Didn't we establish some kind of minimum games played on a board, or overall in order to leave a review?

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/240/Ratings

It kind of annoys me that somebody who has only played 1 game total leaves a review like this (JAM). Of course a 2 player game is going to be one-sided.

There isn't anything particularly great about Biohazard, but it is quite obvious that JAM is not drawing on any real experience to make this review.

If one game played is the minimum standard for review, maybe it should say on the review how many games were played at the time of review? and maybe weight the reviews?

Ozyman wrote:

If one game played is the minimum standard for review, maybe it should say on the review how many games were played at the time of review? and maybe weight the reviews?

I concur with this line of thinking more so than than increasing the number of games for a RATING (I was thinking you were talking about Board Reviews at first :P).  Weight the Ratings either/or by just number of games on that map or number of total games on the site possibly.

I agree, I'll add that information.

re: weighting ratings- once there are sufficient ratings in place we can use Bayesian weightings to balance out the system - this is already implemented, it just needs to be enabled. (see http://www.kobrascorner.com/tech/weighted-bayesian.php for more on this).

I took a fast look at the link, and it still means weighted in that the ratings of those who have played it more count more prominently towards its overall rating (even if they are discounted a bit)?

I don't know if this is the norm but it seems to me that there is an inherent bias to this system.  Maybe that's OK.  Maybe you want the reviews of those that appreciate the board's subtleties to float to the top, or count for more.  But if I were to pan a map, guess what? I probably couldn't stand to play it more than twice.  Once might be just enough.   Now if we were to weight the votes based on a different kind of experience points, like overall WG ranking, that would make more sense to me. 

Otherwise, I'd prefer a something like a straight mean, perhaps throwing out the top and bottom 10% of the votes.

No, the gist of is that the more someone votes (or rates in WG's case), the higher the weighting given to their ratings.

i.e. people who rate more get their opinion valued more than those who only rate occasionally.

Ah! That's very nice. After you first mentioned the Bayesian system ready to go I was going to suggest that it would become very important to promote ratings. As Cram mentioned casually, and the same is the case for me, I really haven't put any time at all into rating boards or writing reviews. So I would now suggest that you publicize the nature of the system once you put it into action so that people understand how it works and that it is important to rate lots of boards, to make their voices heard.

Yep agreed, just need to get a few more ratings, otherwise the system is a bit meaningless. Slight chicken and egg situation :)

Okay, I'll make a concerted effort to rate a bunch of boards then. Maybe over the weekend.

I'll join in this effort over the weekend and rate many of the boards I've played.

Great thanks guys.

The bug around already Rated boards being in your Unrated list after you finish a game on them would be cool to see fixed ;)

Ok, I have reviewed maps before but now my reviews of those maps are gone. I reviewed Castles, Pipe Dreams and Risk vs Reward before and they were all on my list. RvR had my review so I just redid it but the others didn't and I know that I reviewed them. I swear I did! I don't lie! Why are all of you accusing me of lying?! I will not put up with this insult to my character. I will have my revenge on all of you.....meet me in a game of WG:TG and we'll work this out.

There was a rather horrendous bug which Krock discovered which was wiping out ratings - I'll go through the backups and see if I can retrieve most of them. It's fixed for now...

Rating maps is hard. I don't want to dis a map just because I think standard gameplay is boring. Some of them look really good and make good use of the tools but I just don't think they deserve a gameplay rating above average.
So, I'm trying to make up a category system for myself and I'm having trouble with it. I'm using the following and then averaging them and ignoring the answer:

Overall Look
Gameplay
Theme
Encouragement
Does Risky Play it

I'm finding that the Encouragement line is ruining some of the other ones by me thinking that the map maker did everything fine but that a 6 on a 10 scale just seems harsh. I know that the rare occasion that I check my ratings I get offended by a 6 (which I shouldn't and hence, why I don't read my reviews).
However, I think the last 2 categories are important. I add up the scores and average them and then constantly add to the score. What does that say about me?

This board says I can't leave a Rating: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/436 (which is the one I have a CP on)
This board says I need to leave a Rating: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Happy%20Holidays!/Ratings

I assume a bug due to the Retire (Deletion?) of the board?

I retired that map because it isn't Christmas anymore and it looked silly but I will put it back up so you can review and then retire it again if the number bugs you.

It says I reviewed Wargear Warfare on December 31, 1969 when I actually did it yesterday, but that day seemed familiar to me for some reason so I googled it and found this answer on Yahoo Answers about December 31, 1969:

It's actually a bit of computer trivia.
The date that most computer clocks are set to is the beginning of the "VAX-Epoch" which was the first millisecond of Jan 1, 1970, which is stored as the number "1".
And it is ticked off in a computer's clock in milleseconds from that time.
For instance, as of me typing this sentence, it's been 1234918291 milliseconds since midnight, 12/31/1969.

Just thought I'd share. Now, all of you go start a game of Rent is Due Again!

RiskyBack wrote:

It says I reviewed Wargear Warfare on December 31, 1969 when I actually did it yesterday, but that day seemed familiar to me for some reason so I googled it and found this answer on Yahoo Answers about December 31, 1969:

It's actually a bit of computer trivia.
The date that most computer clocks are set to is the beginning of the "VAX-Epoch" which was the first millisecond of Jan 1, 1970, which is stored as the number "1".
And it is ticked off in a computer's clock in milleseconds from that time.
For instance, as of me typing this sentence, it's been 1234918291 milliseconds since midnight, 12/31/1969.

Just thought I'd share. Now, all of you go start a game of Rent is Due Again!

Aye, there are a few other areas of the site in which you can see the actual timers that date back to 1969 too, I think the Game Info page when at the Join phase still has a turn timer of that and then it's been seen once or twice elsewhere.

*edit* Isn't there also an opposite of this, in which the number of milliseconds is too big for computers to hold/store?  In which everything really does go Y2K-style or something?

You might be thinking of:

–2147483648 to 2147483648

It's the range of values that can be stored in a typical 32-bit variable of type integer. If I remember right, it means one bit holds the positive and negative value, and the other 31 bits are the binary representation of the integer.

If you did happen to have 2147483648 stored in such a variable and added 1 to it (like for a game score or whatnot) you would either get crashes or a rollover to –2147483648.