Second Life Forums Archive - just curious... ratings system poll

Mac Beach

Linux/OS X User

Join date: 22 Mar 2002

Posts: 458

07-31-2003 16:57

From: someone

Originally posted by David Cartier
A lot of the mentors, we DO get around a lot, there are also a lot of shut-ins who are in world maybe eight hours a day. The reputation ratings are in many cases really well deserved, but I know a lot of us just get blanket ratings, pop, pop, pop, and it results in me having a higher rating than some really super builders, whereas I tend to hang out and chat mostly, never building much. I'm not happy about that situation, because it kind of takes away from my more realistic ratings, and it's not fair to others. Were I to be rated for my actual objects or my non-extant scripting abilities, things would be a hell of a lot more balanced.

Glad you mentioned this David. I've just about given up on posting about the economy (by which I mean the whole package of voting, taxing, charging for rezing etc) because it seems that for the hundred or so different people posting on this issue there are about a hundred different opinions of how it should be. I've also noticed a lot of repetition in threads where whole conversations have taken place several times. Maybe there should be a whole category just for discussions of economy so that other issues like projects and technical aspects of building are not drowned out by all this.

Your post made me realize though that ALL of my posts about the economy have been negative... quite so in fact, and I hope I haven't left the impression that (a) I don't like people who have done well in the current system, or (b) I don't appreciate the Lindens efforts in this area. So, to be clear on those two subjects:

I think most of the people who have done well using the current ratings system DESERVE their high ranks on the leader boards etc., and they deserve the monetary rewards that go along with that. Several of the people I spend the most time with in SL are WAY up there and I'd hate to see them have to tear down things due to drastic changes in the economy. Furthermore, the things I have complained about in the current system have had no impact on me at all. I have built very conservatively, I guess I'm a "saver" by nature, and I so hate the concept of losing a build, or having to re-do something that I go to extremes to avoid such a possibility. When I'm sure I can support a mansion I'll build one, but not until.

Secondly, as much as I dislike the current system, I am confident that the Lindens are working to get it right. While I'm not sure their definition of "right" matches mine, I am sure that the improvements they make will ultimately be better for everyone. They have no reason to want to get it wrong, and every reason to want to get it right. They are passionate about what they do and that sets them apart from many, maybe even most on-line communities. Thank you Lindens!

As I said, my concerns don't have a lot to do with my own situation. While I'd be more inclined to do an ambitious build if I didn't have to become a CPA in the process, I'm not in a big hurry to do that. So most of my concerns have to do with the fact that the system is currently too complicated, and most of the suggestions for how to "fix" it will make it even more complicated. Competition is great, rewarding good deeds is great, but when you have to spend so much time figuring out which sort of good deed will get you the biggest pay-off then something is wrong (IHMO). I'd much rather have a system where people are comfortable just being themselves. This means that for new users, infrequent users, and users who don't socialize much that these people don't get frozen out of the economy.

To put this another way, the largest contribution to your ability to do things in SL is the fact that you have paid your bill in real life. Let me illustrate this with a RL example: I live in a townhouse. I paid a lot for it, I pay quarterly fees, I pay taxes. To do this I had to have a "job" to earn the money. But at no point has anyone notified me that because I only know two other families in the complex they are not going to cut my grass any more, or cut off my water, or throw me out. I've never been rewarded or punished by the owners association for the fact that I wear jeans and a t-shirt a lot of the time instead of putting a three piece suit on to go to the grocery store. While I think all of the economic rules in SL are based on a desire to encourage certain desirable behaviors, I also think that the results are that some people are being rewarded for doing things that they would be doing anyway, while others are being punished for not doing things that they are incapable of doing. In other words the system may be doing more to filter the user base than to modify behavior.

If someone gave me a blank sheet of paper and said describe YOUR idea of the perfect economy, I'm not sure I could do it. So I'm grateful that it is not my responsibility right now. It's a tough job, and I appreciate the people working on it. My advice to them: Keep it simple, transparent (documented), and don't allow the rewards given top users to freeze out those at the bottom.

David Cartier

Registered User

Join date: 8 Jun 2003

Posts: 1,018

08-01-2003 18:34

I just had an idea! Roll this around in your head. How about a CHOICE of ratings. When you rate someone, you get a choice of rating ONE quality, be it helpfulness or good behaviour, appearance, teaching, building or scripting. This just might even things out. You could certainly rate them more than once, but the temptation and ease of blanket rating is gone.

