Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I totally agree with you, Gary.

I still think that maybe only users should be able to leave comments. This would give more people an incentive to join this site and actively partake of its benefits and it wouldn't allow anonymous people to spam the comments sections as easily as they sometimes do now.

That's just an idea, and it's meant as a bit of an aside.

Mainly, I want to write in support of what Gary is saying here, as a chess editor. I want to suggest that we re-program the comments section so that anyone who wants to leave a comment has to construct at least a five word sentence (has to write at least five words) about why they felt the way they did about any given variant. We can make it so that when you click on the send button for comments, we will politely and kindly ask for a small comment about why they felt the way they did about a variant. This will be helpful to everybody. The current system involves some counterproductive activity, in which we editors have to check all the anonymous messages where someone did nothing but rate a game without any explanation and then people, including variant authors and inventors, have to read through these anonymous comments most likely without any gain of insight or understanding or common feeling.

This happened to me twice yesterday and just now, and it made me want to go back and write in support of Gary's valuable suggestion.

I don't see it as policing thoughts so much as encouraging them. The
system we have now involves an automatic judgment system, without any
feedback. Newspeak says: Good. Excellent. Alpha. Poor. Delta. Average.
Gamma.  Welcome to the brave new world of our current comment system.

Serious thoughts, goofy names.

Far be it from me to shy away from controversy. :-) I have to agree with
George. I am in favor of an open comments system. With all its faults, I
feel it is the best way to encourage people to become more active. [And,
honestly, I think 'good' or 'poor' gives me a lot of info. Not nearly
as much as I like, but who is going to fill out a survey that includes an
essay, for me?] Further, consider the Rules of Chess sections. We got a
lot of apparently one-time messages from fathers and mothers and
schoolkids. All of them know about this site now, and that it's friendly.
It will even listen to a non-member, and various members will respond. I
believe all this encourages repeat traffic, and if we have that, we get
more variants players. [That last sentence sounded so much better than: As
an aging hippie, that's how I want my world to be, open and encouraging.
But that's not a bad reason either.]
There should be things we can do to alleviate the problem without shutting
the doors. Maybe editors could have an automatic pass or a fast lane for
game comments that only consist of a rating. Maybe we could weight members
ratings. Let 'bare' game ratings directly on; and weight members to
non-members 5:1 to 100:1, depending on how little weight you wish to give
'outsiders'. 
Finally, making it 'Members Only' also eliminates all the posts from
outsiders who leave thoughtful comments on occasion. That would have the
effect of driving people away. I want more people to see and play these
games. Maybe someday, I'll find a face-to-face opponent! [Okay, that's a
selfish reason, but I don't think it's a bad reason for all that.]
I understand the reasons and frustrations, and in some ways I like some of
the ideas - maybe members should have to leave at least 5 words. But I
don't want to see the pool of players start drying up. Don't cut off the
supply. Channel it if you must, but keep this Comments system open, please.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Joe.  We're all our own judges of
comments and games anyway, and it's actually a plus that person X
actually says anything, good OR bad, qualified or not.  I say let's give
'em all a chance to say what they feel, good or bad, qualified or not. 
The exchange is more important than any one specific item that is
exchanged.

I still disagree with the display of unqualified comments... simply because
they offer no value.  Good, Poor, or Excellent .... for example... If Good -
what makes it good?  What whould make it better?  If Poor- then we
certainly should know why it is poor.  If someone says, 'Poor because I
don't like the pink board.' Then that is different than 'Poor-because
white has a forced mate-in 6 at the beginning of the game, here it is:
_________'  In the great game, Storm the Ivory Tower, by Fergus, there
where many comments about the pieces and board design.  These were
constructive and several nice board and piece options resulted.  That is
just one example, of course.

In closing, it is ironic that game comments receive more detailed comments
than most games do.

Well, I feel that I may have derailed Gary's initial intent by mentioning my own pet idea about linking ratings to users. I think I have some fairly good reasons for that, so I think I will reintroduce the topic at a later date when I have time to marshall my arguments.

Could we just consider the merits of Gary's proposal instead of mine? Gary's proposal is simply that rating a game should require a comment, placing no restrictions on who can rate and who can comment.

If I read him correctly: Gary seems to be introducing a further idea which is the compromise: If you're going to rate a game below 'average' you should at least have to say something about why. Could we at least agree on this compromise proposal? It's one thing to have a free forum in the interest of encouraging people to use this site, but it's another thing to be sensitive of the inventors' hard work and effort and realize that this too is something we should be trying to encourage. The current comment system is not always very encouraging and could be dispiriting. I know of at least one fantastic chess variants designer who is very disgruntled with this site because of all the arbitrary negative comments some of his work has garnered.

I really think it's fair to ask people to take a moment to think about why they're making a judgement if they care to be doing that. Because judgements can be very significant things, I think.

Personally, I think the 'say at least 5 words' if you're going to rate a game is still a good one. In a different thread, I suggested de-linking ratings from comments. Just for purposes of greater organization. It's one thing if you want to go to a website and make general comments and ask general questions, as we encourage people to do on the 'rules of chess' area and another if you want to offer a judgement as to the quality of a game. One may wish to drop by and say, 'The inventor of this variant was my great uncle, etc.' That's of topical interest and doesn't run the same risks as the rating system. It's another thing if you want to say, 'I dislike/like this variant because...' It's the latter subset of remarks that concern me because they reflect on how people will regard the quality of this website.

I think the best way of handling the situation would be to re-program our comments section so that if you click on a rating, a new screen comes up with a different message for each comment. If you click on 'Excellent' The screen could have the message. 'Great! Please say 5 words or more why you liked it.' If 'Poor' -- 'Please say 5 words or more about what you didn't like about this game or how you think it might be improved.' Etc.

Hi, Gary, Hi, Jeremy:  Agreed, it's much better if commentors, or people
putting in ratings, especially, say something intelligent and constructive
or critical about whichever game they're commenting on, but maybe a lot of
them aren't articulate enough in the variant patois to be confident enough
to expound a bit, or care that much. If what you're against is the idea
that some stranger could zip in from nowhere, anonymously condemn a game
with a bad rating, and disappear, I can see how that would be
irritating--to let people get away with cheap shots like that--it doesn't
sit just right with me, either. (Case in point--what if, in our
governmental elections, voters were asked 'why?' they voted for
whomever, as they voted?  Now think about why they aren't asked 'why?')

Yes, David, a voluntary, opt-in system like that sounds very reasonable and
accomodating to all sides in this discussion and would be a huge
improvement. Very thoughtful proposal.

David, in general your proposal is excellent. I'd ask for 2 simple
modifications. 
Don't close out the general public even from your excellent 5-part rating
system. If you weight each member answer as 100 non-member answers, you
have effectively eliminated non-members from affecting the rating, but we
still get their comments. A 10:1 weighting would pretty much do the same
thing; and a 5:1 would actually give non-members a slight say in how
things are rated.
Add a '5 - Outstanding' to the numeric ratings. I think some games, such
as Alice Chess or Ultima, are so good that it's unfair to have the many
excellent games have to go up against them as a comparison for what
qualifies as excellent. Either that, or add a 'Very Good' category
between good and excellent. 
While the second proposal is just a 'splitter vs. lumper' argument, with
me favoring a couple more categories, the first proposal is something I
urge we accept. It should be easy to implement and leaves us open without
being vulnerable to hit-and-run opinions, or even a campaign by 1 or 2
people to praise or condemn particular games, because after 50 or 60
anonymous greats or terribles for any game, not only would an editor
notice and erase those posts, but, at 100:1, that's still only half an
opinion. 
Please leave the door open, even if only a crack.

>>what if, in our
governmental elections, voters were asked 'why?' they voted for
whomever, as they voted?  Now think about why they aren't asked
'why?')>>

And who gets to decide which 'why's are acceptable and which are not? 
Tyranny, I say!

i know this might sound weird, but i think there are people out there, who
download and play chess variants, but have no interest in reading or
posting in these forums, but sometimes, they may rate a game. i think this
could explain the non-member rating with no comment. i mean, if you don't
become a member, you must have no interest in posting in the forums.
if they rate it 'excellent', then i don't think it is entirely fair to
say that it is worthless, just because of no comment. 
to rate it excellent, one should assume they thought the game was really
good :)
you know if someone rated 'grand chess' excellent, then you would
probably think they liked the 'knight-bishop' piece, the 'rook-knight'
piece, these pieces playing with normal chess pieces, the 10x10 board, the
game-play, etc etc
if an obviously good game is rated 'poor' it could be just a matter of
taste, i mean, there is no game out there, which someone does not like lol
:)
i think because of our love for fairy pieces and chess variants, someone
rating without comment may ... be upsetting :) ... but you know, i think
it is a little tough to say you must comment, as someone said, there would
be people who don't know how to say why they like, not knowing the words
to describe, like 'game-play' and 'piece density' or whatever. If you
get them to 'have' to say, they may not vote, or just post something
that is no help anyway really (i thought it was really great)

still, i am not so sure non-members should be able to rate, it does leave
the door open to shifty ratings, and seeing most 'rated/no comment'
comes from non-members, you could wipe out the problem if seen as a
problem.
non-members could still 'write' there rating without it being offical
:)
anyway, just thought i would throw some ideas out.

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote in part, '. . .if they rate it 'excellent',
then i don't think it is entirely fair to say that it is worthless, just
because of no comment. to rate it excellent, one should assume they
thought the game was really good :)'

My response:  With 'Excellent' I somewhat agree with Christine.  It is
like getting an 'A+' on a school paper.  Though the teachers usually
wrote something on my papers like, 'Excellent!, splendid research!'

'Good' is understandable, but of no value if someone wanted to improve
their game design.  Going back to the teacher grades, 'B' with no red
marks is not very helpful.  'B' with a comment, 'You failed to
summarize your composition.  Otherwise i'd have given you an A+' is a
useful comment.

But, it is really the rating of 'Poor' [that is unqualified] that I
dislike seeing.  Again, back to the school analogy, 'D-'  no comments...
what was wrong here?  The person getting the mark has the right to know, in
my opinion.

I was re-reading the Betza interview on here today and came across this quote (which happens to come right before the lines that make up the footer for my emails). Thought it might amuse you a little:

Bodlaender:

Betza:

lol that is good

It would be nice to hear from Ralph again on this forum....