points don't count ...

[ropearoni]

After seeing a jump "down" in the number of ratings my game received, but 5 new ratings were added, I sensed something was awry.

And right when I start a complaint, bgg goes down.maybe they can fix this too.

So, with a count of 120 ratings of a 7, I started counting 100 per page and got to 150 before I decided to check other games. the . ratings appear not to show when I click on the little graph, but after removing all filters, I was able to see 9 pages 100 each, with ratings on them, mostly filled with a rating, not just like a wishlist. for a game of 395 ratings, I should not be able to see 900+ filled with ratings.

So, what is this algorithm that is keeping near double the ratings from counting towards the ranking? It keeps the little guy down. I'm not sure if it is just the lack of . ratings, but I did not see that they counted in the little graph...even Rahdo's did not show. He has a point scale because he has sooo many games to rate.

So, who needs to look into this issue I hope sees this message. Anyone else see this? or care? I tend to keep an eye on my new comments and going down in numbers of ratings when I clearly see 5 more added didn't click.

ropearoni

[Maarten]

Relax! They're moving things around in an effort to get BGG virtualised, up in the cloud, so matters are likely to act screwy for the forseeable future. There has never been an issue like this for nearly two decades, so normal service will continue in a few days or so. Give Aldie some time to patch all the little details.

On Monday, 10 September 2018 02:08:37 UTC+2, ropearoni wrote:

So, what is this algorithm that is keeping near double the ratings from counting towards the ranking? It keeps the little guy down. I'm not sure if it is just the lack of . ratings, but I did not see that they counted in the little graph...even Rahdo's did not show. He has a point scale because he has sooo many games to rate.

'It keeps the little guy down'...??!!! Why do you automatically assume that there is ill will behind what you observe? Sheesh.

 

Maarten

[wargam...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 2:08:37 AM UTC+2, ropearoni wrote:

..  or care?

No.

10 years ago, before the mass influx of new gamers, the ratings barely meant something, today they're totally meaningless.

I just rate & comment on games for my own purposes, like a diary.

[Albin Chevrel]

Tag #Ratings_episode_999,999

[Barry Churchill]

Just playing devil's advocate here. I would probably represent one of the new influx of gamers and typically play with a family non-gamer friends so I'm all about gateway+ games. I have around 120 games (Bazmondo123) but only about 3 of them in the top 100 and none in the top ten.  

The top ten on BGG is still dominated by real gamer, heavier games, so I would have imagined they do still mean something to go by for the seasoned gamer, and it has not been skewed by an influx. Was also wondering even if new gamers votes have changed the ranking order why this would be rendered meaningless. Surely new gamers votes are as important has gamer gamers votes?

Baz

[Ron Hatch]

There is an algorithm that is run to discard ratings that aren't believed to be valid. Details are kept secret to make it more difficult to get around, but I've heard that for popular games it's possible to see a jump (up or down) at the start of each month when it gets run.

The idea is that if an account has (for example) only rated one game and that rating is a 10, it's far more likely to be someone creating fake accounts in an attempt to bump up the rating of their game than a meaningful opinion from a real person.

If you've been encouraging people to join BGG just to rate your game (not saying you have, but it's certainly a possibility when you care enough to notice these details), that's pretty much exactly the kind of behaviour the design is intended to catch.

[Maarten]

On Monday, 10 September 2018 14:54:22 UTC+2, Barry Churchill wrote:

The top ten on BGG is still dominated by real gamer, heavier games, so I would have imagined they do still mean something to go by for the seasoned gamer, and it has not been skewed by an influx. Was also wondering even if new gamers votes have changed the ranking order why this would be rendered meaningless. Surely new gamers votes are as important has gamer gamers votes?

It is impossible to create a list of games which everyone agrees on. That's why the numbers are mostly useless if that is all you go on. Only if you know your average tastes to coincide with that of the average BGG'er are the numbers worthwhile.

That said, you can ask the system to restrict the games to a major family of games. Once BGG is back up, click or hover (I forget which) on the blue 'Boardgamegeek' tab at the very mid-top of the screen. You can select a particular family of games there; I'd suggest 'Family' ;-). If you *then* ask for a top-something, the system will filter out the rest and show titles you may find yourself agreeing with better.