From: someone

Originally posted by Ope Rand
aw shucks thanks david come by any sunday

anyways, exactly as you were pointing out, its that possiblity of unfairness that i'm talking about. i feel that unfairness is not only a possibility, but that its practically impossible to achieve what i would consider to be fairness.

to me its similar to the problem which plagues the vote booths. ratings aren't tied to our actual abilities. they simply don't represent who we are.

i assume that ratings are supposed to be a measure of public opinion regarding our value, relative to eachother, in each of the different categories. if so, then generally one should only be able to become the highest rated at something if it is commonly agreed that the person in question is the best.

currently to become the highest rated person you would need to be rated the most times. since its not likely that all of us will meet each and every other person in the game, then it is simply a game of who can meet and be rated by the largest subset of the population.

what i'm saying is that there is a huge difference between our ratings and our actual skills/values. its the number of times we have been rated versus our actual skill. the difference between high ratings and high skills amounts to the difference between a multimillion dollar making blockbuster which may suck versus an independent film which no one sees but deserves an oscar.

imagine when the scripting rating becomes activated. who will end up with the highest rating? i think its obvious that whoever comes in contact and gets rated by the most people will likely have the highest rating. not necessarily who most of us believe is the best scripter. how does this reward good scripting?

as far as a solution, i like the suggestions up above as a good start because they allow us all to more easily rate eachother which would provide us all with ratings from a 'larger subset'. i had another suggestion a while back which i would still love to see. it was to allow us to rate each other on a scale of 1-10, and our average rating should represent the average opinion of those who have rated you. i think it would be fun to hand out 1-10 ratings to eachother, and it seems like it would be more accurate, at least IMO.

but really i only started this thread to see how many of us agree that the system should change. cuz it bothers me to death.

Ama Omega

Lost Wanderer

Join date: 11 Dec 2002

Posts: 1,770

08-01-2003 21:21

Hm I kind of like the idea of only getting one vote on a person and having to choose which category it goes in. I know people are good at many areas many times, but it would force a desicion and I think the greatest behaving people will have the highest behavior ratings and the best builders will have the best building ratings.

That system has a very high apeal to me.

Ope Rand

Alien

Join date: 14 Mar 2003

Posts: 352

08-02-2003 09:26

yeah i agree thats a really cool idea david. i like it.

_____________________

-OpeRand

Kenichi Chen

Registered User

Join date: 10 Jul 2003

Posts: 76

08-02-2003 14:07

Well then we need a category for cooking. ---All kidding aside I like the idea of only one category voting.

