einer bestimmten Person die mir immer 0% gibt

[PjotrV]

Hi Joe,

I removed the bad forum rating. That was a bit childish of me, sorry about that

I dont call my opinion bullshit. Am I frustrated, yes obviously! Is my idea going to help me, yes obviously! But if you put emotions aside. Look at all judge competitive sports, look at how big algorithms work. They prevent that outlyers (both positive and negative ones) are ruled out. Statisticians do the same.

And I respect your opinion, but that doesnt mean I have to agree with it.

And yes I still hope to have a meaningful conversation with the specific person.

[Hausigel]

Hello Pjotr,
I cannot speak for **** (or Joe or anyone else), but I am having serious issues with your position, too.

Notwithstanding the part about anonymity, I think your claims regarding the ratings of your puzzles are misguided. You say you want acknowledgement for the puzzles you have designed. But authors are not entitled to good ratings. People are not required to like your puzzles. There is - to my knowledge - no definition, what the "Rating" is supposed to stand for; I guess people vote simply whether they "like" the puzzle or not. That is their prerogative.

The rating system has actually been vastly in favor of the authors, because people can only vote for/against puzzles they have solved. My guess is, ratings would generally be lower otherwise. There have been discussions about the avalanche of Sudokus in the Puzzle Portal, and there have been suggestions to force a stop to it, because there is a significant number of solvers who do not like the Portal being flooded by Sudokus. Once again I am only guessing, but I could imagine these people would downvote your sudokus - and those of others - much further.

The rating system has a lot of potential for abouse, and I suppose that is why it has been designed this way, namely so that one must solve a puzzle in the Portal first before one can submit a vote. But on what grounds would you demand that people who have actually solved your puzzles vote that they like them, even if they don't? Your assumption that the energy you invest in a puzzle entitles you to a favorable rating is simply wrong.

I repeat: People are allowed to have different opinions about what puzzles they like. I have given puzzles good or bad ratings based on my personal view what good puzzles should look like. I stand by it, and I expect that other people evaluate my own puzzles accordingly as well. The simplest explanation for such ratings is that the solvers in question have a different taste. (To be honest, I would now downvote some of my older puzzles as well.) Frankly, I find it disturbing that you make such a fuss over it.

Best regards,
Hausigel

[Hausigel]

A short amendment:
In the discussions about the Sudoku flood I mentioned, I suggested that no restrictions regarding the number of puzzles (Sudokus) a user is allowed to publish are imposed - at least until there is a clear decision to redefine the purpose of the Portal. Until such a decision is made, people should in my opinion have the liberty to publish puzzles they like. But this goes both ways - the solvers are equally at liberty to decide that they do not want such puzzles in the Portal, and to express their wishes via ratings.

[PjotrV]

Hello Pjotr,
I cannot speak for Person X (or Joe or anyone else), but I am having serious issues with your position, too.

Notwithstanding the part about anonymity, I think your claims regarding the ratings of your puzzles are misguided. You say you want acknowledgement for the puzzles you have designed. But authors are not entitled to good ratings. People are not required to like your puzzles. There is - to my knowledge - no definition, what the "Rating" is supposed to stand for; I guess people vote simply whether they "like" the puzzle or not. That is their prerogative.

The rating system has actually been vastly in favor of the authors, because people can only vote for/against puzzles they have solved. My guess is, ratings would generally be lower otherwise. There have been discussions about the avalanche of Sudokus in the Puzzle Portal, and there have been suggestions to force a stop to it, because there is a significant number of solvers who do not like the Portal being flooded by Sudokus. Once again I am only guessing, but I could imagine these people would downvote your sudokus - and those of others - much further.

The rating system has a lot of potential for abouse, and I suppose that is why it has been designed this way, namely so that one must solve a puzzle in the Portal first before one can submit a vote. But on what grounds would you demand that people who have actually solved your puzzles vote that they like them, even if they don't? Your assumption that the energy you invest in a puzzle entitles you to a favorable rating is simply wrong.

I repeat: People are allowed to have different opinions about what puzzles they like. I have given puzzles good or bad ratings based on my personal view what good puzzles should look like. I stand by it, and I expect that other people evaluate my own puzzles accordingly as well. The simplest explanation for such ratings is that the solvers in question have a different taste. (To be honest, I would now downvote some of my older puzzles as well.) Frankly, I find it disturbing that you make such a fuss over it.

Best regards,
Hausigel

First: I did change my posts accordingly this morning, so that the user is anonymous in this thread. I'm sorry for not respecting the privacy of the specific person. For my defence (for what it's worth it), I was pissed of (still am, but already cooled down by a lot) and this was a burst from my side, which I shouldn't have done and which I'm sorry for. That doesn't mean I changed my opinion on the whole matter.

Second: I'm not saying that I'm perfect and I only want perfect scores.
When you publish something, you always want recognition in your work, but that doesn't mean you always get it. 
I am fully aware of the possibility of not getting the recognition or getting negative feedback, I might not like it, but I respect it. 
And also as you state I also want people to be honest when they evaluate my work. 
What I do not respect is a person who is behaving like troll by giving all Sudoku's a bad rating. 
There is a filter on the search engine where you can search for non Sudoku puzzles.

Third: The rating system has indeed a lot of potential for abuse, that's why I am proposing something completely normal, but no one has a good argument against it, except that it benefits me and by this time I already figured I didn't get the likability award on this forum, so that's why according to you it is a bad idea.
That's why I say, put emotions aside and think about the idea itself. It is used widely in judge sports/competitions, statisticians use it all the time and call these anomalies.

[Realshaggy]

Just because nobody bothers to provide argument against it doesnt mean there aren't any and it should be changed in a way you like. There are a lot of fundamental differences to where this system is used in sports competitions, let's say platform diving or figure skating.

* (maybe the most important and taken from Hausigels post below) this is neither sports nor a competition
* the number of judges is fixed and quite low
* it's the same judges for every contestant
* all judges vote at the same time and don't know the other votes
* while the judges are usually experts in their field, it is not required, that they are able to do something the contestant has done or have done so in the past
* the judges only see a performance a single time and from their own point of view, without repeats or slow motion
* outliers are usually equal (both in likelihood and size) in both directions
* votes are not anonymous
* normally there are strict guidelines how a rating is derived from what the judges have seen
* the athlets can't repeat or change their performance to make it better
* all athlets perform at roughly the same time and the votes get in at roughly the same time

[Hausigel]

It is used widely in judge sports/competitions [...]

The Puzzle Portal is not a judge sport/competition.

[PjotrV]

Just because nobody bothers to provide argument against it doesnt mean there aren't any and it should be changed in a way you like. There are a lot of fundamental differences to where this system is used in sports competitions, let's say platform diving or figure skating.

1 (maybe the most important and taken from Hausigels post below) this is neither sports nor a competition
2 the number of judges is fixed and quite low
3 it's the same judges for every contestant
4 while ths judges are usually experts in their field, it is not required, that they are able to do something the contestant has done or have done so in the past
5 the judges only see a performance a single time and from their own point of view, without repeats or slow motion
6 outliers are usually equal (both in likelihood and size) in both directions
7 votes are not anonymous
8 normally there are strict guidelines how a rating is derived from what the judges have seen
9 the athlets can't repeat or change their performance to make it better

1. It is also used in rating algorithms and by statisticians. Here on LMD we have a rating system and it is used for statistics as well.

2,3,4,5,7,8,9. I can't see the relevance for these points, because for me it is about statistics where you pull out an x percentage of the outliers. The judge competition/sports was for me just an example where it is used.

6. I read some forum posts earlier about multi-accounting, that is an outlier the other way around. There is also people who rate higher on the puzzles of their friends, which is an outlier the other way around as well.

[Richard]

As one of the earliest portal posters and -users, I have similar experiences with 'destroying' ratings.

Although it still hurts a bit when a piece of art is not recognised as such by some others, I have learned to live with it.
I get more energy from the good or very good ratings, which are fortunately the majority. It seems you can't please them all...

I think it's wise to have the ratings only adjusted after 5 additional have been entered. That would be a good improvement!

[Hausigel]

Let me reiterate why I think the sports analogy does not work here.

In a sports event (like platform diving), the idea of the rating system is that there is a single level on a linear scale which accurately describes the quality of the athlete's performance. Since such a level cannot be defined objectively, it is estimated based on a number of ratings using statistical means. A rating which deviates a lot from the average is considered an outlier or an anomaly because of this belief in that single performance level.

What we have here in the Puzzle Portal is a completely different rating approach. The different "judges" are not trying to reach a consensus about the quality of the puzzle. A simplified example: Suppose a Sudoku is published, and there are three categories of solvers: those who enjoy Sudokus very much, those who can tolerate them, and those who do not like Sudokus at all. These are three independent views. The last group is not an anomaly!

Calculating the average (or some other statistical variable) may give the impression that there is a single objective level that describes the quality of the puzzle, but this is just not the case in my opinion. A solver whose vote deviates a lot from the others cannot just be assumed to have misjudged the quality of the puzzle, he may have an entirely different taste. And that element of "taste" does not occur in the sports analogy.

[PjotrV]

These are three independent views. The last group is not an anomaly!
=>
If one is in this category, then why do you solve them and rate them?

I don't have a problem with people not liking Sudoku's at all, there is nothing wrong with that. But to take the step of solving it anyways despite of hating it and rating it is something I don't understand.

This in my opinion is troll behaviour.

And now, I'm going to skip this discussion, because clearly I made my point, others made their point and we are in a stand off of a yes-no discussion.