Hi Gerry and all,
This is what I was trying to say about 2 months ago about ratings.
Very unfortunately and as Donald replied back then, he rarely gets
more than 5 raters per level. According to his reply he normally
gets only 2 to 4 raters and all GHS hunters at that. With all the
people playing this game, I think it's a pathetic way to do ratings.
Poo poo me if you like as others did last time I mentioned this but
the fact remains the same---the more raters the better. And who in
gods name said raters have to be GHS's--that is ridiculous. The more
raters that are medium players will give us all a better rating
medium---you all know maths huh!
I'd like to see the rating program changed to the effect that prime
players ratings would be adjusted accordingly with medium players
ratings etc. I wouldn't have a clue how to do this so just a
thought. Maybe an honesty system with the raters expertise level eg:
good player/medium player/starter in a drop down menu with the
evaluator might be the go.
Feedback good or bad is always welcome.
Mick J.
As a final note, I am willing to once again download the level
evalulator and submit my findings for the cause--and I rate myself
as medium.
This is what I was trying to say about 2 months ago about ratings.
Very unfortunately and as Donald replied back then, he rarely gets
more than 5 raters per level. According to his reply he normally
gets only 2 to 4 raters and all GHS hunters at that. With all the
people playing this game, I think it's a pathetic way to do ratings.
Poo poo me if you like as others did last time I mentioned this but
the fact remains the same---the more raters the better. And who in
gods name said raters have to be GHS's--that is ridiculous. The more
raters that are medium players will give us all a better rating
medium---you all know maths huh!
I'd like to see the rating program changed to the effect that prime
players ratings would be adjusted accordingly with medium players
ratings etc. I wouldn't have a clue how to do this so just a
thought. Maybe an honesty system with the raters expertise level eg:
good player/medium player/starter in a drop down menu with the
evaluator might be the go.
Feedback good or bad is always welcome.
Mick J.
As a final note, I am willing to once again download the level
evalulator and submit my findings for the cause--and I rate myself
as medium.
> I'm still here! Don't post often though, but read the postingsSokoban-
> almost every day. One thing though: when talking about a certain
> level, please put in the file name where it resides: CH-II,
> I, etc. It sure makes it easier to figure out what you are saying.actually
>
> As to the rating system, I don't think it'll ever be perfect. Some
> solvers might tend to rate levels easier to do than it might
> be for the "average" person. On the other hand, Level 40 "Down thejust "hard".
> Drain" of the LT level file was never "deadly" for me,
> But level 686, " No name II" of the LT file was almost impossibleto
> solve for me and
> for years was rated "medium" until the rating was changed a little
> while ago to "hard". But I think that most of the time, the rating
> is " in the ball park", especially if there are enough solvers of
> any given level so that Donald can make an average.
> Just curious though, does any one think that #686, LT file is
> "medium" instead of "hard"?
> Gerry 8-)