[vylette]

Being able to leave a negative vote or feedback could be too damaging or cause extra hassles for the people who run BBO. I know with ebay alone, getting a negative feedback was damaging, even if it was undisturbed.

A way to rate players might be just focus on the positive. Have a "friendly, or good player" thumbs up rating and you can only give positive points to people. So if you sit down with someone who doesn't have any positive points they are either new or something is up..

[patchyfog]

Setting the completion rate for those entering the table at
95% works amazingly well as keeping rude people away. I wish
more people would do that. We could make it so these nasty
folks are all just playing with each other!

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2016-January-15, 13:07, said:

I still find it hard to believe that because I miscounted trumps on a hand, not only will my partner give me a 1-star rating, but also ask a bunch of their friends to try to play with me and to give me 1-star reviews (or creepily messaging whoever I'm playing me to rate me low, with dubious chances of success). Are we seriously afraid of this?

Actually, they certainly will do exactly this, at least the part about giving one star. In fact you don't even need to make an error - they just need to think you did. Getting booted from a table by a raging idiot is a fairly routine occurrence in the MBC, no reason to think the one star would be any different.

[gwnn]

I don't mind the 1* part from an ignorant or justifiably upset partner. I was talking more about the "evil mastermind starts a campaign to downvote me." Maybe I have too much faith in the idea, but I think the positive reviews will be genuine and the negative will be a bit overblown. It should even out in the long run (especially if you make some small tweaks, for example disregarding or partially disregarding reviews from people who keep 1*'ing everyone, and similar small adjustments). I don't buy for even one second that there will be wolf packs intentionally following people to play with and downvote en masse.

[Bbradley62]

Not sure whether this was covered above, but I'd also hope that any ratings given would be relative to expectations ("exceeded expectations", "met expectations", "didn't meet expectations"); my expectations would be higher for a random who self-rated advanced than for a random who self-rated beginner.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2016-January-18, 08:24, said:

Not sure whether this was covered above, but I'd also hope that any ratings given would be relative to expectations ("exceeded expectations", "met expectations", "didn't meet expectations"); my expectations would be higher for a random who self-rated advanced than for a random who self-rated beginner.

You can put whatever you want in the instructions, people will vote how they feel, not necessarily according to the description.

Just like self-ratings, where people ignore the explanations of what each level is supposed to mean.

[mycroft]

Maybe, maybe not, gwnn. I do remember a certain G- however, and the popcorn-watching crew of kibitzers he engendered.

[OldPlayr]

I have found robots to be by far the most enjoyable table mates on BBO. They always finish the hand, bid consistently, never complain, never give advice, and never insult anyone.

Perhaps this will change as AI implementation improves. I await the day when two robots auto-insult one another on BBO

[gwnn]

mycroft, on 2016-January-18, 13:45, said:

Maybe, maybe not, gwnn. I do remember a certain G- however, and the popcorn-watching crew of kibitzers he engendered.

Well yes, I actually thought of him too when I wrote here. Even disregarding the obvious fact that he was a huge exception, how many people did he actually play with, however? As far as I remember, he had a few close friends with whom he was playing and a bunch of kibs were following him around. Kibs would not be able to evaluate players.

[mgoetze]

billw55, on 2016-January-18, 07:29, said:

Actually, they certainly will do exactly this, at least the part about giving one star. In fact you don't even need to make an error - they just need to think you did. Getting booted from a table by a raging idiot is a fairly routine occurrence in the MBC, no reason to think the one star would be any different.

So what you're saying is that raging idiots have a lot of friends.

[helene_t]

But if some idiot, who has been enemy-marked by hundreds of players and not friend-marked by any of my friends, gives Csaba a thump-down, would that have any impact of my compatibility with Csaba? If so then the algorithm is just stupid.

This is a lot easier for BBO than it is for Amazon etc. BBO has plenty of data to support inference about the quality of the thumb-downs.

[sakuragi]

This seems hurt least.

From "rating of any form unnecessary" camp

vylette, on 2016-January-15, 17:28, said:

Being able to leave a negative vote or feedback could be too damaging or cause extra hassles for the people who run BBO. I know with ebay alone, getting a negative feedback was damaging, even if it was undisturbed.

A way to rate players might be just focus on the positive. Have a "friendly, or good player" thumbs up rating and you can only give positive points to people. So if you sit down with someone who doesn't have any positive points they are either new or something is up..

[Antrax]

There's a common way of keeping out the stupid trolls, by normalizing a person's ratings. The logic is that if you give everyone one star, that means they're all average, whereas if you usually give 5 and now give 3, that partner is probably bad. Granted, people could still invest the time in giving randoms 5 stars so their vote of 1 star to gwnn will have an impact.

[gwnn]

As with a lot of systems, a key idea is to keep the exact details secret to make exploiting it harder.

[helene_t]

OldPlayr, on 2016-January-18, 14:21, said:

Perhaps this will change as AI implementation improves. I await the day when two robots auto-insult one another on BBO

http://www.insultgenerator.org/