03.03.2023, 22:19
(Dieser Beitrag wurde zuletzt bearbeitet: 03.03.2023, 22:23 von Samish.
Bearbeitungsgrund: typo
)
Hello, I would like to add my own views on what has been said previously.
As would any setter that I know, I easily recognize the user Niverio is refering to, and their behaviour that, as for any setter that I know, bothers me very much.
It bothers me because of the combination of the following facts (although any of these points taken separately would be fine to me) :
- the user gives very low ratings to almost every single puzzle they "solve" (mostly 2/5 - not very nice, but occasionnally 1/5 or 3/5, to my knowledge)
- this rating is almost always completely inconsistent with all the other users appreciations
- the solving times and timing of entries suggests/proves that on many occasions the puzzle has not been actually solved by the user (rather solved by computer/found solution code in a public solve)
- the user only exceptionnally gives any feedback at all on the puzzle and most particularly on why they rated it poorly
Given these elements, I consider this behaviour bitter and hateful, and the beauty ratings they give chaotic and meaningless. Considering the humongous amount of puzzles that are affected by this user behaviour, I consider this a serious problem and I am surprised that the moderation team won't take actions. I'd like to add that I don't know if (as it's been suggested) this user alone could have affected the types and difficulty of puzzles posted in the puzzle portal. However it's been a matter of concern and discussions among the setting community for such a long time that it is mind-blowing to me that a single user could have such a negative effect on the community (to the point their username even became a neologism to indicate that a rating has been ruined).
Logic puzzle hand-crafting is to me a form of art and expression that I very much respect and look up to, which is why it is always sad for me and many other puzzlers to see a puzzle rating drop significantly for no good reason, and with no explanation. One could argue that the ratings are not such a big deal, but eventually their purpose is helping solvers to choose what puzzle to solve and setters to know how well their puzzle is received by the community, and in this context a drop of 5% in a rating is significative. I think we'll all agree that if we are to use this system of ratings, then it is not desirable to have to check everytime what the rating truly means according to wether it's been solved by a particular abusive user who affects so many puzzles that is becomes a global issue on the website.
For all these reasons I think it would be beneficial for the website and its users, to remove the possibility for this particular user to affect the displayed rating of puzzles. It is however perfectly fine for me is they want to solve as many puzzles as they can, using all possible assistance, as it doesn't affect the experience of the other users of this website.
To finish I'd like to say that I don't like either the proposition of removing exactly 1 or 2 of the extremes ratings as it is arbitrary and would probably create more problems than it would solve. However I think that if the website is ready to open the debate about what rating system would be the best, it would be interesting to consider the ranking by median, that is used in particular in majority judgement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment
It's considered by many as the least flawed and most representative and democratic voting system, and has, among others, the advantage of being resilient to extreme votes that don't affect the global appreciation as long as they're isolated. I'd be happy to discuss further why and how I feel it would be interesting to implement, if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Samish
As would any setter that I know, I easily recognize the user Niverio is refering to, and their behaviour that, as for any setter that I know, bothers me very much.
It bothers me because of the combination of the following facts (although any of these points taken separately would be fine to me) :
- the user gives very low ratings to almost every single puzzle they "solve" (mostly 2/5 - not very nice, but occasionnally 1/5 or 3/5, to my knowledge)
- this rating is almost always completely inconsistent with all the other users appreciations
- the solving times and timing of entries suggests/proves that on many occasions the puzzle has not been actually solved by the user (rather solved by computer/found solution code in a public solve)
- the user only exceptionnally gives any feedback at all on the puzzle and most particularly on why they rated it poorly
Given these elements, I consider this behaviour bitter and hateful, and the beauty ratings they give chaotic and meaningless. Considering the humongous amount of puzzles that are affected by this user behaviour, I consider this a serious problem and I am surprised that the moderation team won't take actions. I'd like to add that I don't know if (as it's been suggested) this user alone could have affected the types and difficulty of puzzles posted in the puzzle portal. However it's been a matter of concern and discussions among the setting community for such a long time that it is mind-blowing to me that a single user could have such a negative effect on the community (to the point their username even became a neologism to indicate that a rating has been ruined).
Logic puzzle hand-crafting is to me a form of art and expression that I very much respect and look up to, which is why it is always sad for me and many other puzzlers to see a puzzle rating drop significantly for no good reason, and with no explanation. One could argue that the ratings are not such a big deal, but eventually their purpose is helping solvers to choose what puzzle to solve and setters to know how well their puzzle is received by the community, and in this context a drop of 5% in a rating is significative. I think we'll all agree that if we are to use this system of ratings, then it is not desirable to have to check everytime what the rating truly means according to wether it's been solved by a particular abusive user who affects so many puzzles that is becomes a global issue on the website.
For all these reasons I think it would be beneficial for the website and its users, to remove the possibility for this particular user to affect the displayed rating of puzzles. It is however perfectly fine for me is they want to solve as many puzzles as they can, using all possible assistance, as it doesn't affect the experience of the other users of this website.
To finish I'd like to say that I don't like either the proposition of removing exactly 1 or 2 of the extremes ratings as it is arbitrary and would probably create more problems than it would solve. However I think that if the website is ready to open the debate about what rating system would be the best, it would be interesting to consider the ranking by median, that is used in particular in majority judgement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment
It's considered by many as the least flawed and most representative and democratic voting system, and has, among others, the advantage of being resilient to extreme votes that don't affect the global appreciation as long as they're isolated. I'd be happy to discuss further why and how I feel it would be interesting to implement, if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Samish