einer bestimmten Person die mir immer 0% gibt

[PjotrV]

Hallo

Ich habe ein Problem mit einer bestimmten Person, die mir immer eine Punktzahl von 0% gibt.
Ich weiß nicht, was ich damit anfangen soll, weil ich ihnen auch keine Nachricht senden kann, warum sie das tun.

Ich sage nicht, dass meine Rätsel perfekt sind, aber ich weiß nur, dass es sich nicht lohnt, allen 0% zu geben.
Es tut mir jetzt wirklich leid, weil ich ein Puzzle gemacht habe, das eine Punktzahl von 95% hatte, bis diese Person weitere 0% gab und es gleich danach auf 88% fiel.

Ich möchte mit dieser Person in Kontakt treten, weil ich wissen möchte, was ich entsprechend falsch mache. Habe ich ihnen etwas angetan?

Bitte, Person X kontaktiere mich per E-Mail: peterveenis@gmail.com.

Haben Sie weitere Vorschläge, was ich tun könnte?

Vielen Dank im Voraus!

Entschuldigung für mein komisches Google Translate Deutsch!

Peter (PjotrV)

=============

Hello

I have a problem with a specific person who always gives me a 0% score.
I don't know what to do with it because I can't send the person a message as to why they the person is doing this either.

I'm not saying my puzzles are perfect, but I just know that it's not worth giving 0% all the time.
It is specifically painful, because I created a puzzle that had a 95% score until that person gave me another 0% and right after that it dropped to 88%.

I want to get in touch with this person because I want to know what I'm doing wrong accordingly. Have I done something wrong to the person?

Please, Person X, contact me by email: peterveenis@gmail.com.

Do you have any other suggestions what else I could do?

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,

Peter (PjotrV)

[Phistomefel]

Hello PjotrV!

I feel sorry for you. I know this can hit hard, because pretty much the same happened to me, as well. I cannot be sure, of course, but all I can tell is that this user solved a bunch of my puzzles within 2 days or so and after that the ratings dropped significantly. So, I think they rated all the puzzles 0%. I was very upset by this, but I don't think there is anything you or I can do. It is important, after all, that the puzzles ratings are anonymous. All I can tell is that you surely haven't done anything wrong to this user.

[PjotrV]

Thanks for these words Phistomefel

I understand the anonymosity part, but this is the second I "caught" this behaviour.

It is not happening only to me, but apparently to others as well. I spoke to 2 other people where this happpened as well and you are now the 3rd person which is confirming it. I can't prove it. Only the webteam of this site could do that and I understand because of privacy rules they will not do that.

But, I'm asking why is this person giving everyone a 0%?
If you dont like the puzzles, why are you doing them?
Did the community do something wrong to you?
Do you think it is funny to give everybody a bad feeling?

Then just 2 requests to Person X.
1. Would you like to talk and discuss about it?
2. Would you mind stopping this behaviour?

[Joe Average]

I don't think you truly got the anonymity part, or else you wouldn't have posted what you did. The ratings are done anonymous so that the person making them does NOT have to justify why they rated a puzzle the way they did. It's totally subjective anyway, and what one person appreciates, another may dislike.

In order to protect the anonymity, the score isn't shown before 10 people have rated a puzzle. Now you found a way to circumvent the anonymity by comparing your puzzle's score after every single additional rating and calculating back what grade that last solver must have given you to achieve that overall number. The fact that you choose to put in such effort actually says more about you than about the person that gave you a 0% rating.

Let me direct some of your own questions back at you:
- If you don't like being rated anonymously, why do you subject yourself to it?
- Why do you care so much if one person gives you low ratings? if they are doing it to "everyone", as you say, it doesn't really matter in the overall picture.
- Do you ask anyone else to justify their rating, or just this person? Actually you might get more valuable, unbiased information if you'd ask a person who gave you a 60% or 80% grade for what they liked and disliked.
- Do you think it funny to call out a person in front of their peers, especially when - by your own account - you can't prove what you accuse them of ?

There's better ways to solve this. If the person has an account at the forum, you can send them a private message. Also, you could have posted your offer to talk as a comment under your next puzzle to be released, without a name, just anonymously "directed at the person regularly giving you 0%". But either way - if they choose to not responsd you have to accept their right for privacy and move on. You are NOT entitled to get a justification for the way someone rated your puzzle.

[Realshaggy]

This only works because the portal gets flooded and each puzzle gets a low number of solutions. Maybe we should change the minimum amount of ratings to 30 or something before it is shown.

[rob]

This only works because the portal gets flooded and each puzzle gets a low number of solutions. Maybe we should change the minimum amount of ratings to 30 or something before it is shown.

Nee das geht schon immer. Ich bin sicher nicht der erste, der mal gemerkt hat, wenn ein Rätsel den Schritt von 100% zu 99% gemacht hat, und dann auf die Löserliste geschaut hat. Oder umgekehrt lieber davon abgesehen hat, sichtbar als erster <100% zu geben.

