Matt wrote:
Update is out, read about it here. We didn't make any changes to the voting or score system yet, but we added the time range filters and recognition of the all time best builds.
Let us know what you think :) It's a pretty huge update, we can't even remember everything we did hahah...
It's a nice change, don't get me wrong, but you seem to have forgotten why you made this site.
and for that very reason I have to do something I should have done a long time ago, but it'll have to wait.
HeAt wrote:
@remain
OK remain, you dont see DEWO saying he is the ****.. and on average, he has the top build for all chars he has made. He is a solid person. I wouldnt go and show off im the top, i cant speak for anyone else.. your build is great but i assure you you are not the only person who puts time into builds.. dak you need a description of at least how to play the build
- John
OK remain, you dont see DEWO saying he is the ****.. and on average, he has the top build for all chars he has made. He is a solid person. I wouldnt go and show off im the top, i cant speak for anyone else.. your build is great but i assure you you are not the only person who puts time into builds.. dak you need a description of at least how to play the build
- John
Alahric wrote:
The limit ranges are somewhat broken, just because I posted a guide 5 month ago doesn't mean that I don't keep it updated. In fact I do believe it's a bit unfair to not have it show up just because it's "old". I think you should keep a tab on guides that are being updated instead of just new guides, the only justification you have for doing this is if you got one top-rated guide that is not being updated!
It's a nice change, don't get me wrong, but you seem to have forgotten why you made this site.
and for that very reason I have to do something I should have done a long time ago, but it'll have to wait.
Yes, that is something we've discussed. We could base the filter on the date it was last updated rather than the date it was published if people prefer it. Is that what everyone prefers?
Of course, the intention of the age restriction was simply to show what's new, to help give the new builds a fighting chance against established builds (which is something a lot of people were upset about). Those looking for the all time best guides still have all the controls to do it. In fact the browse page still defaults to "All time" so anyone that goes there and orders builds by rating, will see the all time best builds unless they manually mess with the date filter, in which case they obviously know they're only getting the new guides. It's only the home page that defaults to the last 30 days, and we provided the legendary guides in the sidebar next to it to promote the all time greats (you're in there 3 times!) so that they don't get lost or forgotten. We will also be adding a page soon that lists various all time winners, an extension of that legendary builds box.
I had hoped all of that together would make everyone happy :)
Matt wrote:
Yes, that is something we've discussed. We could base the filter on the date it was last updated rather than the date it was published if people prefer it. Is that what everyone prefers?
Of course, the intention of the age restriction was simply to show what's new, to help give the new builds a fighting chance against established builds (which is something a lot of people were upset about). Those looking for the all time best guides still have all the controls to do it. In fact the browse page still defaults to "All time" so anyone that goes there and orders builds by rating, will see the all time best builds unless they manually mess with the date filter, in which case they obviously know they're only getting the new guides. It's only the home page that defaults to the last 30 days, and we provided the legendary guides in the sidebar next to it to promote the all time greats (you're in there 3 times!) so that they don't get lost or forgotten. We will also be adding a page soon that lists various all time winners, an extension of that legendary builds box.
I had hoped all of that together would make everyone happy :)
Alahric wrote:
I get your point, and I think everyone should be given a chance. I know that I have three guides up there but those aren't exactly the ones I want to promote, I would gladly give away my title on the caster guides (like Karthus). Come to think of it the old list didn't make it any better so what am I really complaning about? Well it's more about the ratings, like AnalSamurai said: I just don't believe that the top rated guide w/ 125 ratings is that X times much better than say, a guide w/ 25 ratings. I mean they both have same effort within them. I told him that it was actually more of a popularity scale, and with more ratings you get more views. If that's the case then I really can't do anything about how many people likes that champion, that's why it's broken as a measurement to tell how good a guide is. Maybe 10/10 rating will allow newer guides compeat with the top rated ones, I mean there is no way in hell somone is going to get a better Taric guide when I got +25, and the rest is +4, +3, +1, and 17- 0's. It takes a lot of views to get that many +1's so it's going to take months! That and I think people would rate more if they could measure themselves on how much that guide really deserves.
Yes we are strongly considering a normalized score, I've mentioned it a few times. It's kind of a big change so I don't want to do it lightly and piss a lot of people off :) If people like the idea, I'd be happy to change it over. We can still display the old (current) score for those that like it, but order things based on the normalized score instead.
That means the top guides are no longer affected by the amount of traffic they get - more traffic means a more accurate, but not higher, score. The current scoring method DOES account for this somewhat - if a build gets 50 + votes and 50 - votes, the total score is 0. However, if a build is good, then like you said it will just continue to accrue more + votes over time and become unbeatable.
Normalized score is a good way to counter this I think. Maybe I should throw up a new poll about it - who prefers normalized vs current scoring method.
You know what, I think I'll go ahead and implement it just to show everyone what it looks like. I'll add an extra option on browse to sort by normalized score so you guys can play around with it. I'll let you know when it's ready :)
Matt wrote:
Yes we are strongly considering a normalized score, I've mentioned it a few times. It's kind of a big change so I don't want to do it lightly and piss a lot of people off :) If people like the idea, I'd be happy to change it over. We can still display the old (current) score for those that like it, but order things based on the normalized score instead.
That means the top guides are no longer affected by the amount of traffic they get - more traffic means a more accurate, but not higher, score. The current scoring method DOES account for this somewhat - if a build gets 50 + votes and 50 - votes, the total score is 0. However, if a build is good, then like you said it will just continue to accrue more + votes over time and become unbeatable.
Normalized score is a good way to counter this I think. Maybe I should throw up a new poll about it - who prefers normalized vs current scoring method.
