I'd rather the composite rating were adjusted for how far over or under a user's average rating they were (if you want to get fancy, maybe by how many standard deviations). I tend to start my rating for a game at 7, and adjust up or down from there. I suspect there's probably a user who does the opposite (Starts at 3). With the more computationally intensive system, you'd theoretically get a more accurate spread of ratings. It would also slow down shill voters, as anyone who only rated one game a ten would be giving it an average rating, and even those who rate one ten and a few ones and zeros would have a wide standard deviation so the impact would be negligible.
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:02:35 PM UTC-5, leroy43 wrote: > > If it were up to me, and the ratings were redone from scratch, I'd > institute a system where each user would have to choose games simply by > preference over other games, a lengthier process whereby users would have > to make binary choices of x over y until their games were ordered. > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:47:19 AM UTC-8, sixtywatz wrote: >> >> Sites down for repairs due to the ratings being completely lost and all >> rankings as n/a >> >> Imagine if it had to start over. Would we have the same top 10? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bgg_down/-/m2y7_BPwlpYJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
