Site Wishlist - Archive Forum

Archived site wishlist posts

Show us a session feedback number that actually serves a purpose

Implemented
AuthorMessage
JamP0und32
744,838
JamP0und32
Posted on 05 July 17 at 12:24
I've always thought, and still think that a neutral has far too much impact on a session rating. If i'm in a 3 player session and get 1 positive and 1 neutral then that shouldn't be 50%. Neutral should be just that, neutral. In that instance, a neutral is effectively a negative, albeit not as much of n impact as a negative but still.

Also, i'd still like an option to see the old scores alongside the current %. Seeing high %'s has no impact on if someone is reliable to me. Could've only been in one session. Just extra work every time.
Shadow Kisuragi
Posted on 05 July 17 at 12:34, Edited on 05 July 17 at 12:35 by Shadow Kisuragi
Not quite sure how I feel about a change. I've had 35 sessions (thanks for adding that to the tooltip), and 2 "revenge" negatives from no-shows for 94.29%. If that was just based on positive feedback, I'd have 98%. I'm not sure how I'd feel about 1 session with 20 people in it, giving positives, outweighing 5 sessions with negatives. There just doesn't seem to be context in either result with just a percentage. I'll come up with something...maybe a change to show positive and negative sessions on the tooltip.

Also, it was never explained how someone could have 0 negative, 0 neutral, and not 100% feedback as was posted earlier in the thread.

HoHe69 said:
I have 305 positive, 0 neutral/negative...

Why is my score 98,59% and not 100%...angry
Elite1111111111
Posted on 05 July 17 at 13:04, Edited on 05 July 17 at 13:21 by Elite1111111111
I feel like it's only really an issue when people don't have that many sessions under their belt, in which case you should have already been taking their rating with a grain of salt anyway. I think people are just making it an issue since it's a percentage that isn't really accurately a percentage.

For example, I have 1 negative vote, from a session where I also got 3 positive votes. I've lost 1.15% because of that. It seems rather excessive, but I don't think people will really have a different opinion on it in regards to me joining a session or not.

Edit: Also, I suppose an issue arises since people (or at least the OP) wanted a number where they wouldn't have to go look the player up, and the 33% when you have more positives than negatives would necessitate looking the person up to get the gist.

Since the number is a percentage we probably shouldn't have an option to go negative. I understand that the current system allows negative percentages, but I feel like that would again only come up to people with low amounts of sessions.

So while the new system is probably a better indicator for people with high numbers of sessions, it might actually hurt people with low numbers more than the original system, at least for sessions that hosts don't do their due-diligence.

TL:DR - Request was for a system that necessitated less digging into the player. New system doesn't fix that for people with low number of sessions. I don't really think it's possible for a perfect system in that regard, but, eh.
LuckyConquerer2
Posted on 05 July 17 at 13:13
Rich, could you add the information to an FAQ page that we could access from the drop down?
ImaginaryRuins
Posted on 05 July 17 at 14:32, Edited on 05 July 17 at 14:34 by ImaginaryRuins
What I'd like to suggest? Simple, just get it back to the actual numbers like before: how many sessions, how many number of votes of what kinds. These numbers are actual figures and won't lie or twist the fact. Yes, if that's a negative session, just let the single negative vote say it. Don't use some kind of complicated calculation to enlarge the fault or merit.

Feel free to call me being salty or whatever. I'm not saying I don't deserve that negative vote from that bad session but the current way really excessively picture me as a highly uncooperative, destructive member.

Honestly, TA, with all due respect, your desire to improve the site is appreciated but if the new way would mean it couldn't truthfully reflect the reality, please, scrap it. I've joined your site for years and this is the only, really the ONLY time I feel like quitting your site.
Dang3R Gaming
1,032,461
Dang3R Gaming
Posted on 05 July 17 at 14:56
The only thing Ive realised since this system came in, is that my feedback numbers haven't been updating at all. I'm seeing the same numbers I did days ago, when I've been in a few sessions since, getting 10-15 more positives.
LuckyConquerer2
Posted on 05 July 17 at 15:11
ImaginaryRuins said:
What I'd like to suggest? Simple, just get it back to the actual numbers like before: how many sessions, how many number of votes of what kinds. These numbers are actual figures and won't lie or twist the fact. Yes, if that's a negative session, just let the single negative vote say it. Don't use some kind of complicated calculation to enlarge the fault or merit.

Feel free to call me being salty or whatever. I'm not saying I don't deserve that negative vote from that bad session but the current way really excessively picture me as a highly uncooperative, destructive member.

Honestly, TA, with all due respect, your desire to improve the site is appreciated but if the new way would mean it couldn't truthfully reflect the reality, please, scrap it. I've joined your site for years and this is the only, really the ONLY time I feel like quitting your site.
I am shocked that you feel this way but this idea was supported by the vast majority. We needed a way to compare feedback scores. The previous way was distorted. I saw one guy with 1000 session score but a few hundred negatives. The 1000 distorted the negatives and there was also no way to see the tooltip on a touch device.
HoHe69
945,988
HoHe69
Posted on 05 July 17 at 17:50
HoHe69 said:
I have 305 positive, 0 neutral/negative...

Why is my score 98,59% and not 100%...angry
Now it's 97,22%...angry

You are the greatest TA...rock
Piston Toyota
693,536
Piston Toyota
Posted on 05 July 17 at 19:13
Yeah, I'm ok with the new system (though it may be a bit overly punitive for people with low numbers of sessions). However, there is clearly something buggy going on with the new calculations. Since my last post my percentage dropped to 99.44%, even though I still have no Neutrals or Negatives. Reading the breakdown of how it actually works, I can't see a legitimate reason why that would be.
HolyHalfDead
416,472
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 05 July 17 at 19:17, Edited on 05 July 17 at 19:52 by HolyHalfDead
TrueAchievement said:
Here's how it's currently calculated:

1. For every session you are in, you get a score from -1 to +1.

2. Each vote you get in each session is divided by the number of people that gave feedback.

So, if it's a 3 person session and the other 2 give you +ve feedback you get a score of 1 for that session.
If one gives you +ve and one neutral you get a score of 0.5.
if both give you -ve you get a score of -1.
etc etc

3. We add up your scores for all the sessions that you have at least one bit of feedback from, and then divide the total sessions with feedback by that amount.

So, in ImaginaryRuins's case, he has 2 sessions where he has a score of +1 and one session where he has a score of -1.

That makes a score of +1 out of 3 and a feedback score of 33%.

That may sound harsh, but I think you need to reflect that this was a negative session and not merely a neutral session.

Bear in mind that with just 2 more +ve sessions he would move up to 60%, and 5 more it would be 80%.

If people think this is totally unfair then feel free to suggest a change and I'll consider it.
Thanks :)

Hopefully that clears up the confusion (except for the 100% bug).

I believe what is confusing many people is what negative means, so I do have a suggestion for a change.

Taking the most basic example of a person who has been in one session with one other person, and the score others expect to see:

1 positive = we all agree that should be +100%.
1 neutral = under the current system that is 0%, but many of the responses suggest that should also be +100%. I say to those people what is the point in having a neutral feedback option if it is the same as positive.
1 negative = under the current system that is -100%, but many people struggle with the mathematical concept of a negative number (half an apple is fine, but how can someone have -1 apples, brain explodes). Going from the responses, getting a negative is not getting a positive, so 0%.

My suggestion is to keep neutral, but change the range from (-100% to +100%) to (0% to 100%). This should stop brains from exploding.

Mathematically that is done by adding 100% and dividing by 2.

1 positive = +100% + 100% = 200% / 2 = 100%
1 neutral = 0% + 100% = 100% / 2 = 50%
1 negative = -100% + 100% = 0% / 2 = 0%

So 2 positive + 1 negative = +33% + 100% = 133% / 2 = 67%
2 positive + 1 neutral = +67% + 100% = 167% / 2 = 83%

Personally I have no problem with the concept of negative feedback giving negative numbers, but it appears many people see a person with +33% as bad when in reality it is a person with -90% that is of concern.

-90% + 100% = 10% / 2 = 5%

I think we would all agree that 5% would set off alarm bells, but under the current system you can have +5% from just getting positive and neutrals (since it is not a negative percentage).
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
HoHe69
945,988
HoHe69
Posted on 05 July 17 at 19:17
Piston Toyota said:
Yeah, I'm ok with the new system (though it may be a bit overly punitive for people with low numbers of sessions). However, there is clearly something buggy going on with the new calculations. Since my last post my percentage dropped to 99.44%, even though I still have no Neutrals or Negatives. Reading the breakdown of how it actually works, I can't see a legitimate reason why that would be.
I saw you with 98,10%...roll

I can't understand why they started such a buggy shit...angry
NBA Kirkland
962,620
NBA Kirkland
Posted on 05 July 17 at 21:41, Edited on 05 July 17 at 21:52 by NBA Kirkland
TrueAchievement said:
Here's how it's currently calculated:

2. Each vote you get in each session is divided by the number of people that gave feedback.

"The number of people that gave feedback" to anyone? Or "the number of people that gave feedback" to you?

I'm trying to understand why no feedback at all would affect the rating.
I dropped 1% yesterday after a session where I got 3 positives out of 6 confirmed for the session.

It's either what I asked in my first sentence or something else unexplained as yet.

If no feedback is counted as zero out of one it is worse than a 0.5 out of one for neutral.

Thanks.
@NBAKirkland
MathNotEvenOnce
Posted on 05 July 17 at 22:21
I had a 100% a couple of days ago, still have 0 negative and 0 neutral feedback but my score dropped down to 94 something %. I have had zero bad or neutral feedback, why did it magically drop? Seems like the calculation is off and you're factoring in non-voters.
The Globalizer
Posted on 06 July 17 at 00:12
I'll just say that nonvotes should not be considered. When I nonvote it is intentional and not a de facto neutral, it's because I generally didn't feel like a vote was warranted. Examples: sessions with backups in the list (the norm for many years before the recent change), harmless bad behavior, etc.
ImaginaryRuins
Posted on 06 July 17 at 01:11
The Globalizer said:
I'll just say that nonvotes should not be considered. When I nonvote it is intentional and not a de facto neutral, it's because I generally didn't feel like a vote was warranted. Examples: sessions with backups in the list (the norm for many years before the recent change), harmless bad behavior, etc.
That's true. I don't understand why not keep the whole voting system nice and simple. Votes shouldn't be shared according to how many people are in a session. In an 8-people session, if just one person votes a negative on me and the rest vote nothing for example, it doesn't mean other 7 people feel negative or were affected in the same way.

