Discussion Forum

why only a two week rotation??

wont that kinda just make it more of a "flavor of the week" type deal with the top decks changing like....all the time(though newcomers to the top might not necessarily be better than their predecessors)?

It's totally flexible, all it takes is one variable change in the database.

In the old system, which was a +1 -1, there were people "abusing" the system to get in this list, i.e signing up multiple accounts, rating down for no reasons etc. Because, I guess, of the ego boost of having a homepage deck.

It was widely agreed that cycling the results would be a better idea, with a static Top 100 somewhere else (which is planned), which would solve your 'top homepage decks not necessarly being top decks' scenario, i think!

Also, as there was actually no reason to use the voting system, not many people were using it, so hopefully this will spur it on a bit!

All feedback is 100% welcomed ofc, do you think monthly would be better?

Cheers

[QUOTE=Ian]In the old system, which was a +1 -1, there were people "abusing" the system to get in this list, i.e signing up multiple accounts, rating down for no reasons etc. Because, I guess, of the ego boost of having a homepage deck.[/QUOTE]

yes I realize this, and i agree that the new system will definetely be better even if it does rotate by-weekly

[QUOTE=Ian]It was widely agreed that cycling the results would be a better idea, with a static Top 100 somewhere else (which is planned), which would solve your 'top homepage decks not necessarly being top decks' scenario, i think![/QUOTE]

that would indeed solve the "dilemma"

[QUOTE=Ian]All feedback is 100% welcomed ofc, do you think monthly would be better?

Cheers[/QUOTE]

i do think monthly would be better...actually if you could implement different length's maybe by-weekly, monthly and yearly, we could get the best of both/all worlds

It's probably best not to worry too much about the particulars of the ratings system, as regards whether the best decks will really be rated the highest. They won't, no matter what the administrators do. And that's fine!

How many people actually sleeve up and test all the decks they rate? Honestly, I don't. The ratings system will never produce some measure of what the "best" decks are, because nobody subjects the decks to rigorous scrutiny before voting. And that should be ok. Ratings are just for fun.

The trick, I think, is to make sure the ratings make people feel positively about the site and their ability to interact with others' decks. That's what peer ratings are really all about -- the chance for us to have a voice. Any concern about whether the best decks will actually get good ratings (versus flavor of the week, etc) should probably be set aside, because there's just no way that users are actually testing to see which decks are the "best" decks. The only solution is to say, well, the way to learn which deck is "best" is by playing it against other decks (or read turn-by-turn playtest results from other players), not by reviewing ratings.

I guess this is my way of saying that asking the administration to impose a fair system, is probably unfair -- the new Bayesian weighting system is about as good as one can hope for, really.

[QUOTE=Salient]It's probably best not to worry too much about the particulars of the ratings system, as regards whether the best decks will really be rated the highest. They won't, no matter what the administrators do. And that's fine![/QUOTE]

well the decks which end up on top might not be the BEST but they will certainly accurately show which deck concepts are more popular, so creativity as well as competitiveness will factor in

actually on this note...maybe you could have two ratings...one for actual deck value and one for style/originality, but maybe thats just more effort than its worth? thoughts?


[QUOTE=Salient]I guess this is my way of saying that asking the administration to impose a fair system, is probably unfair -- the new Bayesian weighting system is about as good as one can hope for, really.[/QUOTE]

i don't agree, I dont think that just because the system will never be "perfect", that we shouldn't try to suggest and implement minor changes and suggestions to make it "better"

i for one think that for example two weeks is hardly enough time to give any indication at all of ANY quality of a deck(whether you're judging competitiveness, originality, or any other quality)

i dont really understand why you would say anything about fairness, they asked for suggestions and feedback, so i doubt they'll look down on any of these suggestions

[QUOTE=pelican]well the decks which end up on top might not be the BEST but they will certainly accurately show which deck concepts are more popular, so creativity as well as competitiveness will factor in

actually on this note...maybe you could have two ratings...one for actual deck value and one for style/originality, but maybe thats just more effort than its worth? thoughts?[/QUOTE]
My thought -- probably something like 95% of people would assign the same number for both categories. I don't think very many people take the ratings really seriously (I don't -- I assign 10s to decks I like and 7s to decks I don't like, because giving less than a 7 seems unkind).

