Thanks for playing!

davexunit on 2011/04/24 00:14 of TeamWSU

Thanks to everyone that tried Nonagon!
A lot of you left VERY good feedback.
There were some problems that we already knew about (repetition, learning curve, etc.) but we got plenty of new input that we will keep in mind if this project is continued.
Once again, THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK! :D
...And to the few of you that just gave us a terrible rating with some nasty remarks and no constructive criticism: You are cancer.

(log in to comment)

Comments

akira44 on 2011/04/24 00:21:

> ...And to the few of you that just gave us a terrible rating with some nasty
> remarks and no constructive criticism: You are cancer.

Amen to that!

davec on 2011/04/24 00:43:

Yeah... I'll treasure the comment I had for my game that simply reads 'meh' :-).

mauve on 2011/04/24 08:25:

> You are cancer.
Totally. You, sir or madam, are a dick. Irredeemably so. I wish you a slow death in a freak steamroller accident where the steamroller is inexplicably covered in feces.

john on 2011/04/24 11:37:

> ...And to the few of you that just gave us a terrible rating with some nasty remarks and no constructive > criticism: You are cancer.

I could find no examples of that in your comments.

ServalKatze on 2011/04/24 12:56:

I'm a bit puzzled about the person(s) who rated some entries 1/1/1 without any comment. I mean... if you claim a game like this has absolutely NO production/fun/innovation at all, then some kind of explanation would be nice..

akira44 on 2011/04/24 14:02:

I'm a bit puzzled about the person(s) who rated some entries 1/1/1 without any comment

My guess? Either someone who wants his game to perform better and rates everyone badly to lower their score, or someone who is just angry at something and doesn't know how to vent properly. I guess you could ask for their identities, but it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

richard on 2011/04/24 23:09:

It's ok to let off a little steam but please try to keep it nice.

As for some users leaving 1,1,1 ratings with no comments - that's just what some people do. I've looked into it and no-one has just gone across the board and assigned 1,1,1 to everyone. Some people do have very ... different ways of assigning their ratings.

mauve on 2011/04/25 07:06:

Sorry, I thought I was being hyperbolic and funny.

So the 1/1/1 ratings are not the work of a single user, or that user's approach of giving 1/1/1 to a lot of games with no comment is defensible in light of some other behaviour?

superjoe on 2011/04/25 07:39:

I got a 1/1/1 with no comment too. Maybe they forgot to check the "it didn't work" box?

By the way, it felt really awkward to give a rating to games I'd never played when I was marking "did not work."

And what are we officially supposed to do for games that do not work, but if you rename all the media filenames, it does work? Or if you find the data folder on github, it does work? Should we mark those as works or not?

richard on 2011/04/25 08:27:

The ratings aren't counted when you mark it "did not work" or disqualified.

richard on 2011/04/25 08:29:

Sorry, missed the second part of your question.

It's really up to you whether you mark a game DNW if you had to fix a bug to play it. Personally I wouldn't mark it DNW unless there's really no way I can easily make it work.

hodgestar on 2011/04/25 09:14:

I reserve DNW for cases where I failed to get the game to run and so could not rate the game at all.

mauve on 2011/04/26 15:22:

I'm a bit hung up on this 1/1/1 no comment thing. It looks like 12 games were given 5/5/5 with no comment, while 38 were given 1/1/1 with no comment. There is no overlap. 7 games are unaffected.

Out of interest I computed how the scores and rankings would have changed if just the 1/1/1 and 5/5/5 ratings with no accompanying comment were disregarded.

Pages like the All Games list work on the pretence that the scores are directly comparable. My game could have made it into the all-time top 20, as could superjoe's.

superjoe on 2011/04/26 21:09:

I agree - I was a little bit disappointed with the score-deflation this competition. I would vainly have liked to see my game - and many others - rank higher in the All Games list.

Richard has said that no one has assigned 1-1-1 to everyone. But has someone assigned either 1-1-1 OR 5-5-5 to everyone?

I think a good way to solve this problem is score normalization. I tried for a while to sit and think of a better algorithm, but this is actually quite a difficult problem. I'll have to give it some more thought.

mauve on 2011/04/26 22:40:

I did try that system of scoring they use in some Olympic events, where the highest and lowest scores are discarded so that it's hard for a single judge to bias the results. But this doesn't work as well as I expected. I think perhaps the variance is too great. Slotting in a 1/1/1 just means that an extra low score is counted, while slotting in a 5/5/5 means an extra high score is counted. So it doesn't completely remove the dick's effect and also shuffles scores haphazardly based on the distribution of the rest of the scores.

mauve on 2011/04/26 22:55:

If anyone else wants to dick around with ratings or verify my calculations, my code and the data I scraped can be downloaded in a tarball.

Tee on 2011/04/27 00:22:

Those statistics are interesting, mauve, but in my opinion it's best to try not to worry too much about it. This also made me a bit upset at first, but we've had unfair judges before; I recall a similar discussion in an earlier Pyweek. Fortunately, this doesn't happen that often and most people around here are thoughtful - you can tell by the overall quality of the comments. It's much better to focus on these types of comments, since they are much more honest and constructive than that one.