Finished Games Counter Increased Before Player is Allowed to Write Review

From WarfishWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Every board creator on Warfish has faced this problem: New players leaving reviews on boards when they still have no idea what they are talking about.

This has been a problem I've noticed for a while, but didn't think necessary to voice until today. A new player with only five games total played on my Myths and Legends board and left a very low scoring review stating that my board lacked in strategy and graphics quality.

I thought this outrageous, and considered that he only had FIVE games total, so what on Warfish could he be comparing my board to to call it nonstrategic and plain? I asked him this, and his response was the beta board. Hahaha, yes. He claimed that the beta board had more strategy and graphic quality than my Myths board.

Now while I will just assume that the said individual must be on serious medication and cannot think clearly or at all, this does bring to light the option of being able to leave board reviews before you know how to play.

I KNOW that almost all the board creators here on Warfish have suffered from condition: "Ignorant Newbs" and have had their board ratings reduced by players with no experience.

The current "Finished Games Counter" before a player can leave a review is only 3 games. I would like to see this increased to 15 games. This is a reasonable amount of experience and just about the time where players have figured out the site and how the game is played.

This should be an easy fix, so I hope it gets implemented soon.


- Doom

[edit] Discussion

1. Can we implement this and eliminate the reviews I've gotten that match this qualification? Somehow I doubt that is tracked :P --FadeToOne 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I would definitely agree with Doom's idea. 3 games is just too low. I would tend to think more experienced players have a more relative sense of quality and objectivity when it comes to reviewing games. New players tend to be more willing to bash a board simply for not liking its theme, in which case they could have done themselves a favor and not played it. Hate fantasy? Then maybe they shouldn't play a fantasy themed board in the first place, let alone review it. Reviews like "i hate small boards", "bao is stupid, this is a dumb game", etc skew the review system to the point of irrelevancy. I think experienced players are less likely to submit these type of reviews, being more likely to point out actual errors or other valid criticism. In other words, I think Doom's idea is a very good one. --Cumberdale 9:54, 15 July 2008 (mdt)
3. Yes. YES. YES! I cant stand behind this change enough! I LIVE for reviews and it tears my heart out when some jack-hole with no clue gives me the finger after playing the map once and with only 10 games under his belt. I'm also on board with the weighted review ideal that was suggested by Doom as well. This is a good first step toward fixing this problem. --Severene 11:10, 16 July 2008 (est)
4. I tend to agree with Doom's perspective. A new player with only 3 games under his/her belt doesn't have experience with enough different maps to be able to adequately determine what warrants a 5 and what only deserves a 3. Case in point: I think the first 10 games I played were only on the beta board. I've also noticed that a number of early reviews tend to come from new players who are writing a review simply to get themselves into the weekly drawing for a free 30-day trial plus membership. They've even said that within their review. While I think this promotional idea helps to gather more textual reviews for boards – and helps to get new players engaged in the community – I can also see how it could contribute to some less than sincere reviews. --Stampy1 09:10, 19 July 2008 (est)
5. Reich says yes. --Reich 18 July 2008
6. 15 might actually still be too low. I just got a review where someone with 42 plays said, "The cards look good, but are way too oversized." Who complains about cards being too big? --FadeToOne 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I do. I often play on a small laptop, and if cards are too wide and I have five of them, I sometimes can't see them all without scrolling. It's an irritation that people who use wider screens don't experience. --Red Baron 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Oh please implement this already! I have gotten three reviews in the last two days from people with only three games under his/her belt! Either they don't know ANYTHING about how to play Warfish, or... these accounts are fake accounts created by other players with the sole purpose of screwing with other people. I have seen this before. I beat a player one time and he didn't like it, so he created another Warfish account and reviewed my boards with one stars across the board out of spite. I only found this out recently, but this is a great example of how the system can be abused. Steven, the support for this idea has been unanimous, please put it to consideration. Thanks. --Doom 11:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Another thing that would help: When a player played in a game that was configured (game creator changed the settings), post a blurb on the review page that the game was played using modified settings. Might help people think twice, like this guy with 41 games played that reviewed and suggested a player needed to like blind-at-once play. I never use blind-at-once settings!--FadeToOne 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
9. I haven't had a lot of reviews for my boards yet so I can't really relate from that perspective but I agree with the theory. I myself choose only to review boards if I really like them or have some constructive comments. I've had enough girls tell me in my life that "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny" to know that is not constructive and will not enhance either of our I mean it takes 30 games before you can get a login name but anyone can review a board? --Pauldo 23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
10 The whole map review process has issues. RedBaron had a great idea allowing people to change their ratings as they got more experience. I have seen a lot of reviews from people who played the board, lost and rated it poorly. As you know, most of my boards require you to read the "About" and think about stuff (i.e. you can't use the normal Risk-type strategy).
* Allow people to change their ratings. The first time you play a board, you normally don't understand it and it won't go too well, so I'd be good to let people change things when they learn more about the board.
