Ratings Left From Dormant Accounts

[Phatscotty]

Concise description:

• DeadBeat Ratings

Specifics:

• After a Certain period of Inactivity, perhaps 3 months, 6 months.....Any ratings left should be deleted

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Stability and Accuracy in Gameplayer ratings. Short term users who don't know how to play or the concept of the ratings system can do major damage, then disappear forever?

[haggispittjr]

hmmm...

[Queen_Herpes]

I love it! I think all ratings should expire, not just the ones left by dormant players. It would make the rating system more functional, after all, we all can improve over time, right?

[Tupence]

At first, this sounds like a good idea. But what would happen if a player comes back after a few months? Would the old ratings that they gave come back?

[Queen_Herpes]

At first, this sounds like a good idea. But what would happen if a player comes back after a few months? Would the old ratings that they gave come back?

Not sure what the original poster was trying to accomplish, but if ALL ratings expired after say 6 months from when they were given, I would think that would allow players to continue to earn their ratings achievement AND allow old ratings to "expire" thus having less effect on a player whose more recent ratings may be more indicative of the player they have become (for good or for bad.)

[Phatscotty]

no, just accounts that have been in-active for 6 months or a year. it makes sense. for the same reasons the site drops players from the scoreboard if inactive after 30 days right?

[neanderpaul14]

I certainly think busted multis should have their ratings left stricken from existence.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[stahrgazer]

At first, this sounds like a good idea. But what would happen if a player comes back after a few months? Would the old ratings that they gave come back?

I'd think if ratings expired because someone leaves, they can then play games with the ppl to give ratings again if they return.

[MeDeFe]

The minor issue that the ratings system fails to accurately rate people aside, I'm with Queen Herpes on this one, all ratings should expire after some yet-to-be-determined amount of time.

Advantages:
- People who only give ratings (all 5s of course, we're all exceptionally supercallifragilistically good after all) in order to get that medal will not have such a large impact and skew everyone's ratings.
- Ratings by people who leave the site will eventually not be taken into account any more.
- A 5 month old rating of 1 or 2 stars might not be accurate any more if the person has improved in the meantime and now deserves 3 or even 4. This would not be a problem if ratings were given for individual games, but since they are given for the player it is a major problem. Expiring ratings would solve it.

[slowreactor]

Just a question, but do ratings left by convicted ratings abusers disappear? and if no, why not?

[SuicidalSnowman]

I love it! I think all ratings should expire, not just the ones left by dormant players. It would make the rating system more functional, after all, we all can improve over time, right?

This is my favorite suggestion from the topic, but I think the time period should be fairly lengthy. After all, the ratings work best when you have a few hundred on each player, and a freemium might not play that many people over a 3 month period. My vote would be after 1 year ratings expire.

[jesusfreak16]

Just a question, but do ratings left by convicted ratings abusers disappear? and if no, why not?

My thoughts exactly

[max is gr8]

This is my favorite suggestion from the topic, but I think the time period should be fairly lengthy. After all, the ratings work best when you have a few hundred on each player, and a freemium might not play that many people over a 3 month period. My vote would be after 1 year ratings expire.

Or a cetain number of ratings. A constant of 200 Ratings maintained and eldest one expires. Then not based on how recent based on how many games since then.

[stahrgazer]

I disagree that some minimum number should be used; just a time period.

1) "How many games since then" is indicative; I think it may be even more indicative than the ratings system, in that, it's not subjective and to an extent, the number of games is in the player's control.

2) If a timeperiod expired the first 50 ratings, say, of a player who has only played 175 games, you still get an average based on most recent games.

3) If a player is only playing a game or two a month, keeping the "newest 200" means several years' ratings are still showing up, which defeats the idea of expiring ratings that may no longer apply.

At the minimum, however, ratings by those nicks that have been perma-banned, should disappear.

[hwhrhett]

At the minimum, however, ratings by those nicks that have been perma-banned, should disappear.

i like this idea alot. multis always leave poor ratings....

[Jatekos]

I disagree that some minimum number should be used; just a time period.

1) "How many games since then" is indicative; I think it may be even more indicative than the ratings system, in that, it's not subjective and to an extent, the number of games is in the player's control.

2) If a timeperiod expired the first 50 ratings, say, of a player who has only played 175 games, you still get an average based on most recent games.

3) If a player is only playing a game or two a month, keeping the "newest 200" means several years' ratings are still showing up, which defeats the idea of expiring ratings that may no longer apply.

At the minimum, however, ratings by those nicks that have been perma-banned, should disappear.

Why not combine the 2 approach?
e,g, ratings would expire after 200 ratings or 1 year - whichever is reached first.

[Phatscotty]

inactive players ratings should be booted, sure, after 1 year, just like they are removed from the scoreboard