Next step for Session Feedback

[DARKB1KE]

What would you guys like to see next as a feature, implementing the data used in session feedback?

 

My idea would be this with the data:

-Session hosts can see a "success ratio %" next to each players name that joins the session, viewable only to them, to get an estimate of which players are reliable moving forwards.

So your average score would be a base to see who is helpful, who is not. 

 

 

[Cassylvania]

I'd like to see the entire feature wiped out and replaced with something better.

[ProfBambam55]

33 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

I'd like to see the entire feature wiped out and replaced with something better.

yep, I'd say scrap this idea entirely...unreliable boosting partners = unreliable boosting partners...reliable boosting partners = reliable boosting partners...if we've learned anything it's likely that a feedback system hasn't had much of an impact on this...it's particularly bad for placeholder and carry sessions and is really easy to bypass by deleting players or session before expiry...

 

i stand by my opinion in previous thread...make feedback optional upon creating a session...display an icon that shows whether or not feedback will be received...feedback sessions show everyone's current rating...non-feedback ones do not...people can then choose whatever suits them...forced feedback is not cool in my opinion... 

4 hours ago, DARKB1KE said:

What would you guys like to see next as a feature, implementing the data used in session feedback?

 

My idea would be this with the data:

-Session hosts can see a "success ratio %" next to each players name that joins the session, viewable only to them, to get an estimate of which players are reliable moving forwards.

So your average score would be a base to see who is helpful, who is not. 

also a host with a 5% rating could create a session and get all 100% rated players...little do they know the host will be ditching them once he/she earns their trophies or not even show up at all or whatever...why should we trust only the host's judgement?...

 

make the host's rating visible to other players?...well then why not just make them all visible...again, with a stat that is easily farmed or manipulated everyone has the potential to be 100% if they really care...meaning the stat is not accurate in all cases...meaning it is the same as not having a feedback system at all..

Edited December 30, 2017 by ProfBambam55

[DARKB1KE]

2 hours ago, ProfBambam55 said:

why should we trust only the host's judgement?...

 

make the host's rating visible to other players?...well then why not just make them all visible...again, with a stat that is easily farmed or manipulated everyone has the potential to be 100% if they really care...meaning the stat is not accurate in all cases...meaning it is the same as not having a feedback system at all..

 

That's a fair question.  I've had my share of bad hosts who didn't do a thing to organize beforehand.  I don't think they really understood the role of what a "host" is in terms of boosting. 
Typically you trust the host because they are the one that created the session.  If you don't trust them, create your own sessions and run it how you want to   That's all I can think of. 

I like the idea of a host rating. 

 

Currently ratings are not visible so it hasn't had any affect. 

I think there's a little too much fearmongering that people will manipulate their ratings.  You could always impose restrictions such as the same person can't vote more than once per 24hrs or per week/etc. just enough to be annoying and that complete strangers will vote honestly and your real rating will be exposed anyways. 

 

2 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

I'd like to see the entire feature wiped out and replaced with something better.

Such as?

The purpose of all this should be to improving sessions, reducing no-shows, etc. how do you make it a better experience on this website? How do you improve gaming sessions in a different way?

I think ratings expose the true nature of the people. 

 

They have the data right now.  Is it enough?  I don't know... but let's think about the next step forwards.

Edited December 30, 2017 by DARKB1KE

[FilmFanatic]

I honestly don’t see the point in feedback. Lets say you have a 100% rating and people are happy to let you join their session but one day you join a session and something happens leaving you unable to make the session or contact anyone from the session meaning everyone gives you bad feedback due to something that was out of your control. Hardly seems fair to me.

 

There will always be bad hosts and bad boosters, that’s never going to change. If you’re going for trophies that require multiple sessions and someone doesn’t show up for the first but puts their name down for the second session just kick them out if you really want to. Plus it’s easy getting around the session ratings by messaging the host saying you’ll be there but not signing up for the session therefore you can’t be given any possible bad feedback.

[Cassylvania]

4 hours ago, DARKB1KE said:

The purpose of all this should be to improving sessions, reducing no-shows, etc. how do you make it a better experience on this website? How do you improve gaming sessions in a different way?

I think ratings expose the true nature of the people. They have the data right
now.  Is it enough?  I don't know... but let's think about the next step forwards.

