wgroeneveld
/
brainbaking
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

grading systems: typos

This commit is contained in:
Wouter Groeneveld 2022-07-21 21:51:26 +02:00
parent af2f5e3ba7
commit a743b64e7f
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
content/post/2022/07/grading-systems.md
View File

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The first thing that springs to mind is social reading website [GoodReads](https
Note that awarding a book a 2 out of 5 means _it was OK_, it does _not_ mean it failed the test since it falls on the left-hand side of the distribution graph. I like this scale and use it myself to grade games, because it's much easier to think about those labels than it is to think about a number from 1 to 10. When you read a book or play a game, you instinctively know whether or not you _disliked_ it: there's the 1. You also instinctively know when it was one of the best books you've read that year: there is the 5. Did you like it (a lot), or was it meh but okay? There are the numbers in-between the 1 and 5.
Sometimes though, the difference between a 3 and 4, a 2 and 3, or even a 4 and 5 is confusing or hard to pinpoint. Brain Bankler of The Tao of Gaming explains in [a brief thought on game ratings](https://taogaming.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/a-brief-thought-on-game-ratings/) how he rates board and card games, using an only 4 instead of GoodReads' 5 item scale:
Sometimes though, the difference between a 3 and 4, a 2 and 3, or even a 4 and 5 is confusing or hard to pinpoint. Brian Bankler of The Tao of Gaming explains in [a brief thought on game ratings](https://taogaming.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/a-brief-thought-on-game-ratings/) how he rates board and card games, using an only 4 instead of GoodReads' 5 item scale:
1. Avoid---won't play this;
2. Indifferent---I'll play this out of politeness, but won't suggest it;
@ -37,14 +37,14 @@ Exactly.
In fact, that's even better, and fixed my problem with the GoodReads system. I guess these could be mapped as follows: the 4 and 5 is an _enthusiastic_, the 3 is a _suggest_, the _indifferent_ is a 2, and the 1 is _avoid_.
The most important part is that Brain never uses numbers on his blog. At the end of a review, he writes "suggest", for instance. There are no "`x` stars". I still do that, but might have to rethink my approach, as in the end, your readers will simply scan the text and remember the number---therefore throwing much-needed _context_ into the bin.
The most important part is that Brian never uses numbers on his blog. At the end of a review, he writes "suggest", for instance. There are no "`x` stars". I still do that, but might have to rethink my approach, as in the end, your readers will simply scan the text and remember the number---therefore throwing much-needed _context_ into the bin.
There's a bit of a hiccup though: everyone even remotely related to board games ends up at the [BoardGameGeek](https://boardgamegeek.com) (BGG) community, which requires a score on 10, and displays averages rounded down to one after the comma. If you're inclined to buy something but you're not sure, you check out BGG's average score. Guess which ones to watch out for? Indeed, 7+ = good, 8+ = amazing, 6-ish = meh. There's never any 9, 10, and almost never anything below 6 (or 5). So, again, what's the point? Even more troublesome, Brain has to translate his rating system into BGG's, of which he has a rough mapping for, explained in his article.
There's a bit of a hiccup though: everyone even remotely related to board games ends up at the [BoardGameGeek](https://boardgamegeek.com) (BGG) community, which requires a score on 10, and displays averages rounded down to one after the comma. If you're inclined to buy something but you're not sure, you check out BGG's average score. Guess which ones to watch out for? Indeed, 7+ = good, 8+ = amazing, 6-ish = meh. There's never any 9, 10, and almost never anything below 6 (or 5). So, again, what's the point? Even more troublesome, Brian has to translate his rating system into BGG's, of which he has a rough mapping for, explained in his article.
If you want to trim grades or ratings even more aggressively, you could go with the route of many contemporary video game review sites such as [EuroGamer](https://www.eurogamer.net/). They ditched the classic 10-scale system a long time ago, in favor of something rather minimalistic: a game is either not worth it or average, in which case there's no grade, or it's _Recommended_, in which would translate to Brain's _Suggest_. If it's really really good, then it'll be awarded the label _Essential_. The difference between _avoid_ and _indifferent_ has to be interpreted by effectively reading the review.
If you want to trim grades or ratings even more aggressively, you could go with the route of many contemporary video game review sites such as [EuroGamer](https://www.eurogamer.net/). They ditched the classic 10-scale system a long time ago, in favor of something rather minimalistic: a game is either not worth it or average, in which case there's no grade, or it's _Recommended_---possibly translating to Brian's _Suggest_. If it's really really good, then it'll be awarded the label _Essential_. The difference between _avoid_ and _indifferent_ has to be interpreted by effectively reading the review.
Some of our courses at the faculty are graded using a binary pass/fail system, but I'm not a fan. That way, there is no distinction between the average and the better. If I were to clean out my board game closet---like I promised I would---I'd have no way of expressing my enthusiasm for one game, while "just" agreeing to play another one.
And then there are specialized ranking systems, such as [the cRPG Addict's GIMLET](http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/04/ranking-and-rating-crpgs.html) abbreviation, where he judges each game in different categories: game world, character creation, NPC interaction, encounters & foes, ... Each category is a score on 10, and there are 10 categories: the sum is the global score on 100. Which, again, is totally useless, as admitted by the author: it reduces the rich information from the different categories into a single context-free number. His best games, such as Ultima Underworld, are awarded a 63. But what does that say about NPC interaction? You can't untangle those numbers once they're summed. Of course, at university, we do this all the time, and in the end, the administration office expects a number on 20, so we summarize and re-calibrate dutifully.
And then there are specialized ranking systems, such as [the cRPG Addict's GIMLET](http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/04/ranking-and-rating-crpgs.html) abbreviation, where each game is judged across different categories: game world, character creation, NPC interaction, encounters & foes, ... Each category results in a score on 10, and there are 10 categories: the sum is the global score on 100. Which, again, is totally useless, as admitted by the author: it reduces the rich information from the different categories into a single context-free number. His best games, such as Ultima Underworld, are awarded a 63. But what does that say about NPC interaction? You can't untangle those numbers once they're summed. Of course, at university, we do this all the time, and in the end, the administration office expects a number on 20, so we summarize and re-calibrate dutifully.
The more I think about grading, the more I'm inclined to pass on the numbers game as well, and instead focus on labels. I'll let this sink in for a while and come back to it to implement in my own future systems. Great talking to you, internet! Definitely a _suggest_ for you!
The more I think about grading, the more I'm inclined to pass on the numbers game as well, and instead focus on labels. I'll let this sink in for a while and come back to it to implement in my own future systems. Great conversing with you, internet! Definitely a _suggest_ there!