BuzzerBeater Forums

Blame human nature. People are far more likely to anonymously 1 ball a post that 5 ball a post as they don't have to explain themselves so it becomes a tool not only for if someone is wrong but if the rater disagrees with someone. Example Ned who posted a few posts above, I've seen him arguing on a few posts in global with his fellow Italians and all of their ratings got slayed because of it. I doubt the system will change anytime soon as there are more important parts of the game to improve/change. But if people do have suggestions on how to improve it I would be delighted to converse on the pro's and con's of a new system in the suggestions forum. I think the idea mentioned above about only being able to approve of posts is a very good idea from a psychological standpoint.

I think you have to ask it to who had the brilliant idea to put rate on the posts :D

He is right, though. It seems like the rating system isn't working properly. The purpose of rating should be to let new players know whom to listen to and whom to ignore. But, it seems like it has just become a game, or a sort of popularity contest. Perhaps it should be suggested that only experienced players who have earned their way up the ranks should be aloud to rate posts. As far as his morons comment, I have seen it many times were all the posts in a thread are one balled regardless of any other factors by some one who just felt like doing it, or was bored, or wasn't held as a child. How can you not call them morons.

Yes, the ball system isn't exactly working, but I didn't think it would when it was implemented. A better system would be one in which people are allowed to give positive rating or no rating at all, and those votes will accumulate over time.

That's beside the point though, I was addressing the approach of the OP.

That would be a remarkable improvement in order to use a rating system to signalize good posts and the ones who write them. At least, if that is the purpose of the rating system.

Another purpose could be just do something "fun", if that is the case, I would have some mixed feelings. I have seen users who have a nice time with this kind of vendettas (like the one against Edju) but I have also seen many frustrated users who are almost suffering "forum bullying" trough one-balling every one of their posts just because they screw it one(or two) times.

I have seen users who have a nice time with this kind of vendettas (like the one against Edju)

It's not a real vendetta - he was joking.

I have seen users who have a nice time with this kind of vendettas (like the one against Edju)

It's not a real vendetta - he was joking.

That was exactly where I was heading when I said a funny time. Ok, in some cases it doesn't turn out funny at all.

He is right, though. It seems like the rating system isn't working properly. The purpose of rating should be to let new players know whom to listen to and whom to ignore. But, it seems like it has just become a game, or a sort of popularity contest. Perhaps it should be suggested that only experienced players who have earned their way up the ranks should be aloud to rate posts. As far as his morons comment, I have seen it many times were all the posts in a thread are one balled regardless of any other factors by some one who just felt like doing it, or was bored, or wasn't held as a child. How can you not call them morons.

Yes, the ball system isn't exactly working, but I didn't think it would when it was implemented. A better system would be one in which people are allowed to give positive rating or no rating at all, and those votes will accumulate over time.

That's beside the point though, I was addressing the approach of the OP.

That would be a remarkable improvement in order to use a rating system to signalize good posts and the ones who write them. At least, if that is the purpose of the rating system.

Another purpose could be just do something "fun", if that is the case, I would have some mixed feelings. I have seen users who have a nice time with this kind of vendettas (like the one against Edju) but I have also seen many frustrated users who are almost suffering "forum bullying" trough one-balling every one of their posts just because they screw it one(or two) times.

I don't think it would make much of a difference given the fact that in most rating systems of any sort people either vote the lowest or the highest. I am sure the BBs could provide us with some solid numbers (although I believe they have more pressing issues at the moment) but I wouldn't be shocked if 80% or more of the total "votes" cast are either 1s or 5s. The "up" or "down" system is already essentially in place.

Here's another thought:
If a handful of posters are constantly getting one balled it is possible that the majority of users think that their posts are of low quality. No need to theorize a vast internet conspiracy, maybe your BFFs just aren't as beloved by everyone the way you think they should be.

It's not a real vendetta - he was joking.

50/50 Depends on the day

If it's easy access for you what's the avg rating of everyone in BB? Or should we ask Charles as he's usually better with numbers.

I can find out - Charles would have to run a db query, I have no clue how.

It isn't about "up" or "down" wich, I would agree, is the same as 1 or 5. It is about "positive rating" or not at all, like in Facebook. And your total positive feedback from your posts would be accumulated (maybe in the space where your country/team is, if you add some "levels" users might reach with certain amount of positive feedback it could be even better).

In this fashion, good post will continue to be signalized with positive feedback. Just like users who already get consistenly 5 balls.

On the other hand, we would avoid this not so unsual "forum bullying". If someone doesn't make a good intervetion he doesn't recieve positive feedback and that's it. I think some users don't really care about the ball ratings but some others do and I have seen many post in different forums talking about it, and I don't think that producing such frustration in usually active users is something good for any community, because some of them just decide to not to post.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 6/15/2010 6:31:39 PM

The problem with including only positive feedback is that a broken clock is still right twice a day and someone who posts 30 times a day on the help forum and is wrong and misleading 29 times a day but manages to sneak one semi-correct answer in there every 24 hours will receive a ton of positive feedback. Under your proposed system such a user (one might say a "shaq-like manager) would have a considerably higher total rating than a senior user who posts once every couple weeks but drops Solomon-like wisdom in his or her posts.
A "like"-only system would reward pure volume over any sort of quality which is the exact opposite of what the help forum in particular needs.

In addition, without people providing a counter balance a post which was 100% demonstrably wrong need only convince a single player who has played one game thus far to click "like" to make it appear as if the information is good information even if the other 40 people who have read it think its crap.

I think that this rating system is as good as any. Either keep it as is, or get rid of it and let discussions in the threads be used as the gauge of accuracy. Personally I am in favour of less inaccurate guessing and blabbing on from users who have no idea what they're talking about and who just spread guesses and misinformation and more actually informative discussion. I don't have strong opinions one way or another about the best way to accomplish such a goal but I suspect it involves abolishing the internet.