einer bestimmten Person die mir immer 0% gibt

[SilBer]

I am very suprised how much the most of you agree on this point. I immediatly felt for pjotr when I read his thread. I never experienced the same, but that is mostly because I don't post puzzles anymore on the portal and partly because when I release a puzzle somewhere, I usually "don't look back". But if you do something wholeheartly, I totally understand that you care for what becomes of it.

That said, we all know trolls exist. The pure possibility of someone a) only solving puzzles because it is fun to watch people getting angry about your rating or b) disliking someone special because of some incident (a comment or something) or even without any incident of course is given. Why woult it not be? We all know "people".

So without knowing whether this is a trolling case or not, why do you immediatly dismiss the idea of making the rating more stable by leaving out one or two best and worst ratings? What bad would it do? (I only see the argument that nobody would like to put in the work and change it - and in this case I would be of no help, because I am not able to change it.)

[SilBer]

One idea which comes to my mind (and I hope I am able to explain the thought) - maybe some people read the rating in a wrong way / don't understand it completely: When they think "this puzzle is kind of nice, but not 95% points, more like 80% or so", maybe they give 0% to make it show 80% instead of just giving the 80% they feel for it. This would be equal to giving their own true opinion (80%) a lot more weight by expressing it in this extreme way. In the interpretation it would not end at "she wants to destroy the puzzle" but at "she doesn't understand how weighting everybodys opinion to the some amount works".

This problem could also be solved with the idea of leaving the best and worst out, but it would be better to explain the system to such people.

But maybe, as long as the problem isn't solved, this other view could take some of the anger out of the topic, for you pjotr and for the other people involved on your side.

[ch1983]

Ich habe die Forenbeiträge immer gerne verfolgt und fühlte mich hier immer gut aufgehoben.
Was die Autoren, das Webteam etc. so uneigennützig leisten, ist großartig.
Wie hier aber auf eine in meinen Augen sehr dezent formulierte Nachfrage infolge für mich sehr verständlicher Enttäuschung/Traurigkeit eines Kreateurs reagiert wird, überrascht mich unangenehm. Ich glaube, ihr habt dem freundlich Nachfragenden die Stimmung ohne Not weiter verschlechtert.

[Joe Average]

Pjotr hat seine Forenposts in diesem thread editiert. Für mich was das anfangs keine freundliche dezente Nachfrage; Pjotr hat den Namen der Person, die ihm angeblich immer 0% Wertungen gibt, öffentlich gemacht und somit Druck auf ihn/sie ausgeübt. Außerdem stellte er einige rethorische Fragen über die Motivation der Person und forderte sie auf, sich zu erklären und ihr Abstimmungsverhalten zu ändern. Wie Pjotr inzwischen selbst zugegen hat, war er angefressen und das sollte die Person offenbar auch spüren. Ich finde es gut dass er das eingesehen und den Namen der Person entfernt hat. Weniger gut finde ich, dass er auch den Rest des Posts verändert hat, sodass es jetzt so aussieht als wäre er grundlos hart angegangen worden.

Pjotr has edited his posts in this thread. In my eyes, this initially was not a polite request; Pjotr publicized the name of the person allegedly giving him 0% ratings all the time thus applying pressure on them. The post also contained a few rethorical questions about that person's motivations and a demand for them to explain themselves and to change their voting behaviour. As he admitted since, he was pissed off and lashed out. I applaud that he has seen reason and taken out the person's name. But I'm less fond of him altering the rest of his post, as it now may come across as if the responses to him were unneccesarily harsh.  

-------------------------

As for what bad it would do to leave out the top and bottom votes, it's censorship. Plain and simple.

"Beauty" is a subjective view. Who's to say that someone's opinion on beauty is any less valid just because it doesn't match the general consensus? We don't all have to have the same taste, do we? Not counting the best/worst rating for each puzzle puts us all under general suspicion of being trolls, whenever we strongly like/dislike something.... and I'd rather trust our community that they act responsibly. There already is a security measure in place that only those who solved the puzzle get to rate it in the first place.

Not counting top and bottom votes it would take longer for an average score to be shown, as it woukd raise the bar from 10 to 12 or even 14 ratings required. Also, not counting those top and bottom ratings would not solve the problem of potential trolls. If someone were to truly try and troll someone, what's to stop them from creating a second or a third account? They only need to solve the puzzle once to give it as many bad ratings as needed to eventually make it show.

There's only one way to deal with trolls, and that's not caring/not giving them any attention.