* Allow people to rate the board when they are eliminated rather than waiting until the game is over. I think a lot of people don't rate boards because the board isn't rateable until days/weeks after they are eliminated.
* Make a webpage that shows you the boards you need to rate (sort of dealing with the problem listed above). e.g. you can go to a tab that will list all the boards you have played that *don't* have a rating from you. Thus, you can give credit to people who you have forgotten.
* It takes too long to get 3 textual ratings to get a board released as "Open". Thus, I am bugging my friends to play and rate a board a lot. A lot of people will start open games when they want to try something, but they don't get to try boards unless *they* bug their friends. I'd really like to see an option for testing boards where I could start a game on a board that doesn't have enough ratings. However, there should be some flag such that only people willing to play these not-yet-open boards can see them. Thus, you avoid newbies playing a really jacked up board.
* Thumbs up / thumbs down ratings. It might be worth while to do what amazon and others do with people stating if the review is worthwhile (e.g. click useful or not useful on each review). Thus, if I am looking at someone's board, and they got a crappy review from someone who was just mad, I click "Thumbs Down" or "Not Useful". After so many votes (let's say 50% of the votes and at least 5), it is removed. --Eric 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
11. What about the ability to leave a Review/Rating right at the completion of your first game on the Map which helps to Open the Map/Rank the Map, but those that have 5+ (or 10+ or whatever) games on THAT Map have the ability to leave a "Super" Review/Rating which jumps to the top of the Review/Rating list at all times. The thing I see quite often is Reviews/Ratings by people that haven't played the Map enough to give good general feedback, but those that play it more often should have their opinion valued more (in my opinion anyway). This "Super" Review/Rating could then trump normal Review/Rating in the stats sections as well. You may still run into some problems outlined above, but this could possibly continue to allow Maps the ability to Open/Rank soon, but gives a stronger voice by those that play the Map more (if this would even be doable). --Yertle 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that is a really good idea. It should be easy to code and doesn't require a lot of new stuff for Steven to add. You would want people to be able to change their ratings, otherwise if you rate a board after playing once and keep playing it, your more informed opinion can't be recorded. Theep 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It is already possible to change your Review/Ratings correct? I didn't know this, but just went to leave another Review on a Map that that I have been playing, it deleted the old Review/Rating and popped my new one to the Top (and used the current "Number of times played" count). So I guess this is somewhat already implemented. But possibly would be nice to see the Review/Ratings list populated by Number of Games played instead of most Recent. "Super" Review/Rating could still be added, but either way the Player would have to come back to update their old review and/or give their new review.--Yertle 19:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
How about this? Suppose when a player has played 10 games on a board he or she is given a second chance to be entered into the Warfish-Plus raffle. At the end of this tenth game a notice would come up encouraging the player to write a new review. This second review could be made to count more than a first review. And the review would be a knowledgeable one since it would be based on a lot of experience. --Red Baron 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Another way to address this issue would be to rank games based on a median rather than an average. I'll explain....
Let's say you've created a good game, and it currently has five reviews averaging 4.00 stars. If the next reviewer rates your game at 5 stars, the average goes up to 4.17. If somebody takes an irrational dislike to your game, however, and gives it 1 star, the average goes down to 3.50. In this instance, the negative reviewer has 3 times the power to affect your average as the positive reviewer. And the better your game is, the more destructive power a negative reviewer has. If your game averages 4.50 stars after five reviews, for example, the positive reviewer can raise it to 4.58 and the negative reviewer can lower it to 3.92, which means the negative reviewer in this instance has more than 7 times the impact as the positive reviewer. This is why the creators of the best games get so irritated at this type of reviewer; it takes a lot of additional great reviews to counteract their effect!
It would be better, wouldn't it, if one below-average review could be canceled out by a single above-average review? This is what basing the score on the median would do. To find the median you would list all the rankings from highest to lowest, then choose the center value (or average of the two center values) as the official ranking score.
Of course, this would have a side-effect of making every score an even number of stars, with an occasional half star when averaging two center values. I'm not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing. Instead of having a single best-rated game, a second-best, and so on, you'd have a big clump of 5 star games, a big clump of 4 star games, and so on, plus every now and then a score with a half star added. If this proves too granular, we could allow people to review games using half-star increments (a feature I've long wanted but have never requested).
--Red Baron 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Statistically a median would be less accurate during the first few ratings, but for boards with large amounts of ratings it is highly accurate. While I still support my original idea of upping the games finished from three to fifteen before writing reviews, combining this with Red Baron's idea here would/should give Warfish a very accurate ratings system that players may actually trust. Hoorah! --Doom 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Make it so. --FadeToOne 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm establishing a new personal rule. Anybody that gives me a poor review which indicates they have either a lack of understanding of Warfish or a lack of understanding of the board because they didn't read the details will receive a Stinky Fish comment from me. Feel free to use this rule. Now if only stinky fish were more damaging. --FadeToOne 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools