Enter Your Reply

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote:

But i see you are bent on changing things, without bothering also to talk to the other members apparently, haha.

Talking to the other members about what I'm planning is exactly what I'm doing here. But so far, you're the only one who has had anything to say about it. I assume from their silence that other members are okay with what I'm planning.

The only thing i am trying to do is keep 10 years of members ratings.

I plan to leave the comments sections and page ratings alone. What I intend to replace is the game ratings system that has been used for only three games the whole time it has been here.

Every game has a game page, every member can rate these pages. Sounds fair to me, i dont see how that is unfair to any game. I have faith in the members rating games, even non-members, for that matter.

It's fair in that it is equally useless for all games. While it allows people to rate and review games, it does not make use of this information in any way. What I have planned is a dedicated game rating system that can report back various types of information, such as the popularity or average rating for a game, an individual member's favorite games, or whether the inventor has played the game and how he rates it himself.

Can i ask, what does it mean to put ratings in the 'item table'?

It is MySQL jargon, and only David Howe needs to understand precisely what I mean. Anyhow, I'm now thinking it would be best to create a new table in the database, because it would be shorter than the Item or Person tables and so faster to access.

Is this a page like this .. http://www.chessvariants.com/index/mainquery.php?type=Any&startswithletter=Na&orderby=LinkText&displayauthor=1&displayinventor=1

No, it's nothing you would see on the website.