[Hausigel]

Some suggestions have been made to alter the statistical evaluation in order to filter out the "troll ratings". Before such changes are implemented, a few more thoughts.

First, it is not clear to me how to define what "troll ratings" are. I take it that people using this expression mean ratings which are given solely for the purpose of changing the overall appearance of the puzzle, without any reference to the actual contents and the quality of the puzzle. That alone is a serious accusation. After all, any such vote can only be given after the voter has invested some time and energy solving the puzzle. (One might argue that the puzzles in question come with a link that allows automatic solving, so there is no actual investment. But that is the author's business, isn't it?)

And second, even if there are any such votes, the filtering process cannot distinguish between troll ratings and genuine ratings, i.e. people who have solved the puzzle in question and sincerely judge that it is a bad puzzle. I repeat, such votes have their rightful place in the rating statistics and should not be removed, else it would be censorship. Solvers have the right to disagree. The filtering process would serve to eliminate even genuine disagreement, and I am strongly opposed to that.

A filtering process in the above sense requires guessing why a person has given a specific rating. I disapprove with Pjotr's approach (checking the rating average each time another solver has voted), because it thwarts the anonymity idea. In the end, any attempts at mind-reading come down to a claim that solvers justify their votes. As I see it, the rating process was originally implemented as it is so that exactly this justification is not demanded. We should seriously reconsider whether a change in that direction is what we really want.

[PjotrV]

Pjotr hat seine Forenposts in diesem thread editiert. Für mich was das anfangs keine freundliche dezente Nachfrage; Pjotr hat den Namen der Person, die ihm angeblich immer 0% Wertungen gibt, öffentlich gemacht und somit Druck auf ihn/sie ausgeübt. Außerdem stellte er einige rethorische Fragen über die Motivation der Person und forderte sie auf, sich zu erklären und ihr Abstimmungsverhalten zu ändern. Wie Pjotr inzwischen selbst zugegen hat, war er angefressen und das sollte die Person offenbar auch spüren. Ich finde es gut dass er das eingesehen und den Namen der Person entfernt hat. Weniger gut finde ich, dass er auch den Rest des Posts verändert hat, sodass es jetzt so aussieht als wäre er grundlos hart angegangen worden.

Pjotr has edited his posts in this thread. In my eyes, this initially was not a polite request; Pjotr publicized the name of the person allegedly giving him 0% ratings all the time thus applying pressure on them. The post also contained a few rethorical questions about that person's motivations and a demand for them to explain themselves and to change their voting behaviour. As he admitted since, he was pissed off and lashed out. I applaud that he has seen reason and taken out the person's name. But I'm less fond of him altering the rest of his post, as it now may come across as if the responses to him were unneccesarily harsh.  

-------------------------

As for what bad it would do to leave out the top and bottom votes, it's censorship. Plain and simple.

"Beauty" is a subjective view. Who's to say that someone's opinion on beauty is any less valid just because it doesn't match the general consensus? We don't all have to have the same taste, do we? Not counting the best/worst rating for each puzzle puts us all under general suspicion of being trolls, whenever we strongly like/dislike something.... and I'd rather trust our community that they act responsibly. There already is a security measure in place that only those who solved the puzzle get to rate it in the first place.

Not counting top and bottom votes it would take longer for an average score to be shown, as it woukd raise the bar from 10 to 12 or even 14 ratings required. Also, not counting those top and bottom ratings would not solve the problem of potential trolls. If someone were to truly try and troll someone, what's to stop them from creating a second or a third account? They only need to solve the puzzle once to give it as many bad ratings as needed to eventually make it show.

There's only one way to deal with trolls, and that's not caring/not giving them any attention.

Just to defend myself, I only edited the name out and made it anonymous, I didn't edit anything else other than that.

[Joe Average]

Checked again.... oh, you're right. The rethorical questions and demands for that person to explain themselves and change their behavior weren't in your first, but in your second post... and are still there. Apologies, you didn't edit those out.

[Modesty]

Zuerst dachte ich, dass die Idee toll ist, den obersten und untersten „Bewertungsausreißer“ zu entfernen, aber dann sind mir Zweifel gekommen.

Mir ist nämlich überhaupt nicht klar, wie es funktionieren sollte, die schlechteste und beste Bewertung zu entfernen.

Es gibt doch niemals einen Zeitpunkt, an dem die Bewertungen fertig sind.