[ildiko]

@ Joe: Ganz meine Meinung. Ich hätte es nur nicht so gut ausdrücken können.
@ Realshaggy: Oder immer nur in 10er-Sprüngen aktualisiert.

[Realshaggy]

This only works because the portal gets flooded and each puzzle gets a low number of solutions. Maybe we should change the minimum amount of ratings to 30 or something before it is shown.

Nee das geht schon immer. Ich bin sicher nicht der erste, der mal gemerkt hat, wenn ein Rätsel den Schritt von 100% zu 99% gemacht hat, und dann auf die Löserliste geschaut hat. Oder umgekehrt lieber davon abgesehen hat, sichtbar als erster <100% zu geben.

Aber es wird aufwendiger. Und ob es nun eine "gute" oder "mittelmäßige" Wertung war, läßt sich schon nur noch mit dem Rechenschieber einschätzen.

Um ehrlich zu sein, finde ich die Idee, das Rating nur noch bei festen Löserzahlen zu aktualisieren (z.B. durch 5 teilbar, damit es nicht zu selten wird) richtig gut. Auch weil ich mir vorstellen könnte, dass das maximal ein Dreizeiler ist. Es wahrt in jedem Fall besser die Anonymität, und das ist mir auch wichtig. Ich habe schon einige Tage überlegt, was ich hierzu schreibe, aber besser als Jörg hätte ich es nicht ausdrücken können.

[PjotrV]

I don't think you truly got the anonymity part, or else you wouldn't have posted what you did. The ratings are done anonymous so that the person making them does NOT have to justify why they rated a puzzle the way they did. It's totally subjective anyway, and what one person appreciates, another may dislike.

In order to protect the anonymity, the score isn't shown before 10 people have rated a puzzle. Now you found a way to circumvent the anonymity by comparing your puzzle's score after every single additional rating and calculating back what grade that last solver must have given you to achieve that overall number. The fact that you choose to put in such effort actually says more about you than about the person that gave you a 0% rating.  

Let me direct some of your own questions back at you:
- If you don't like being rated anonymously, why do you subject yourself to it?
- Why do you care so much if one person gives you low ratings? if they are doing it to "everyone", as you say, it doesn't really matter in the overall picture.
- Do you ask anyone else to justify their rating, or just this person? Actually you might get more valuable, unbiased information if you'd ask a person who gave you a 60% or 80% grade for what they liked and disliked.
- Do you think it funny to call out a person in front of their peers, especially when - by your own account - you can't prove what you accuse them of ?

There's better ways to solve this. If the person has an account at the forum, you can send them a private message. Also, you could have posted your offer to talk as a comment under your next puzzle to be released, without a name, just anonymously "directed at the person regularly giving you 0%". But either way - if they choose to not responsd you have to accept their right for privacy and move on. You are NOT entitled to get a justification for the way someone rated your puzzle.

I respect your opinion, but let's agree to disagree on some parts

Sorry I'm human and I want acknowledgement for the work I put in the puzzles I make. So yes, I check frequently what my ratings are. Sorry for the fact I do. Does it say something about me? Maybe it does 

I respect everyone's opinion, but to me this topic feels like trolling. The puzzle was rated 95% and someone gives you a 0% is trolling in my opinion, it doesn't make sense at all.
Now I'm bringing this up, several people on discord and also 1 response here on this forum confirm basically what I'm saying.
Can I prove it? No. But I know enough. 
Do I make myself unpopular here because I'm the whistleblower? Maybe, but I'm who I am, I express my own opinion if I feel it needs to be done.

On the topic of asking feedback to individuals. I would love to do that. I already do that on discord of CtC, where I get great valuable feedback. I know some of you people hate CtC for the fact that they are flooding the LMD portal, but on LMD it is not easy to get in contact. I asked the person to contact me on the puzzle and here in this forum. I still hope to get in contact with the person and  to have a meaningful conversation with the person.

But to turn the whole topic around, I would propose the following, which is used in a lot of competitive judge sports as well:
Remove the x percentage of the lowest and highest scores from your rating. 
- The lowest ranking from (for example trolls or mistakes) get removed
- The highest ranking from (for example friends or multi accounting) get removed 
This way you get a way more accurate rating.

[Joe Average]

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. Your words and your actions don't add up.

- You "understand the anonymity part", but still choose to violate said anonymity to express your opinion that somoene is trolling you because you "feel it needs to be done".
- You hope to have a "meaningful conversation" with said person, yet decide the best way to go about it is publicly accusing them of treating you unfairly.... which decreases the likelihood of such a conversation to occur.
- You are well aware of the friction that the "flooding of the LMD portal" (as you put it) has caused, but you still propose the site's inner workings to be altered to better suit YOUR needs.

Is that about it ?

EDIT:
Lol, and despite "respecting my opinion", you now gave me a bad forum review for my post.... which is exactly the sort of thing that you accused the other person of.