[jdonn]

xcurt, on May 4 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

BBO needs a reputation management system, badly.

Fred, please?  I think this is the single biggest usability issue with BBO today.  It makes finding a pickup game nearly impossible, since you can never trust unseen opponents.  I'm not really into kicking people out every third hand because they're not real experts.

I'm aware this is very tricky to get right.  Among other things, it provides an incentive to cheat.

Curt

BBO exists for a lot more reasons than finding accurately-skilled pickup game opponents.

[Free]

xcurt, on May 4 2010, 10:37 PM, said:

BBO needs a reputation management system, badly.

Fred, please? I think this is the single biggest usability issue with BBO today. It makes finding a pickup game nearly impossible, since you can never trust unseen opponents. I'm not really into kicking people out every third hand because they're not real experts.

I'm aware this is very tricky to get right. Among other things, it provides an incentive to cheat.

Curt

I really don't get this argument. You know there are thousands of poor players out there, if you're joining a random table chance is huge you will have at least one of those at your table.

Btw, if you join a table with 3 players seated, chances are even bigger that you'll be facing a noob (and his previous partner left because of that).

Do you really want a BBO where you can't join a single table because there's a known loser in one of the seats?

I couldn't care less if there's a reputation management system or not. I only play with friends, or with friends of friends, so I don't have such problems anymore.

[hanp]

My profile used to say advanced. But then I started playing a lot against this young American whose profile said WC. When I kept on beating him time and again and again I decided to change my profile to expert.

[jillybean]

My profile says intermediate and the more I beat up on BBO Experts, the more I'd rather stay intermediate.

[pirate22]

The picture is now becoming clearer--Pooltuna's little survey has hit the nail on the head, and other contributions have merit --another classification i omitted,
"Private"--- obviously i can see why,they are even more concerned in getting it wrong.
as i do state im advanced,to avoid novices/intermediate/beginners,in an effort to get a good game,and usually go to main bridge,and if im host use the facility of whoom comes in, but even that is not foolproof.
I am of the opinion of making my self private(be that promotion or demotion)
ill let this theme progress before i make my final decision.
bye the bye i do play with Nov/inter/begin,on occasions to put something back into the game
regards

[JoAnneM]

BBO is anonymous for the most part so trying to enforce any set rules for self-ranking is futile. Players can just change their names and be right back at it. My advice is to find a small circle of people you like to play with and let that circle grow by word of mouth.

For new players to the site it might involve kibbitzing and getting to know some players first.

[pirate22]

jdonn and joanne---comments make sense,BBo truly offers much especially Vu-graph-as an original player in E-bridge(now defunct)had "Integrity" to some extent,
and BBO does a grand job,overall regards

[ggwhiz]

In the real world, you are not required to disclose your skill level (real or imagined) to the opponents period.

It's just intended on BBO as a partnership desk kind of info disclosure?

Shouldn't be taken seriously by opponents and until that disclosure becomes regulated in face to face tournaments, I don't see why BBO should pony up the tremendous resources needed to make it accurate beyond their reasonable criteria for a star.

I like the idea of Fake Expert and perhaps Turkish World Class though. They seem to have a gazillion of those.

On the other hand, Jerry Aceti once picked up a rookie at the partnership desk and she wrote him up in a letter to the Editor. She asked how many points he had and he said "four and a half" . Doom and gloom but he played pretty well and she decided he had meant 450 but it was 4,500.

[matmat]

I suspect I've suggested this before. I don't really like the idea of a skill rating system, especially since even the very good players tend to vary their play a lot online based on distractions, state of mind, time of day etc. etc.

The number I'd like to see, and maybe Ben can get a handle on this somehow, is the ratio of the number of boards played (except for those played in individual tournaments) to the number of partners. This should give a pretty damn good idea of how likely a particular person is to stick around at the table and also, in some sense, how reasonable their game is. Possibly also include the # of boards played over the last, i dunno, 2-3 months.

You'd still have the problem with multiple logins, and insufficient statistics for new players, but hey, they gotta build up a reputation of some sort sometime.

edit...
hehe
i'd love to see histograms of (boards)/(partner) broken down by skill level...

[kayin801]

matmat, on May 6 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I suspect I've suggested this before. I don't really like the idea of a skill rating system, especially since even the very good players tend to vary their play a lot online based on distractions, state of mind, time of day etc. etc.

