<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Problem With User Rankings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://weblog.probablynot.com/2008/07/03/the-problem-with-user-rankings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://weblog.probablynot.com/2008/07/03/the-problem-with-user-rankings/</link>
	<description>-emptying my brain onto the internet since 1998...</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chas</title>
		<link>http://weblog.probablynot.com/2008/07/03/the-problem-with-user-rankings/#comment-66278</link>
		<dc:creator>Chas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://weblog.probablynot.com/?p=958#comment-66278</guid>
		<description>This is a common "1 star bandit" problem that really shows the weakness of any server-wide rating system:  One idiot- whose opinion we likely can't trust anyway- can mess the whole thing up.

Even more complex.  You're a creative player that does very well, but doesn't template or take FOTM builds.  I'm a religious FOTM follower (I'm not).  We're likely to rate each other more negatively than people that share our views.

Wouldn't it be better if pro-FOTM'ers could find other like-minded people, while anti-FOTM'ers could do the same?  

Serverwide ratings pretend we all have the same interests and prevent this.

Is there a solution?  

Well, it substantially increases database load, but what if you only got the ratings from those people that you rated favorably, more like a social networking site.  Essentially, it's a kind of "friends' referral system.  (In theory, you can even extend this to your friends' friends' referrals)

Now, you're seeing a rating that's been applied by people that you liked- that shared more of your priorities and interests, so the people they rate favorably or negatively might also resonate the same with you.

Moreover, the 1-star bandit is powerless unless he first is able to convince people to LIKE him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a common &#8220;1 star bandit&#8221; problem that really shows the weakness of any server-wide rating system:  One idiot- whose opinion we likely can&#8217;t trust anyway- can mess the whole thing up.</p>
<p>Even more complex.  You&#8217;re a creative player that does very well, but doesn&#8217;t template or take FOTM builds.  I&#8217;m a religious FOTM follower (I&#8217;m not).  We&#8217;re likely to rate each other more negatively than people that share our views.</p>
<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it be better if pro-FOTM&#8217;ers could find other like-minded people, while anti-FOTM&#8217;ers could do the same?  </p>
<p>Serverwide ratings pretend we all have the same interests and prevent this.</p>
<p>Is there a solution?  </p>
<p>Well, it substantially increases database load, but what if you only got the ratings from those people that you rated favorably, more like a social networking site.  Essentially, it&#8217;s a kind of &#8220;friends&#8217; referral system.  (In theory, you can even extend this to your friends&#8217; friends&#8217; referrals)</p>
<p>Now, you&#8217;re seeing a rating that&#8217;s been applied by people that you liked- that shared more of your priorities and interests, so the people they rate favorably or negatively might also resonate the same with you.</p>
<p>Moreover, the 1-star bandit is powerless unless he first is able to convince people to LIKE him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
