This site prioritizes game information. Would you like to keep that way or would you want to priortize game prices? Prioritize PricesPrioritize Information

(Change this option in the future in the Account dropdown)

Feedback Friday! (2020-09-25)

Owner

For those who are new, this is where you can share your feedback on all things related to Board Game Atlas. You can also find more information in this article where I walk through the various features on BGA.

You can also feel free to answer these questions:

  • What are your thoughts on the revamped game page format?
  • Which game rating system would you prefer? 5 star? 10 point scale? 100 point scale?
  • What are your main complaints about anything on the website?

Thanks as always everyone and have a great weekend! :)

Like| 27 comments | report | subscribe

Please log in or make an account to post a comment.

Supporter3 months ago

I would actually prefer a 100-point rating scale. That allows for a ton of flexibility in your ratings and helps people to express subtle differences between games easier. For example the variation between 90 and 100 is pretty insignificant in a number scale but has vastly different meanings as a ranking system. A 5 star system is woefully inadequate and a 10 point scale is OK. But 100 point is where it's at. 

Premium User3 months ago

I was originally going to say 100 point scale too but thought the differences between a 90 and say a 91 or 92 are pretty insignificant and difficult to suss out. The only benefit to me would be the ability to give a game a 95 vs a 100. And with a 10 point scale you could allow half points to take care of that.

Partner3 months ago

I have a friend on BGG who gives ratings such as 7.1 and 7.3 to give context to the 7 rating. 7.1 for a game that he's played once, so that 7 rating is probationary. 7.3 for when he's played it more and the 7 rating is more solid. That sort of thing. 

Premium User3 months ago

To me that means he wants a “ratings confidence” field. We are going to end up like BGGwhere people use the ratings field for so many different things it starts becoming suspect.

3 months ago

Oh that is interesting. Like two scales in one number.

Supporter3 months ago

Well, there is a difference between a 90 and a 93 and a 95. I think I would appreciate the opportunity to differentiate between those scores. 

Premium User3 months ago

Hey I wouldn't say no to more options! Even if my AP gets in the way :P

Premium User3 months ago

Copy paste from a different post:

I might be in the minority but I like the 5 star system. Not sure about why the import did that to be honest because you would think 8+ would be a 5. 

Forme the 5 star system allows for easy rating and gives useful information.  Do you really need to know if something is 67 or 68?  No. It’s 4 stars.  The thing is, these ratings are all personal so a 4 star rating just tells me that you like it quite a bit which is all I can usefully know anyway.

I would suggest that a more granular rating system creates more work for rating and will create more debates over minutiae for little value.  

I would also suggest that a lot of times the granularity is used when different fields are not a available.  For example, some user on BGG rated thousands of games a 1 because he had no plans on buying them. Perhaps he just needed an “ignore” field?  Or perhaps we want to rank our games?  Instead of using the rating field why not just have a rank field in every list?

Anyway, that is my take on it. I’m open to changing my mind. Perhaps there is another option or two out there?

Partner3 months ago

There's already a "5 - don't buy this" on BGG so they could have used that.

Premium User3 months ago

Adding in a rating to mean don’t buy it just doesn’t make sense though. He never played it so why rate it?  

Using one field to mean multiple things is going to create problems at some point. 

 

Partner3 months ago

The 5 isn't a rating, it's a wishlist option. 1 is Must Have, 2 is Love to Have, 3 is Like to Have, 4 is Thinking about it, 5 is Don't Buy This. 

Premium User3 months ago

Ah gotcha!  My mistake.  I forgot about that one. Yeah he definitely should use that. 

In the end whatever we end up with will be good enough. I just wanted to point out that 5 stars has some merits to it. 

3 months ago

I also wonder if there is some other kind of scale that could be more interesting/useful. I know there are learning and strategy ratings. But I am imagining something like:

Obviously the categories aren't relevant (although having good battery capacity in my meeples is a real bonus) but I am wondering if a more nuanced scoring system might fix some of the problems highlighted here:

https://www.boardgameatlas.com/forum/IMVv9dttXV/what-s-your-most-underrated-game-

For example that 'lighter' games tend to fall further down the rankings, but if weight was accounted for in some way then you could have those games be rated really highly (as some are great) but acknowledge within the radar chart (name of the thing above) that it's not going to have that same depth. Or something like that, I don't have a clear picture of what it would end up looking like but I just wondered if a straight scale is too reductive?