The number I'd like to see, and maybe Ben can get a handle on this somehow, is the ratio of the number of boards played (except for those played in individual tournaments) to the number of partners. This should give a pretty damn good idea of how likely a particular person is to stick around at the table and also, in some sense, how reasonable their game is. Possibly also include the # of boards played over the last, i dunno, 2-3 months.

You'd still have the problem with multiple logins, and insufficient statistics for new players, but hey, they gotta build up a reputation of some sort sometime.

edit...
hehe
i'd love to see histograms of (boards)/(partner) broken down by skill level...

matmat's ratio would be N/A since i've never seen him play.

[jjbrr]

kayin801, on May 6 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

matmat, on May 6 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I suspect I've suggested this before.  I don't really like the idea of a skill rating system, especially since even the very good players tend to vary their play a lot online based on distractions, state of mind, time of day etc. etc.

The number I'd like to see, and maybe Ben can get a handle on this somehow, is the ratio of the number of boards played  (except for those played in individual tournaments) to the number of partners.  This should give a pretty damn good idea of how likely a particular person is to stick around at the table and also, in some sense, how reasonable their game is.  Possibly also include the # of boards played over the last, i dunno, 2-3 months.

You'd still have the problem with multiple logins, and insufficient statistics for new players, but hey, they gotta build up a reputation of some sort sometime.

edit...
hehe
i'd love to see histograms of (boards)/(partner) broken down by skill level...

matmat's ratio would be N/A since i've never seen him play.

I can confirm that matmat has played at least once.

[gwnn]

hands kibbed/hands played=stalker ratio

[matmat]

gwnn, on May 6 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

hands kibbed/hands played=stalker ratio

[CSGibson]

How about the asses that assess the other players self assessment assertions? I've seen people bidding in a way that is expert standard, and have their partners berate them as a beginner because they weren't advanced enough themselves to understand it, or because they have a different bridge experience that would not allow them to recognize that there might be different standards for experts of different countries.*


*I self assess as advanced, which I'm pretty sure is an accurate rating based on the BBO rating criteria.

[bluecalm]

I am advanced by bbo criteria. I am better than 90% of bbo experts though and worse than most "true" experts.
I like when people expect more from me and I don't mind berating and laughs when I screw up so I put expert in the profile

Funny thing which happened recently: I was playing in random TM with my partner who is European University Champion for 2009 (and he topped the butler there) but he had "novice" in his profile. TM instantly broke up as our opponents before the very first hand left typing "where are the experts?" in chatbox

[billw55]

JoAnneM, on May 5 2010, 09:32 AM, said:

BBO is anonymous for the most part so trying to enforce any set rules for self-ranking is futile. Players can just change their names and be right back at it. My advice is to find a small circle of people you like to play with and let that circle grow by word of mouth.

For new players to the site it might involve kibbitzing and getting to know some players first.

... which gives me an idea. Maybe BBO could support this.

It could work like this: when you click "list all tables", there is button for "list private rooms". Anyone can start their own club, with its own room, that cannot be accessed by the general user population. These rooms would display in the list. The "club owner" would have power to designate specific players for admission, and could also grant this power to others. For example, when a club owner views a profile, there is a checkbox "allow entry to club xyz". If a player without permission clicks a room, they get a message like "request to join club xyz?" and if they confirm, a message goes to the owner.

If we wanted to get really into it, we could let owners choose the skill description that will display for players while they they are in the club room.

Obviously this would be a big coding effort at BBO though.

[billw55]

Holy crap it looks like alot of that is already there. I never knew, lmao

[golfacer]

When in doubt, I use the following:

intermediate = probably intermediate
advanced = most likely intermediate
expert = most likely intermediate with big ego

I think the self-rating tool provides some useful information, if not taken literally.

[TylerE]

A degrees of seperation based ranking would be fun. E.g. for an unknown person for everyone of your friends that has also friended them it's a +1, and for every one of that's enemy'ed that's a -1. Could extend it out to additional layers of friends with each one have less affect on the number.

[pooltuna]

golfacer, on May 9 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

When in doubt, I use the following:

intermediate = probably intermediate
advanced = most likely intermediate
expert = most likely intermediate with big ego

I think the self-rating tool provides some useful information, if not taken literally.

world class=most likely intermediate with Goodyear Blimp ego?