Ugh, my signature is really ugly now, I need to go tinker with it. :-/

actually i have a question, does the two week period only matter for those decks created since that time? or is it the decks(created any time) which receive the top ratings within the most recent two weeks

this is a distinction which I just realized will have a great difference depending on which is correct

I would definitely more support a system where a deck created at any time could POTENTIALLY be at the top, not simply new ones

Thanks for the feedback peeps!

It's only for decks CREATED in the last two weeks. It's mainly to try and get some more comments etc on good new decks.

If you have system where it is decks which have had the top votes in the last two weeks, it will typically stay the same decks, mainly because those decks in the "top area" generally get more votes than any other decks. The decks in that area have already started receiving more votes than any other decks.

So it would still be possible for a new deck to breach this top area if it got a lot of votes, but it would be difficult.

A top 100 by deck type or something would be more appropriate for decks created anytime. This system is really to get more people involved with newer decks, create some more activity and reward people for creating new decks which other users actually think are good! (Plus the random decks was really just a stop gap).

I did ponder about having a "featured" decks style thing, which would encourage people to make clever decks, but that would require lots of manual choice, and Gary and I aren't massively active playing magic, so don't know what is good these days :p

When MTG vault launched, it didn't have a rating system, then the users asked for one. Gary developed a simple +1 -1 system, which while is easy to use, has it's limitations. We had to develop something a bit more robust, so use the 0-10 Bayesian system - I think adding in more and more ratings (originality, competitiveness etc) is a bit of a no-no atm, as the deck pages are quite packed already, plus I think it will make it more confusing and people will then be less likely to vote. Ofc I could be wrong on this :)

Cheers

[quote=pelican]i do think monthly would be better...actually if you could implement different length's maybe by-weekly, monthly and yearly, we could get the best of both/all worlds[/quote]

I think this is a fantastic idea! We'll have to discuss this one.

[quote=Salient;7649]The trick, I think, is to make sure the ratings make people feel positively about the site and their ability to interact with others' decks. That's what peer ratings are really all about -- the chance for us to have a voice. Any concern about whether the best decks will actually get good ratings (versus flavor of the week, etc) should probably be set aside, because there's just no way that users are actually testing to see which decks are the "best" decks.[/quote]

I couldn't have put it better if I tried.

Basically, The rating system will never be a 100% accurate tool to find the "best" decks, and I think after the struggle we've had with this one I don't thionk such a thing exists! What we've done here is tried to give a way to get semi-static content onto the homepage so we can have a whole bunch of constantly rotating "mini-competitions" if you like.

There will be more stuff coming for these votes in the future; we want to add the deck votes to the deck seach page, create top 100 pages, maybe top voted lists for each deck type, etc etc. However, there is also a big list of other stuff we want to do to improve things and we must pick these things based on what we believe to be the most beneficial and because of the problems we had with "prize" (top place on a homepage list) giving voting in the past, it may not seem that odd that the voting system is not very high on that list. This small change has literally been added now to try and get the voting system being used a bit more so that when we do make our top 100 pages etc, there will be more content (votes) for them to display.

I feel like I've waffled a bit now, sorry! ;)

i like the idea of having a top 100 of decks in the way you two have mentioned above as that would seem to pretty much satisfy my craving for a "somwehat" accurate way to rate decks

having the rotated new-deck format will also cover the other side of the coin which helps with the site in general and actually promotes constant ratings etc.

glad that parts of my/our suggestions are being considered though, all you can really ask for in admins, thanks guys

[QUOTE=Ian](Plus the random decks was really just a stop gap).[/QUOTE]
Aww I love the "random decks" thing and really hope you guys keep it. It's great to have the chance to just browse at random, I use it all the time.

[QUOTE=Salient]Aww I love the "random decks" thing and really hope you guys keep it. It's great to have the chance to just browse at random, I use it all the time.[/QUOTE]

lol :) We still have the code, it's just finding somewhere to put it !

[QUOTE=Ian]lol :) We still have the code, it's just finding somewhere to put it ![/QUOTE]

http://forums.mtgvault.com/randomdecks.html

;)

Should put that random code somewhere with the browse decks... Just as a clickable button or something. People get a kick out of that. (Myself included in 'people'.)

[quote=Salient]http://forums.mtgvault.com/randomdecks.html

;)[/quote]

What about http://www.mtgvault.com/RandomDecks.aspx? :P

With added menu item. I like it.