Post #81 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:08:36am 16.6 years ago
PyroManiacX | |
---|---|
Member | |
3,758 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-09-23 | |
"Not dead yet!" |
I know you can see what u give other ppl ratings, but can you see what ratings they gave to you?
Post #82 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:27:14am 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
I can. Normal users can't, cos you can imagine the WHY DID YOU GIVE ME -5 threads that'll pop up lol.
Post #83 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:29:40am 16.6 years ago
Oni-91 | |
---|---|
Moderator+ | |
13,518 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-10-20 | |
"Popular bisexual disaster" |
Could it be possible to only show who gave you positive ratings? You get to see who enjoys your posts, and no -5 thread flamebaiting! It's win-win.
Post #84 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:43:04am 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
Sounds like an idea, I'll do something tomorrow.
Post #85 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:46:24am 16.6 years ago
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,028 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
That still doesn't sound like a good idea. It should be kept anonymous because the users that we see could give change their rating, which can lead to useless flame threads.
Post #86 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:50:31am 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
Well I dunno then. I kept it anonymous from the start so that flaming can't occur...
Yeah, I'm 50/50 on this.
So either:
1. Keep it anonymous.
2. Full disclosure, any arguments can be taken via PM instead of threads. Any thread arguing will be locked at sight. 8)
Yeah, I'm 50/50 on this.
So either:
1. Keep it anonymous.
2. Full disclosure, any arguments can be taken via PM instead of threads. Any thread arguing will be locked at sight. 8)
Post #87 · Posted at 2008-02-06 07:25:35am 16.6 years ago
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,028 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
I hope you go with option 1.
Even if they attempt to take the argument through PMs, there are still the spammers that create multiple accounts to alter the points.
A suggestion would be to also exercise the user levels. The user point system could represent the amount of respect that person has with the other members and the user level can authenticate it.
Even if they attempt to take the argument through PMs, there are still the spammers that create multiple accounts to alter the points.
A suggestion would be to also exercise the user levels. The user point system could represent the amount of respect that person has with the other members and the user level can authenticate it.
Post #88 · Posted at 2008-02-06 09:16:25am 16.6 years ago
Goldensunboy | |
---|---|
Member | |
753 Posts | |
Reg. 2008-01-08 | |
Quote: silenttype01 |
---|
A suggestion would be to also exercise the user levels. The user point system could represent the amount of respect that person has with the other members and the user level can authenticate it. |
If person A (level 13, around 50 or so posts) rated person B (currently 50/100 rating = 5/10), and A rated B an 8, it would be 10 times 13 added to B's denominator, and 8 times 13 added to the numerator. Person B is now 154/230 = 6.7/10 rating.
If a week later, person A is level 15, person B's rating would change to 6.8 to reflect person A's status.
Interesting concept they used, I thought I might throw that out there to spur ideas on user ratings.
Post #89 · Posted at 2008-02-06 09:34:54am 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
Hmmm that's interesting, I might look into that.
Though it creates an unfair advantage to people that contribute a lot but their quantity of posts aren't that high.
I got another idea... weight the ratings depending on that users' rating that rated you.
For example, if:
Person A (50) voted 5 for me
Person B (10) voted 2 for me
Person C (-10) voted -5 for me
The rating will be multiplied by a number depending on their current rating.
If their rating is positive, let's say the multiplying factor is their rating divided by 10. The higher that persons' rating, the higher the influence they will have on the rating.
If their rating is negative, let's say the multiplying factor is 0.1 divided by their negated rating. The lower their rating, the lower the influence they will have on other peoples' ratings.
My Rating:
= (50/10)*5 + (10/10)*2 + (0.1/10)*-5
= 5*5 + 1*2 + 0.01*-5
= 25 + 2 - 0.05
= 26.95
Person A, B, C gave me in effect the following ratings: 25, 2 and -0.05 respectively.
Just another idea lol.
Though it creates an unfair advantage to people that contribute a lot but their quantity of posts aren't that high.
I got another idea... weight the ratings depending on that users' rating that rated you.
For example, if:
Person A (50) voted 5 for me
Person B (10) voted 2 for me
Person C (-10) voted -5 for me
The rating will be multiplied by a number depending on their current rating.
If their rating is positive, let's say the multiplying factor is their rating divided by 10. The higher that persons' rating, the higher the influence they will have on the rating.
If their rating is negative, let's say the multiplying factor is 0.1 divided by their negated rating. The lower their rating, the lower the influence they will have on other peoples' ratings.
My Rating:
= (50/10)*5 + (10/10)*2 + (0.1/10)*-5
= 5*5 + 1*2 + 0.01*-5
= 25 + 2 - 0.05
= 26.95
Person A, B, C gave me in effect the following ratings: 25, 2 and -0.05 respectively.
Just another idea lol.
Post #90 · Posted at 2008-02-06 10:12:29am 16.6 years ago
Goldensunboy | |
---|---|
Member | |
753 Posts | |
Reg. 2008-01-08 | |
That's a good idea, I know how you could solve the negative rating problem.
Let X be what person A rates person B, let Y be A's rating, and Z be B's rating.
[(1.025)^Y]*X+Z
This would allow ratings dependant on one's own rating to always be positive, if you put some arbitrary constant barely greater than 1 to the power of the rater's rating. 1.02 doesn't seem too significant, and 1.03 seems to be too strong, so at first glance, 1.025 should work. This would solve the problem of users with negative ratings giving the wrong points to someone.
Also, the servor should log and update each individual user's rating, because a ring of friends could all rate one person up to around 50+, who could powerfully rate several people. The person would be suspected eventually, and rated back down. All previous erroneous ratings would go down too.
Let X be what person A rates person B, let Y be A's rating, and Z be B's rating.
[(1.025)^Y]*X+Z
This would allow ratings dependant on one's own rating to always be positive, if you put some arbitrary constant barely greater than 1 to the power of the rater's rating. 1.02 doesn't seem too significant, and 1.03 seems to be too strong, so at first glance, 1.025 should work. This would solve the problem of users with negative ratings giving the wrong points to someone.
Also, the servor should log and update each individual user's rating, because a ring of friends could all rate one person up to around 50+, who could powerfully rate several people. The person would be suspected eventually, and rated back down. All previous erroneous ratings would go down too.
Post #91 · Posted at 2008-02-06 10:20:59am 16.6 years ago
PyroManiacX | |
---|---|
Member | |
3,758 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-09-23 | |
"Not dead yet!" |
im confused now about this idea of ratings & stuff
Post #92 · Posted at 2008-02-06 10:23:06am 16.6 years ago
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,028 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
They're brainstorming a new concept for the point system so it doesn't go out of hand like it almost did. Nothing to worry about now until al2k4 makes a decision.
Post #93 · Posted at 2008-02-06 06:52:07pm 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
Quote: Goldensunboy |
---|
That's a good idea, I know how you could solve the negative rating problem. Let X be what person A rates person B, let Y be A's rating, and Z be B's rating. [(1.025)^Y]*X+Z |
OK let's see, I can't read formulas and then see what happens I need examples lol.
So let's say...
A rates B = X = 5 points
A's Rating = Y = 50 points
B's Rating = Z = -10 points
So, (1.025^50)x5 - 10 = 7.19
But what's the 7.19 though? The user's current rating?
Bump: I might end up using my method but with the following factors:
If their rating is zero, the multiplying factor is 1.
If their rating is positive, let's say the multiplying factor is their rating divided by 100. The higher that persons' rating, the higher the influence they will have on the rating.
If their rating is negative, let's say the multiplying factor is 0.75 divided by their negated rating. The lower their rating, the lower the influence they will have on other peoples' ratings.
Bump 2:
OK, updated the rating system to the one I described.
The old ratings are called the RAW RATINGS, which are just the sum of the ratings themselves and are used in the calculations for the new ratings.
You can see the raw rating by just hovering your mouse over the new ratings.
Post #94 · Posted at 2008-02-07 12:46:46am 16.6 years ago
Goldensunboy | |
---|---|
Member | |
753 Posts | |
Reg. 2008-01-08 | |
Interesting new rating system, users will have to get used to higher or lower rating now. Merely inflation, of course; my rating went up by 8 and yours up by 15, but they are still the same raw ratings.
You might want to add a line break after "donated", because it looks a bit awkward and confused me a little when I saw it today.
al2k4 (167.6)
Administrator
[avatar]
United Kingdom
Online
1026 Posts
GBP 0.00
Donated[5 ▼] <---????
You might want to add a line break after "donated", because it looks a bit awkward and confused me a little when I saw it today.
al2k4 (167.6)
Administrator
[avatar]
United Kingdom
Online
1026 Posts
GBP 0.00
Donated[5 ▼] <---????
Post #95 · Posted at 2008-02-07 08:46:13pm 16.6 years ago
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,028 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
This is a good enough method for me. You're going to be taking precautions to prevent spam accounts right?
Post #96 · Posted at 2008-02-07 09:19:30pm 16.6 years ago
al2k4 | |
---|---|
Admin | |
9,395 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-05-01 | |
"BEMANI Sound Team" |
Well, if anyone notices a HUGE jump in someones' ratings, give me a shout and I'll just look into it.
Post #97 · Posted at 2008-02-07 09:21:24pm 16.6 years ago
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,028 Posts | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
Do we look at the raw rating or the new rating?
Post #98 · Posted at 2008-02-07 09:31:27pm 16.6 years ago
Oni-91 | |
---|---|
Moderator+ | |
13,518 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-10-20 | |
"Popular bisexual disaster" |
Either, I'd think. I've checked mine and it appears fine.
Post #99 · Posted at 2008-02-07 09:52:23pm 16.6 years ago
Goldensunboy | |
---|---|
Member | |
753 Posts | |
Reg. 2008-01-08 | |
Quote: silenttype01 |
---|
Do we look at the raw rating or the new rating? |
Quote: al2k4 |
---|
You can see the raw rating by just hovering your mouse over the new ratings. |
I like this thing that he's done, because people who don't like the change still have the old method to look at.
Post #100 · Posted at 2008-02-07 10:49:39pm 16.6 years ago
Oni-91 | |
---|---|
Moderator+ | |
13,518 Posts | |
Reg. 2006-10-20 | |
"Popular bisexual disaster" |
Sorry to be evil, but the last 10 posts have gone from the user profile bit.