Premium User3 months ago

I like this idea. 

3 months ago

Do you have any thoughts on what the multiple scales would be?

Premium User3 months ago

Some possibilities off the top of my head: rules complexity, play complexity, playtime, fun (silly?) factor, strategic (crunchy?) thinking, tactical thinking

Bit of a mess. Not sure if the categories make sense.  Work would need to be bone to define them clearly as well.

I like the idea of a map like that though.  It would allow for some very useful comparisons.  I want a quick but strategic game.   I want something with a high fun factor and low rules complexity.

3 months ago

The usefulness of a game is good to know too. Take #Gloomhaven for example, you use it as a paper weight, a door stop, or to start a fire with.  You can't do that with something like #Love Letter, but you would never know that without a usefulness rating.

3 months ago

Haha, for sure, but the speed at which you can throw Gloomhaven in order to defend yourself is much lower (though anything you do hit is probably in trouble)

Supporter3 months ago

I personally would have a very strong preference for a ten point rating scale. It isn't a HUGE deal, but I do have a preference. 

Premium User3 months ago

The website is great! Thanks for all you do and!

As for one of your questions anyway, I think I personally would prefer the 10 point scale. I had said earlier this week that giving a good game a 3/5 stars feels wrong knowing it would convert to a 6/10 but it's not THAT good where you want to give it a 4/5 or 8/10

3 months ago

A little late but I'll say I would really prefer a 10 or 100 point scale for the rating system. I'm open to either

 

removed

Comment deleted.

3 months ago

My preference is a 0-10 scale with half-point steps. Easy way to display it is with stars and half-stars.

3 months ago

What I like about the BGG rating system is the definition each number is given. For example, "7" is "Good - usually willing to play." For me, most games fit in this category, at the least. But a ranking of "8" is a "very good" game and one that I would suggest. But those ratings are still a bit basic.

I think a 100-point system might be beneficial due to its flexibility. There are plenty of games I'd rank very good, but not quite "excellent" (a rating of "9" on BGG). And perhaps it's above the average "very good" game, so an 8.8 -- or 88 -- would be appropriate. Sure, decimals work, but making it out of 100 is easier on my right-brained brain.  😊 

In general, though, I find it's best to have more options (although too many can still be cumbersome). I prefer my Likert scales to be 1-7 or 1-9, as those give a good variety of choices. I think, though, that rating games is a more detailed process for us game nerds, and even a 9 or 10 rating system can lack substance. I'd certainly vote for increasing the ratings from 5 to 9 or 10, or even a scale out of 100. 

3 months ago

I find the relationship of game ratings to rank confusing on the popular games list. Some games have a particular rating, but rank lower than a game whose rating is less. For example  Azul is ranked 6th with a rating rating of 74 and Terraforming Mars is ranked 7th with a rating of 76. Why would Azul rank higher if it's inferred that higher rated games should rank higher in a list of popular games.

I think it would be interesting to see historical data for games such as how long a game has been number one and a graphical display of it's rise or fall to it's current rank.

I haven't visited this sight very often in the last 18 months so I'm also curious as to why the forums are not separated into various categories as they use to be.

EDIT: I'm dumb, I finally found how look for a specfic category of forum topics.

I really don't have a preference to ratings scales when a 10 point system is compared to a 100 scale. With a 10 point scale I usually use 0.5 rating between whole numbers. I find it easier to explain why a game is more than an 8, but less than a 9. With a 100 point scale I would just use x5 versus any other numbers between x0 and y0. What's the difference between an x4 versus an x5?

For the overall rankings and ratings I do prefer the 100 scale since it does indicate that games are slightly better or worse than one another.  

I'd also like the ability to sort fourm replies from oldest to newest.

3 months ago

I would ditto the 100 point scale, I think the ability to nuance your ratings would be great

3 months ago

Linked Topic