Wenn man willkürlich einen Termin festsetzt, z.B. zehn Tage nach Einstellung, dann gibt es bis dahin möglicherweise nur gute bis sehr gute Bewertungen.
Die extrem negativen Bewertungen, die Tage später erfolgen, blieben dann drin, weil ja bereits die Entfernung der „Ausreißer“ stattgefunden hat.

(Eine Programmierung, die täglich oder stündlich kontrolliert, ob noch schlechtere Bewertungen dazugekommen sind, dann die vormals entfernte wieder „reinholt“ und die neuere schlechtere entfernt, wäre nicht leistbar oder zu aufwendig)

Setzt man den Termin auf beispielsweise sechs Monate oder ein Jahr nach Einstellung des Rätsels, dann müssen die Rätselersteller sechs Monate/ ein Jahr mit dem traurigen Gefühl leben, das sie aktuell empfinden, wenn eine sehr schlechte Bewertung den Durchschnitt erheblich mindert.
Das würde doch die Situation auch nicht ändern.

(Übersetzung mit dem Google-Translator. Bitte verzeiht, wenn da etwas Unverständliches herausgekommen ist)

I am not at all clear how removing worst and best rating should work. There is never a time when the ratings are complete. 
If you set a date arbitrarily, e.g. ten days after stting the puzzle, then there may only be good to very good ratings by then.

The extremely negative evaluations that occurred some days later, will stay because the "outliers" had already been removed.

(A programming that checks daily or hourly whether even worse ratings have been added, then "brings in" the previously removed one and removes the newer, worse one, would not be affordable or too costly)

If you set the date to, for example, six months or one year after the puzzle was setted, then the puzzle creators have to live for six months / a year with the sad feeling they currently feel when a very bad rating significantly reduces the average. 
That wouldn't change the situation either.

[ildiko]

Und wenn man die höchste und niedrigste Bewertung wegließe, was würde einen Troll (positiv oder negativ) daran hindern, unter einem anderen Usernamen eine zweite sehr schlechte oder sehr gute Bewertung abzugeben?

[PjotrV]

Zuerst dachte ich, dass die Idee toll ist, den obersten und untersten „Bewertungsausreißer“ zu entfernen, aber dann sind mir Zweifel gekommen.

Mir ist nämlich überhaupt nicht klar, wie es funktionieren sollte, die schlechteste und beste Bewertung zu entfernen.

Es gibt doch niemals einen Zeitpunkt, an dem die Bewertungen fertig sind.

Wenn man willkürlich einen Termin festsetzt, z.B. zehn Tage nach Einstellung, dann gibt es bis dahin möglicherweise nur gute bis sehr gute Bewertungen.
Die extrem negativen Bewertungen, die Tage später erfolgen, blieben dann drin, weil ja bereits die Entfernung der „Ausreißer“ stattgefunden hat.

(Eine Programmierung, die täglich oder stündlich kontrolliert, ob noch schlechtere Bewertungen dazugekommen sind, dann die vormals entfernte wieder „reinholt“ und die neuere schlechtere entfernt, wäre nicht leistbar oder zu aufwendig)

Setzt man den Termin auf beispielsweise sechs Monate oder ein Jahr nach Einstellung des Rätsels, dann müssen die Rätselersteller sechs Monate/ ein Jahr mit dem traurigen Gefühl leben, das sie aktuell empfinden, wenn eine sehr schlechte Bewertung den Durchschnitt erheblich mindert.
Das würde doch die Situation auch nicht ändern.

(Übersetzung mit dem Google-Translator. Bitte verzeiht, wenn da etwas Unverständliches herausgekommen ist)

I am not at all clear how removing worst and best rating should work. There is never a time when the ratings are complete. 
If you set a date arbitrarily, e.g. ten days after stting the puzzle, then there may only be good to very good ratings by then.

The extremely negative evaluations that occurred some days later, will stay because the "outliers" had already been removed.

(A programming that checks daily or hourly whether even worse ratings have been added, then "brings in" the previously removed one and removes the newer, worse one, would not be affordable or too costly)

If you set the date to, for example, six months or one year after the puzzle was setted, then the puzzle creators have to live for six months / a year with the sad feeling they currently feel when a very bad rating significantly reduces the average. 
That wouldn't change the situation either.

I'm not for removing the outliers. I'm for calculating the rating differently. The calculation right now is being done in real time, so even after one year the rating can still change if someone is doing an older puzzle. If you take out the x percentage outliers in your calculation, it can be done, then you don't have to remove the outliers completely. The calculation is not that costly.