You know what, I think I'll go ahead and implement it just to show everyone what it looks like. I'll add an extra option on browse to sort by normalized score so you guys can play around with it. I'll let you know when it's ready :)
Oh and btw: a good guide doesn't get any reasonable -1's, that's just haters being jealous.
Ok done :) Have a look-see. As you can see, the difference between the all time best builds with normalized scores is quite a bit different from the overall score list. Remain's Shaco build for example has an 84% normalized score.
Note that the list, when you choose normalized score, is also filtered to exclude any build with less than 10 votes. Any build with 1+ vote instantly has 100% score. We would have to come up with a solution to this, so that new builds can get attention and votes, but it doesn't seem like a 1/1 build is actually better than a 99/100 build.
Anyways, I encourage anyone reading this to take a look and share your thoughts.
Note that the list, when you choose normalized score, is also filtered to exclude any build with less than 10 votes. Any build with 1+ vote instantly has 100% score. We would have to come up with a solution to this, so that new builds can get attention and votes, but it doesn't seem like a 1/1 build is actually better than a 99/100 build.
Anyways, I encourage anyone reading this to take a look and share your thoughts.
why not in the petition thread :P
ok normalized scores already has a flaw. 2 builds with same rating 100% but somhow the one with less votes is higher which is the most odd thing i've noticed.
Also i am VERY against this kind of rating untill we do something with negative votes. For me it makes no sense at all before it, but it might be only me tbh, since i am a jerk and kids dont like me.
Also there should be a section for "fun build only" without rating in it.
ok normalized scores already has a flaw. 2 builds with same rating 100% but somhow the one with less votes is higher which is the most odd thing i've noticed.
Also i am VERY against this kind of rating untill we do something with negative votes. For me it makes no sense at all before it, but it might be only me tbh, since i am a jerk and kids dont like me.
Also there should be a section for "fun build only" without rating in it.
Matt wrote:
Ok done :) Have a look-see. As you can see, the difference between the all time best builds with normalized scores is quite a bit different from the overall score list. Remain's Shaco build for example has an 84% normalized score.
Note that the list, when you choose normalized score, is also filtered to exclude any build with less than 10 votes. Any build with 1+ vote instantly has 100% score. We would have to come up with a solution to this, so that new builds can get attention and votes, but it doesn't seem like a 1/1 build is actually better than a 99/100 build.
Anyways, I encourage anyone reading this to take a look and share your thoughts.
Like it's the best build i've ever seen on <Champion> 10/10!
It's a good overall builds, works just fine 6-9/10
It's nothing special 5/10
It sucks! 1-4/10
And yes it is flawed when people -1 without any reason for doing so, no comments..
So before we get into ratings they should do something about negative votes, agree with DEWO there.
In regards to people down-voting, most likely they will be asked to comment and won't. So you won't get a down vote, but you also won't get the feedback you wanted. You can't say it's "flawed" - this is how every voting system works. Some sites use a 5 star scale, but they still don't require a comment if you vote 0 stars. The only difference there is in the display - they don't show a negative number as the score is 0 based, so maybe the perception is better. It's a normalized system, nobody goes over 5 stars or under 0. We are definitely not against doing things differently, but if we do, we want to have a really good reason for doing it.
We actually discussed switching to a 5 star type scaled system. We're open to that - it's a combination of normalizing scores and giving votes more range than up/down. Maybe those -1 votes only slightly disagreed and would have given a 2/5 if they could.
If we're going to change the system, we need to get down to specifics. It's going to be more complicated than just forcing a comment on down vote. At least consider some of the following.
Do you guys feel like builds that get an early -1 end up getting ignored purely because of that? Possible solution is to hide the score until there are more than x votes (voting will reveal the score).
Do you feel like there is just not enough commenting on builds overall? Possible solution is adding rewards for commenting, rather than forcing comments. I've also played with making a special forum topic that shows all builds as if they are forum threads - this might make it easier to follow and encourage more discussion.
Do you feel like there are certain people that vote -1 all over the place? Possible solution is a system that gives you a reasonable number of down votes, but if you want to down vote more you have to start up voting things as well to "buy" extra down votes. This would have to be balanced carefully.
Do you feel like there are people that -1 any "competing" build? Or that -1 a build based on the person that posted it? Possible solution is to display the names of the first x people that vote, and once the number of votes is over a threshold it just shows a number instead.
We actually discussed switching to a 5 star type scaled system. We're open to that - it's a combination of normalizing scores and giving votes more range than up/down. Maybe those -1 votes only slightly disagreed and would have given a 2/5 if they could.
If we're going to change the system, we need to get down to specifics. It's going to be more complicated than just forcing a comment on down vote. At least consider some of the following.
Do you guys feel like builds that get an early -1 end up getting ignored purely because of that? Possible solution is to hide the score until there are more than x votes (voting will reveal the score).
Do you feel like there is just not enough commenting on builds overall? Possible solution is adding rewards for commenting, rather than forcing comments. I've also played with making a special forum topic that shows all builds as if they are forum threads - this might make it easier to follow and encourage more discussion.
Do you feel like there are certain people that vote -1 all over the place? Possible solution is a system that gives you a reasonable number of down votes, but if you want to down vote more you have to start up voting things as well to "buy" extra down votes. This would have to be balanced carefully.
Do you feel like there are people that -1 any "competing" build? Or that -1 a build based on the person that posted it? Possible solution is to display the names of the first x people that vote, and once the number of votes is over a threshold it just shows a number instead.
You need to log in before commenting.
Let us know what you think :) It's a pretty huge update, we can't even remember everything we did hahah...