View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
quackadilly
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 1078 Location: Colorado
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: New Idea. |
|
|
With the addition of 6 and 7 star rating, JCirri introduced a star numbering system too.
I was thinking it wouldnt be too hard to add an "average" star rating. And I say "average" very loosly. It could be a straight average, weighted by total points %, by total notes %, by either of the two also scaled with the "total possible" star rating for each song.
I would suggest just a straight average rating.
Example:
Code: | Rank Name Star
1 ES 7.043
2 Krim 7.044
8 JHetfield 6.730
13 quackadilly 6.681
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anders
Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 8 Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It makes little sense for krimsunmunkeys to have a higher star rating than ES942. The most consistent definition of total rating would be a simple extension of the definition of per-song ratings: (total score)/(total base score) + 2. (This is equivalent to weighted averaging by base score.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
quackadilly
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 1078 Location: Colorado
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I used for those numbers was the average star rating for individual songs.
Not weighted or anything special.
The main reason for the flip flop is this:
Code: |
Stars 5 6 7
ES 47 47 28 <-
Krim 47 47 29 <- |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kronkk37
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 36 Location: Lakeland, FL
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anders wrote: | It makes little sense for krimsunmunkeys to have a higher star rating than ES942. The most consistent definition of total rating would be a simple extension of the definition of per-song ratings: (total score)/(total base score) + 2. (This is equivalent to weighted averaging by base score.) |
The problem with that technique is that songs with a higher base score (like Unsung, CFH, TBW) will be weighted more. If you want a "star average" then you calculate each song's star rating individually first and then calculate the average. I'm not sure if that's what quack did, but that's what I see when he suggests an average.
E.g. Echelar's (13th rank) average star rating my way is 6.698. Your way it is 6.692. So it doesn't make much diffence at the upper echelons. But down a bit further say 195th rank, my way yields 5.709, while yours gives 5.658. So there is a difference.
P.S. I couldn't find it listed anywhere, so I calculated the total base score. It's 2,514,621 if you wanted to test your method a bit Anders. _________________
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha..." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anders
Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 8 Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kronkk37 wrote: | The problem with that technique is that songs with a higher base score (like Unsung, CFH, TBW) will be weighted more. |
That's what you want, is it not? Just like the more valuable notes (holds) are weighted more when calculating the rating for a single song, the more valuable songs should be weighted more when calculating an overall rating. Besides, it makes more sense for the rating to be a function of the total score. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
quackadilly
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 1078 Location: Colorado
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All I did was take the individual star ratings for each song, add them up and divide by 47.
There really is no need to do anything with total points since the star rating is essential a ratio. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ScaryAdam
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 64
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
since we have decimals... shouldn't we use those as well for the star system? so if i have a 5.5 it is worth more than if i were to just have a 5? at least for the star average, i think that would be important.. and that way we could actually see where we stand with all the rest of the people very near us _________________
GH2 GOALS:
Easy: Post my scores, finish gold starring
Medium: Post my scores, finish gold starring
Hard: Actually going through and doing it, 5-star on everything
Expert: Actually post all my new scores, 5-star remaining songs (10 left), Pass Jordan (grrrr) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
quackadilly
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 1078 Location: Colorado
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those scores included the decimal part of the star ratings. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|