{"author_name":"Daniel","cat":"MiniLD","comments":[{"author_name":"","time":"July 29, 2012 1:56 pm","epoch":1343588160,"text":"Please see and read my detailed post about this here:","spam":"N"},{"author_name":"","time":"July 29, 2012 2:07 pm","epoch":1343588820,"text":"Improvement is always awesome, but it’s quite hard to achieve. The last changes that were done to the rating system had a really positive effect to actually make people rate – as it rewards those people who do.","spam":"N"},{"author_name":"TehSkull","time":"July 29, 2012 2:09 pm","epoch":1343588940,"text":"Let’s get a full understanding of the problems before us before we begin to create a solution.
\n Problems:
\n If a game gets advertised through the right channels, it gains additional hits that will likely never reach other games in the competition. A well advertised game will be played more often, causing it to become viral. It’s a virtuous circle, but it plays against us in this case. One game will have many reviews, the rest will have little to none.","spam":"N"},{"author_name":"digital_sorceress","time":"July 29, 2012 2:58 pm","epoch":1343591880,"text":"(1) QUANTIZATION
\n Votes go from 1 star upto 5 stars, and there are an average of about 20 ratings per game, so there are only about 80 graduations between 1.00 and 5.00. So when 1000 contestants are put into those 80 boxes, there are going to be over 10 people in each box. Rankings have error upto 10 places, due to this quantization.","spam":"N"},{"author_name":"Puzzlem00n","time":"July 29, 2012 8:46 pm","epoch":1343612760,"text":"I don’t really think we should cut the current winning aspect. It would be too drastic and take publicity from those who earned it. Personally, I don’t see to much of a problem with the current rating system, although if anything, I like jellonator’s suggestion.","spam":"N"},{"author_name":"TheSnide","time":"July 30, 2012 11:46 am","epoch":1343666760,"text":"Let’s go with a very simple voting system: +1, 0 or -1. Games are daily capped in the numbers of votes they can receive.","spam":"N"}],"epoch":1343583780,"likes":0,"metadata":{"p_key":"55544","p_author":"Daniel","p_authorkey":"11829","p_urlkey":"91262","p_title":"Rating system","p_cat":"MiniLD","p_event":"LD24","p_time":"1343583780","p_likes":"0","p_comments":"7","p_status":"UPD5","us_key":"11829","us_name":"Daniel","us_username":"Daniel","event_start":"1345766400","event_key":"12","event_name":"LD24"},"text":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

I think the rating system in Ludum Dare is not good (and in many other websites as well). I don’t know a better solution, but I think it is worthy thinking about this problem.<\/p>\n

Let’s say there are 1000 submissions and 1000 reviewers.\u00a0 If each submission receives a lot of reviews, then the average of the reviews will give a good estimation of the quality of the submissions.<\/p>\n

However, if each reviewer only reviews a few submissions, each submission will only get a few reviews, which means that the average will yield a very\u00a0poor and “noisy” estimation that doesn’t represent the opinion of the community as a whole.<\/p>\n

This means that simply asking people to rate and averaging the rates is not a good idea in this case.<\/p>\n

I suggest that we invite our mathematician friends to come up with a smarter and more elegant solution for this. Wouldn’t that be awesome?<\/p>","time":"July 29th, 2012 12:43 pm","title":"Rating system"}