Therefore, just show how many votes a person gets, nice and simple.

Still, I'm just negligible in this site, a tiny dust. I highly doubt TA would listen; they would think I'm just whining and would likely say "live with it".
Tei Tenga
177,746
Tei Tenga
Posted on 06 July 17 at 01:32
For a few days now I have noticed that my positive numbers have not been increasing at all.
I have been stuck on 354 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative
Even with that, the new display had me at 100.00% instead of that weird calculation it had before.

Today, I am still at 354 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative
But... instead of being at 100.00%... I am now at 91.58% ????
Why my name? ---> http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/File:Tei_Tenga.jpg
HolyHalfDead
416,472
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 06 July 17 at 02:32, Edited on 06 July 17 at 02:46 by HolyHalfDead
ImaginaryRuins said:
That's true. I don't understand why not keep the whole voting system nice and simple. Votes shouldn't be shared according to how many people are in a session. In an 8-people session, if just one person votes a negative on me and the rest vote nothing for example, it doesn't mean other 7 people feel negative or were affected in the same way.
It is done that way so that the maximum feedback for a session of 8 is +1 rather than +7. Using your example, if you started with 2 positive votes from 2 voters (+100%), then seven six people didn't vote, you would get -1 from both the TA system and your suggestion, so you would still be on +1/3 (+33%).

Imagine if you missed a session for 8 and got a negative from everyone, your overall feedback would now be -5/9 = -56% instead of +33% :)

Using a score out of 10, your overall feedback (+33%) is equivalent to 7 out of 10 (133/200) which isn't that bad. Ask yourself, would you go to a movie if it got 7 / 10? The problem appears to be that some people think +33% is only 3 / 10 which it is not.
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
ImaginaryRuins
Posted on 06 July 17 at 03:14, Edited on 06 July 17 at 03:19 by ImaginaryRuins
HolyHalfDead said:
ImaginaryRuins said:
That's true. I don't understand why not keep the whole voting system nice and simple. Votes shouldn't be shared according to how many people are in a session. In an 8-people session, if just one person votes a negative on me and the rest vote nothing for example, it doesn't mean other 7 people feel negative or were affected in the same way.
It is done that way so that the maximum feedback for a session of 8 is +1 rather than +7. Using your example, if you started with 2 positive votes from 2 voters (+100%), then seven six people didn't vote, you would get -1 from both the TA system and your suggestion, so you would still be on +1/3 (+33%).

Imagine if you missed a session for 8 and got a negative from everyone, your overall feedback would now be -5/9 = -56% instead of +33% :)

Using a score out of 10, your overall feedback (+33%) is equivalent to 7 out of 10 (133/200) which isn't that bad. Ask yourself, would you go to a movie if it got 7 / 10? The problem appears to be that some people think +33% is only 3 / 10 which it is not.
Hi HolyHalfDead, thx for taking your time to explain the mechanism to me.

Still, isn't it just more accurate to simply count the no. of votes? I mean, for example, if I somehow missed a 8-people boosting session and really made everyone else angry, then why not let all those 7 people cast a negative vote on me to show how much I affected them? Why TA needs to come up with their new calculation / percentage system? There really is no need to get the calculation so complicated.

And try explain that 33% "isn't bad" to all those other / new members. If you see a movie with a 33% rating, without knowing the calculation, you'd naturally assume it's bad right? That's my concern.

I know in others' eyes I'm being fussy, and perhaps, unreasonable, getting worked up by just a number. But since I don't believe that percentage reflects my reputation truthfully, I need to speak out for myself.
HolyHalfDead
416,472
HolyHalfDead
Posted on 06 July 17 at 03:16, Edited on 06 July 17 at 09:33 by HolyHalfDead
ImaginaryRuins said:
And try explain that 33% "isn't bad" to all those other / new members. If you see a movie with a 33% rating, without knowing the calculation, you'd naturally assume it's bad right? That's my concern.
I agree with you that in most accepted conventions 33% = 3/10 and it concerns me too. TA are very good at listening to feedback, so...

Gaming session feedback badges

The lowest badge (grey) is for less than +50%. You get the same badge for +25%, 0%, -50%, -90%!

+50% is people who are getting positive feedback with some neutrals.

I would like the lowest badge to reflect that people have got more negatives than positives and the rest of the scale adjusted.

For example:
Less than -50%
-50% to 0%
0% to +50% <-- +33% would end up in tier 3
+50% to +75%
etc

Of course if you compress the scale to 0% - 100% like I suggested(where +33% becomes 67%) then you could leave the badges as is ;)
He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
TrueAchievement
Posted on 06 July 17 at 05:08
Sounds like there may be a hug in the calculations, we're looking into that now
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.