Solution for the ratings system

Ok a lot has been said of the faulty, unrepresentative, ratings system. I suggested an idea in this thread:

/13/f7/1528/1.html

and I just want to give it some more light.

My suggestion was to rate people on a scale instead of just positive and negative, and to average the scores to come up with a player's rating. This way everyone will be limited to a highest possible rating, which would be the top of the scale. This would also limit the total percentage of the pot they can get.

The important part of the system is that the scores are averaged instead of summated. If this is supposed to be a ratings system, then it should work like one. Ratings are done on a scale, and they shouldn't add up with each rating.

Seriously, if only the SAT's were done like the current ratings system I would have just kept taking them.

Anyway, even if there were "rate underminers" who went around negatively rating people to try to bring their scores relatively higher it would backfire because we could rate them negatively right back. I think something like this would definitely fix the problem.

Or maybe I'm missing something.

Actually, scratch what I said
here...

A scale-based system might actually be a start at setting up a fair ratings model. The only thing I forsee is that you'd have to come up with a system for ensuring that you didn't end up with one or two people at "0" and everyone else clustered up at "9" and "10"...

I've wondered if maybe some kind of proportional rating system might be better... for instance, if you wanted to rate someone positively, you'd use up some of your ability to rate others... which you'd then regain by.... some other means, I dunno.

The problem though is that rates then become not a meaningless gesture as they are to so many people currently, but a commodity. That's much worse.

I think perhaps some kind of more concretely quantifiable measure of community interaction is necessary, but I'm not sure how to translate the mechanics of sociology into real numbers. It's too subjective.

Don't mind me, just rambling.

Catherine Omega
256,128 Shipley

I actually really like this idea.

What if .....

There was a scale from -10 to +10 for the rating. To change someones rating costs something - per point you rate them.

Examples/ideas:
It costs $1 per point, you want to rate someone +10, it costs you $10. Want to change your rating of someone from +10 to -10 it costs $20.

Sliding scale, each point costs its point value (the absolute of it anyways). So someone you havn't rated before is rated 0. You Can rate them a +1 for $1. A +2 costs $3 ($1 + $2). A +5 rating costs $15 (1+2+3+4+5). To rate someone -5 also costs $15 (from a 0 rating, it costs $30 to rate someone from +5 to -5). To give someone a +10 rating costs $55, from a 0 rating. To change someone from +10 to -10 or visa versa costs $110. What this does is limit the extreme votes. This really limits the extreme votes. Sure maybe this person was a jerk, but is it worth the extra $19 to rate them a -10 instead of a -8? It depends on how much of a jerk they are. Of course these prices become almost meaningless to the very rich.

Seperate point System. Each person has a set amount of rate points (like 1000). Both systems above are possible, just replace $ with points. It only costs points though to move away from 0, moving towards 0 would return the points to your pool.

Just ideas, all numbers made up.

I was thinking about this some more and, while a scaled rating system would help put a cap on "rate mining" I now think that there's a bigger problem with the rating system.

Currently, a player is given extra money every week for a higher rating. This aspect of the system creates an undesirable effect. From the raters point of view, giving someone a rating is like saying "hey nice avatar, i'll give you a nice rating so you get more money each week". Doesn't this seem unintuitive?


Here is another proposal: Instead of rewarding a high rating with money, we should grant those people with a high rating more "rights". I am using the word 'rights' loosely here.

For example, let's say I am very nice to people and i have a high rating for that. This should mean that i should get invited to more events. A person holding an event may only want people of a certain rating and can choose to invite only them. Similar examples can be made for building and appearance skills ie. a person may only want a certain caliber builder to help him with his project, or can only be granted rights to start a project if they are a certain rating etc.

A rating system could only work if people's ratings were actually used to determine their skills in the game, and what they can and can't do, not to make more money.

Your thoughts?

Well, first of all, you don't get any "extra" money for a high rating. What happens is you can afford more taxes. So bigger house, more land etc. So in a way, it does translate into more "rights." You won't be richer, but you can do more.

BBC

Well, my point is that from a raters point of view we should be saying " hey nice avatar, i'll give you a nice rating so people know they should look to you for help in that area", as opposed to saying "hey nice avatar, you can now afford more taxes". (thx for the correction)

This would only work if people actually used a persons rating to make decisions about that person.

agreed, thats what I try to do with my ratings. I odn't rate you until I'm sure you deserve it. Many people have found that when they rated me and got no love back - simple solution, show me you gots tha skillz, and I'll give you recogition for them via ratings.

Now, if we could all do this...

BBC

Exactly BuhBuhCuh. Unfortunately not everyone uses the system honestly like you. And even if they do, when a person gets a rating, it doesn't affect how other people treat them. When was the last time anyone judged a person's skill by looking at their rating? I judge how much money(er, taxes now ) and how long someone's been playing by their rating.

To summarize for those just tuning in:

-The first step is to make the ratings an average of a persons ratings on some scale.
-The next step is remove the direct relationship with a person's ratings to their taxes. Ratings should be used by other players as sort of a 'reputation'.

The reputation could indirectly affect a person's wallet and of course their ability to pay taxes.