But it will *never* be a shopping list you can blindly rely on; you will always have to do some critical legwork.

Also, it has been a long-standing wish of many to have more filtering capabilities in the way comments and rates are presented. Perhaps this feature will be created in the upcoming years. While I do not condone such filtering (as the results will be as good as the reasons for including or excluding groups of rates, and contrary to what you may believe, it's not that simple), I understand the rationale for having it. 

HTH.

Maarten

[wargam...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 2:54:22 PM UTC+2, Barry Churchill wrote:

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:12:52 AM UTC+1, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 2:08:37 AM UTC+2, ropearoni wrote:

..  or care?

No.

10 years ago, before the mass influx of new gamers, the ratings barely meant something, today they're totally meaningless.

I just rate & comment on games for my own purposes, like a diary.

The top ten on BGG is still dominated by real gamer, heavier games, so I would have imagined they do still mean something to go by for the seasoned gamer,

Not really. Can't check their current position right now, but games like Gloomhaven and Charterstone would never have reached the top-100 10 ago.

 

and it has not been skewed by an influx. Was also wondering even if new gamers votes have changed the ranking order why this would be rendered meaningless.

Because what happened is what always happens when something that was basically only a hobby for a hardcore crowd gets discovered by a bunch of new people : the average experience people have with the hobby drops dramatically, while the hype for the new shiny things goes to maximum overdrive.

I'm not saying that influx of new people is all bad, but one result of this is that game ratings and discussions have become pointless.

 

Surely new gamers votes are as important has gamer gamers votes?

What you're suggesting is that the opinion of a movie critic who just saw his first movie last year is as important as someone who's been watching movies for 30 years.

[ropearoni]

when I say it keeps the little guy down, it is a fact, not an opinion. If there is a valid reason, it still doesn't mean it doesn't keep the guy Down who is new to the field. I'm going to not worry so much, and assume the algorithm used is not working. Nor is the code under it. If I click on "all ratings" I should get a list of all who rated it, not a subsection determined by an algorithm. Reason or not, still wonky code afoot...

[Maarten]

On Monday, 10 September 2018 15:30:21 UTC+2, ropearoni wrote:

when I say it keeps the little guy down, it is a fact, not an opinion. If there is a valid reason,  it still doesn't mean it doesn't keep the guy Down who is new to the field. I'm going to not worry so much,  and assume the algorithm used is not working. Nor is the code under it.  If I click on "all ratings" I should get a list of all who rated it, not a subsection determined by an algorithm. Reason or not, still wonky code afoot...

As I said, 'sheesh'. 

Maarten 

[Redward]

Eddys: "games like Gloomhaven and Charterstone would never have reached the top-100 10 ago."

That's hilarious. Yes, of course, Gloomhaven would have made it to the top 100 10 years ago. It would have been in the top 10 very quickly. 

[derek]

"I'm not saying that influx of new people is all bad, but one result of this is that game ratings and discussions have become pointless."

No, the discussions are not pointless.  Yes, there tends to be more repetition of some common topics, but I'd rather more discussion than less.  

[sigmazero13]

Paul D: "Would you believe that they banned me for negatively reviewing Gloomhaven?? "

For that alone?  No, I don't believe it.  I believe that there were probably a lot of people who piled on to blast the negative review (many, probably just as a knee-jerk reaction or overzealousness), but I more likely believe that in the ensuing "discussion" and rebuttals against those who attacked you for making the review, ban-worthy offenses were committed by you (and perhaps others).

If you were banned, it wasn't because of the review, it was probably because of what was said defending your review.

[ropearoni]

They are aware of some of the things I mentioned, so give them time to work through them, I received an email about, so I'll put this thread to rest.

[wargam...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 8:18:01 PM UTC+2, sigmazero13 wrote:

If you were banned, it wasn't because of the review, it was probably because of what was said defending your review.

Just out of curiosity - how many attacking the review and reviewer were banned ?

Been there, done that - BGG and its admins want the discussions about games to be rainbows and unicorns and every game is wonderful because that's better for their bottom line. Fine by me, but there are consequences to that approach, one of which is that a lot of the older, hard-core gamers have left the site. Or stopped supporting it, both financially and by providing their words of experience in the forums.

That's what I meant when I said the forum discussions have become as pointless as the ratings.