just curious... ratings system poll
Mac Beach Linux/OS X User Join date: 22 Mar 2002 Posts: 458	07-31-2003 16:57 From: someone Originally posted by David Cartier A lot of the mentors, we DO get around a lot, there are also a lot of shut-ins who are in world maybe eight hours a day. The reputation ratings are in many cases really well deserved, but I know a lot of us just get blanket ratings, pop, pop, pop, and it results in me having a higher rating than some really super builders, whereas I tend to hang out and chat mostly, never building much. I'm not happy about that situation, because it kind of takes away from my more realistic ratings, and it's not fair to others. Were I to be rated for my actual objects or my non-extant scripting abilities, things would be a hell of a lot more balanced. Glad you mentioned this David. I've just about given up on posting about the economy (by which I mean the whole package of voting, taxing, charging for rezing etc) because it seems that for the hundred or so different people posting on this issue there are about a hundred different opinions of how it should be. I've also noticed a lot of repetition in threads where whole conversations have taken place several times. Maybe there should be a whole category just for discussions of economy so that other issues like projects and technical aspects of building are not drowned out by all this. Your post made me realize though that ALL of my posts about the economy have been negative... quite so in fact, and I hope I haven't left the impression that (a) I don't like people who have done well in the current system, or (b) I don't appreciate the Lindens efforts in this area. So, to be clear on those two subjects: I think most of the people who have done well using the current ratings system DESERVE their high ranks on the leader boards etc., and they deserve the monetary rewards that go along with that. Several of the people I spend the most time with in SL are WAY up there and I'd hate to see them have to tear down things due to drastic changes in the economy. Furthermore, the things I have complained about in the current system have had no impact on me at all. I have built very conservatively, I guess I'm a "saver" by nature, and I so hate the concept of losing a build, or having to re-do something that I go to extremes to avoid such a possibility. When I'm sure I can support a mansion I'll build one, but not until. Secondly, as much as I dislike the current system, I am confident that the Lindens are working to get it right. While I'm not sure their definition of "right" matches mine, I am sure that the improvements they make will ultimately be better for everyone. They have no reason to want to get it wrong, and every reason to want to get it right. They are passionate about what they do and that sets them apart from many, maybe even most on-line communities. Thank you Lindens! As I said, my concerns don't have a lot to do with my own situation. While I'd be more inclined to do an ambitious build if I didn't have to become a CPA in the process, I'm not in a big hurry to do that. So most of my concerns have to do with the fact that the system is currently too complicated, and most of the suggestions for how to "fix" it will make it even more complicated. Competition is great, rewarding good deeds is great, but when you have to spend so much time figuring out which sort of good deed will get you the biggest pay-off then something is wrong (IHMO). I'd much rather have a system where people are comfortable just being themselves. This means that for new users, infrequent users, and users who don't socialize much that these people don't get frozen out of the economy. To put this another way, the largest contribution to your ability to do things in SL is the fact that you have paid your bill in real life. Let me illustrate this with a RL example: I live in a townhouse. I paid a lot for it, I pay quarterly fees, I pay taxes. To do this I had to have a "job" to earn the money. But at no point has anyone notified me that because I only know two other families in the complex they are not going to cut my grass any more, or cut off my water, or throw me out. I've never been rewarded or punished by the owners association for the fact that I wear jeans and a t-shirt a lot of the time instead of putting a three piece suit on to go to the grocery store. While I think all of the economic rules in SL are based on a desire to encourage certain desirable behaviors, I also think that the results are that some people are being rewarded for doing things that they would be doing anyway, while others are being punished for not doing things that they are incapable of doing. In other words the system may be doing more to filter the user base than to modify behavior. If someone gave me a blank sheet of paper and said describe YOUR idea of the perfect economy, I'm not sure I could do it. So I'm grateful that it is not my responsibility right now. It's a tough job, and I appreciate the people working on it. My advice to them: Keep it simple, transparent (documented), and don't allow the rewards given top users to freeze out those at the bottom.
David Cartier Registered User Join date: 8 Jun 2003 Posts: 1,018	08-01-2003 18:34 I just had an idea! Roll this around in your head. How about a CHOICE of ratings. When you rate someone, you get a choice of rating ONE quality, be it helpfulness or good behaviour, appearance, teaching, building or scripting. This just might even things out. You could certainly rate them more than once, but the temptation and ease of blanket rating is gone. From: someone Originally posted by Ope Rand aw shucks thanks david come by any sunday anyways, exactly as you were pointing out, its that possiblity of unfairness that i'm talking about. i feel that unfairness is not only a possibility, but that its practically impossible to achieve what i would consider to be fairness. to me its similar to the problem which plagues the vote booths. ratings aren't tied to our actual abilities. they simply don't represent who we are. i assume that ratings are supposed to be a measure of public opinion regarding our value, relative to eachother, in each of the different categories. if so, then generally one should only be able to become the highest rated at something if it is commonly agreed that the person in question is the best. currently to become the highest rated person you would need to be rated the most times. since its not likely that all of us will meet each and every other person in the game, then it is simply a game of who can meet and be rated by the largest subset of the population. what i'm saying is that there is a huge difference between our ratings and our actual skills/values. its the number of times we have been rated versus our actual skill. the difference between high ratings and high skills amounts to the difference between a multimillion dollar making blockbuster which may suck versus an independent film which no one sees but deserves an oscar. imagine when the scripting rating becomes activated. who will end up with the highest rating? i think its obvious that whoever comes in contact and gets rated by the most people will likely have the highest rating. not necessarily who most of us believe is the best scripter. how does this reward good scripting? as far as a solution, i like the suggestions up above as a good start because they allow us all to more easily rate eachother which would provide us all with ratings from a 'larger subset'. i had another suggestion a while back which i would still love to see. it was to allow us to rate each other on a scale of 1-10, and our average rating should represent the average opinion of those who have rated you. i think it would be fun to hand out 1-10 ratings to eachother, and it seems like it would be more accurate, at least IMO. but really i only started this thread to see how many of us agree that the system should change. cuz it bothers me to death.
Ama Omega Lost Wanderer Join date: 11 Dec 2002 Posts: 1,770	08-01-2003 21:21 Hm I kind of like the idea of only getting one vote on a person and having to choose which category it goes in. I know people are good at many areas many times, but it would force a desicion and I think the greatest behaving people will have the highest behavior ratings and the best builders will have the best building ratings. That system has a very high apeal to me.
Ope Rand Alien Join date: 14 Mar 2003 Posts: 352	08-02-2003 09:26 yeah i agree thats a really cool idea david. i like it. _____________________ -OpeRand
Kenichi Chen Registered User Join date: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 76	08-02-2003 14:07 Well then we need a category for cooking. ---All kidding aside I like the idea of only one category voting.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

just curious... ratings system poll