 

They would, if everybody used them and used them correctly. But they won't. You have people who forget to leave feedback, people who can't make it to the boosting session for any number of perfectly good reasons, and people who will give negative ratings just out of the spite or because someone in the group simply wasn't as skilled as them. Are you going to allow people to dispute bad ratings, like you do flagged trophies? If you do, I hope you have the manpower to handle that. If you don't, I hope you can withstand the backlash. And what do you do about the boosting sessions that take place over multiple days, or that are simply placeholders? Because most real boosting sessions I've been to are like that. Do people still have to vote, even if there are still trophies left to earn? And what do you do about the most obvious loophole of all, where people can simply improve their rating by creating a fake boosting session with their buddies and telling them to leave glowing feedback? Do you monitor that as well?

 

No matter how good the system sounds in theory, it will fall apart because it relies on everybody in the community to use it properly. You want to improve it? Get rid of it. Allow people, optionally, to leave negative feedback about a particular player. If that player receives enough negative ratings, place a temporary "warning" tag on the account, which is visible to everybody and requires manual approval from hosts to join future boosting sessions. That's really the only reason this system is needed in the first place, and I don't understand why it's being made more complicated than that.

[turpinator1986]

The whole idea of the feedback is absolutely pointless. Pretty much everyone here knows who the people are that don’t turn up, are bad boosters etc. And if they don’t, they have one bad session and just don’t invite that person again. Simple. I’ve been using this site for about 18 months now and 99% of the sessions I created or joined were fine. Feedback isn’t needed. The amount of manipulation and improper use just isn’t worth it imo 

[Zolkovo]

Feedback/Success % will always be unreliable unless you do A LOT of boosting. It's honestly luck of the draw who you end up with if you only boost here and there. Hosting isn't always easy either, especially if it's a session for 8+ gamers. It's hard enough getting 8 people interested in a specific game at a specific time on a specific day, and if you're a good host you'll have a few reserves on standby too. But life is fickle and the probability of all 8 + reserves showing up is historically very slim. And it only takes one missing person for the entire session to fail. Also this kind of system would negatively impact new players who'd have no rating at all to begin with, and I'm sure most people would show preferential treatment to a higher rating than a First Come, First Serve basis.

[DARKB1KE]

5 hours ago, FilmFanatic said:

I honestly don’t see the point in feedback. Lets say you have a 100% rating and people are happy to let you join their session but one day you join a session and something happens leaving you unable to make the session or contact anyone from the session meaning everyone gives you bad feedback due to something that was out of your control. Hardly seems fair to me.

 

There will always be bad hosts and bad boosters, that’s never going to change. If you’re going for trophies that require multiple sessions and someone doesn’t show up for the first but puts their name down for the second session just kick them out if you really want to. Plus it’s easy getting around the session ratings by messaging the host saying you’ll be there but not signing up for the session therefore you can’t be given any possible bad feedback.

In that case your rating would drop to 99.9% which isn't a big deal and people still see that you're an awesome booster to have in their session.  Overall feedback shows that you are a reliable and dedicated booster that arrives on time, shows up, participates, etc.

ALL GOOD QUALITIES.

 

4 hours ago, turpinator1986 said:

The whole idea of the feedback is absolutely pointless. Pretty much everyone here knows who the people are that don’t turn up, are bad boosters etc. And if they don’t, they have one bad session and just don’t invite that person again. Simple. I’ve been using this site for about 18 months now and 99% of the sessions I created or joined were fine. Feedback isn’t needed. The amount of manipulation and improper use just isn’t worth it imo 

But when you have a game that requires a certain number of people to show up and they don't... then what?  You wasted all that time sitting in a lobby for no-shows.

Yes, you can blacklist them personally from future sessions, but that still doesn't return the time that was wasted.  So now you have to try again next week and see who you get, and the cycle repeats itself. 

As compared to seeing an upfront, honest indication of what that person is like during boosts.  This is a simple matter. 

 

4 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

And what do you do about the most obvious loophole of all, where people can simply improve their rating by creating a fake boosting session with their buddies and telling them to leave glowing feedback? Do you monitor that as well?

 

You punish those people for exploiting the system.  They will be noticed immediately.  I already stated a solution to it up above to prevent people from doing that. 

 

Anyways, I can't see why you guys are so against having a good community here.  Against improving things... its baffling. 

