerically then change it back for it to get a new datestamp? Fiddly at best. See my idea above.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
Here's my idea:

[Every year...] you get a geekmail telling you your ratings are about to 'expire' and would you like to refresh them so they can continue to be considered in the ratings pool.


I don't like it. It means you are updating a date solely to remain in the pool, even though your opinion has not changed. Worse yet, it means for all the world, it appears that your rating of Illuminati that you established after considerable plays in the 1980s was just entered a few days ago when, in fact, it has been your considered opinion for decades. I take comfort in knowing I have a long-standing conviction. :)

Oh, and if a person dies, their ratings go obsolete? Not good form.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:


Fascinating angle. Good luck with that. Seems borderline Elitist to me...

Just sayin'.


Well then it looks like we have a divergent opinion on which ratings are important to each of us and have created a zero sum game. So to keep both of us somewhat but not completely happy, the ratings should stay exactly the way they are and old ratings are weighted exactly as much as new ratings.

Just Sayin'.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Providence
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randy Cox wrote:
markgravitygood wrote:
Here's my idea:

[Every year...] you get a geekmail telling you your ratings are about to 'expire' and would you like to refresh them so they can continue to be considered in the ratings pool.


I don't like it. It means you are updating a date solely to remain in the pool, even though your opinion has not changed. Worse yet, it means for all the world, it appears that your rating of Illuminati that you established after considerable plays in the 1980s was just entered a few days ago when, in fact, it has been your considered opinion for decades. I take comfort in knowing I have a long-standing conviction.

Oh, and if a person dies, their ratings go obsolete? Not good form.


It would be trivial to maintain an original date on ratings, and the rating itself, if need be.

Well, there is Death...and Taxes. I see no difference between the user that 'dies' at the hand of nature or the user that 'dies' at the hand of non-communication. Either way, they are not part of an active community, and is that not what the ratings are to represent? Ongoing opinion of BGG users? Maybe I got that wrong...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Alden
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
admin
badge
Aldie's Full of Love!
Avatar
mb
Now that we have accurate timestamps on ratings going forward - we can present a list of games that use the "new" rating data as an alternative view of the games, but that won't ever replace the way it's done now.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
You eliminate from the ratings pool those "chumps" you speak of that pop in, create a user - "ILoveMonopoly" - , rate some games, then disappear off the face of the earth, and you eliminate those that don't care about the rating system enough to hit a "refresh ratings" button when asked via geekmail.

How about middle ground?

For those who have no desire to distort their rating entry dates, how about when you "refresh" your ratings, no dates change. You answer the geek mail by pressing a button saying "Yep, I'm still here and no my opinions have not changed except where I've updated as time has gone by." That makes your ratings valid again, but keeps their "weightiness" and tenure.

Of course, if your dead you should automatically get credit for "refreshing."

All this leads to... why not just base the "weight" on the date a person logged their opinion (older is better for me, but this is apparently variable) and then base validity of the rating date on last log in date--if they've logged in the past three months, use the rating (old it may be). If not (and they're not dead), don't count their rating.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
I see no difference between the user that 'dies' at the hand of nature or the user that 'dies' at the hand of non-communication. Either way, they are not part of an active community, and is that not what the ratings are to represent? Ongoing opinion of BGG users? Maybe I got that wrong...
Wow, we think very differently on this.

I don't think of this as being all about "ongoing living opinion." I think of ratings as the fabric of the history of gamers' collective tastes. Throwing out the dead seems as cruel as throwing out the ratings of the elderly.

I seek the wisdom of the aged, decrepit, and dead over the fleeting fads of the youngsters.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.