 

4 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

Allow people, optionally, to leave negative feedback about a particular player. If that player receives enough negative ratings, place a temporary "warning" tag on the account, which is visible to everybody and requires manual approval from hosts to join future boosting sessions. That's really the only reason this system is needed in the first place, and I don't understand why it's being made more complicated than that.

 

That's what the rating system is. 

Edited December 31, 2017 by DARKB1KE

[FilmFanatic]

I’ve joined a few sessions on here and I’ve set up a few sessions myself and for sessions to earn trophies that take time like reaching a certain rank in multiplayer and I’m using those game sessions to find people to add to my friends list to boost with when enough people are online to form a lobby. For these kind of sessions, ratings aren’t much use as a lot of people don’t show up but there are always a few who do and you boost with till the trophies are earned. And in the end it’s the people who don’t show up that ultimately lose out or don’t care if they get the trophy or not. I also use the boosting threads on .org for the same thing.

 

I, like pretty much everyone who’s boosted trophies before, have had sub-par experiences with useless people but these are few and far between. I’ve got people on my friends list that I’ve boosted multiple games with and will boost future games with. I’ve also never been unable to earn a trophy that relies on someone else via playing in co-op or boosting in MP because of bad boosters and having booster ratings won’t change any of this.

 

Gaming sessions have been getting along mostly fine for a long time without ratings but a vocal minority wanted something done about bad boosters so ratings were put into test mode however nothing further has been done about implementing it officially and no one complains about it anymore which says to me that it wasn’t needed in the first place.

[Cassylvania]

24 minutes ago, DARKB1KE said:

You punish those people for exploiting the system.  They will be noticed immediately.  I already stated a solution to it up above to prevent people from doing that. 

 

And how do you determine who is exploiting the system? Are you going to punish people who group regularly with the same people? If the point of this system is to increase community involvement, then it only follows that people will eventually make friends and prefer to group with the same people. Who is going to determine whether someone is exploiting the system or using it as intended? And do the mods really want another thing to monitor?

 

30 minutes ago, DARKB1KE said:

Anyways, I can't see why you guys are so against having a good community here.  Against improving things... its baffling.

 

I'm against this idea because it's toxic to the community. Imagine having a boosting group, thinking it went fine, and then logging on here to see somebody left you negative feedback. Will we see who did that? I would hope not, but now you got a sour taste in your mouth, knowing somebody in that group has something against you. That would be a constant concern of mine every time I joined a boosting session. And what about the people who get mad and leave the group? Even if they're only upset at one member, what's to prevent them from giving everybody negative feedback? Because I think we've all grouped with people who would do that. And what about people who ARE helpful, but maybe aren't very skilled at gaming? Is it fair for them to get a permanent stain on their account just because somebody got upset and decided to leave them negative feedback?

 

I do not see how this could possibly be good for the community.

 

50 minutes ago, DARKB1KE said:

That's what the rating system is. 

 

No, it's not. My suggestion is simply an option to report troublesome members. I have no idea why the rest of this garbage is necessary.

[DARKB1KE]

Thread closed.  Nobody wants to actually discuss the topic. 

[Markshenoda]

I personally don't mind the idea of feedback even though that some people might manipulate the system but that shouldn't be the norm just like how people manipulate the trophy flagging system. My issue is with the sessions options themselves currently there is nothing in place to remind you to leave feedback specially when the session expires on the website but in reality you're still boosting which bring me to the placeholder issue. I would like to see sessions with a rage of dates instead of a set date and time then another line for preferred dates and times. Also there should be an option to close a session without having to cancel it in cases that the session was fullfilled before the date (which is honestly the main reason I forget to leave feedback)

[DARKB1KE]

On 6/19/2018 at 1:43 AM, Markshenoda said:

I personally don't mind the idea of feedback even though that some people might manipulate the system but that shouldn't be the norm just like how people manipulate the trophy flagging system. My issue is with the sessions options themselves currently there is nothing in place to remind you to leave feedback specially when the session expires on the website but in reality you're still boosting which bring me to the placeholder issue. I would like to see sessions with a rage of dates instead of a set date and time then another line for preferred dates and times. Also there should be an option to close a session without having to cancel it in cases that the session was fullfilled before the date (which is honestly the main reason I forget to leave feedback)

There is a huge reminder text when you view old sessions within 24r hours.