BUT you say your ratings are better as there is discussion - there's no discussion.
There is one major difference between your ratings and Admin's - the ease of being able to rate a player is better on the new ratings.
You're the one in the wrong,
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
- Status
There is one major difference between your ratings and Admin's - the ease of being able to rate a player is better on the new ratings.
Spiteful, childish bullying .
There is more chance of discussion if people use it but they have been diverted away. I was challenged on my rating for Forster and I responded in a polite and informative way. That happened today . So you are wrong , there is and would be discussion.
You can't substantiate I am wrong.
You are the poster who put up a derogatory clip about me. That's your level. I'm not discussing anything else with you, you don't warrant my time or respect after insulting me in that way.
One question about one rating after 16 pages and you think that means there is lots of 'discussion' on this thread?
You're wrong. As usual.
We don't know who's behind your ratings because you pull them from other forums without any info so not sure how that's any different to anon ratings on here.
What's the standard deviation like on your ratings and how do you filter any outliers? Do you just not include ratings you don't think are fair or use things like interquartile ranges?
I only pull from another forum because there are not enough on here . I don't want to discuss anyones ratings, that's up to the forum. Like I was challenged today.
You seem slightly obsessed with capturing the perfect scores based the on "the media" and your own rating. Anything that deviates from that is wrong and needs to be challenged. We're just interested in capturing how fans on this forum feel about players and how they performed in a match. We have checks in place to weed out any obvious ratings that have been submit with an agenda. Aside from that, we just want the opinions of fans. If Hojbjerg has received a low rating (comparatively) then fans on The Fighting Cock forum feel he has deserved that. That's all it shows. It doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. Everyone views the game differently.
I don't disagree on the discussion aspect and I might add something that helps with that. Although, it seems anonymity increases people's willingness to submit ratings, so it's a balancing act.
The two systems can co-exist but you seem hell bent on proving yours is "superior". It just presents a different perspective.
A rating thread on this forum with ratings from people on this forum makes more sense. Why would anyone care about mixing that up with ratings from another forum of people we dont know and other random sources of 'the media'?
What's funny is, when I was building the new system, I thought "hey, I bet that Dealer bloke is gonna love this. A load of new ratings for his system."
HOW FUCKING WRONG WAS I!?
I agree.
Which is why I'll stick to using the official forum one. Much better and more user friendly.
Cheers lovely.
You are wrong again. I am not obsessed with the media and my rating. I accept deviation of course but a difference of 1 to 6 needs discussing .
Again ....and you failed to answer last time....who is we and we're ?
Annonimity is another word for unaccountable in this context or cowardly even.
You were inconsiderate in brushing my system aside rather than try to help .
Yes you were wrong in thinking I wanted heaps of uncheckable ratings. 10 quality ones is plenty.
You have given me little or no help at all. No protection from those seeking to debunk my system out of spite or personal vendetta.
I agree.
Which is why I'll stick to using the official forum one. Much better and more user friendly.
Cheers lovely.
Oh it's official now is it ? I thought it was being tested ?
Yes, it's THE official one. And it's official because it was sorted by the forum owner.
Not a difficult concept fella.
Anyway, I've given you feedback on why that is preferable (for me anyway - my own personal preference to which I am entitled) to yours.
Yes, it's THE official one. And it's official because it was sorted by the forum owner.
Not a difficult concept fella.
Anyway, I've given you feedback on why that is preferable (for me anyway - my own personal preference to which I am entitled) to yours.
Your in depth feedback was it's much better and user friendly. Making it simple I guess is essential although all mine needs is the players name and a rating.
Average player ratings v Liverpool across 10 media / web reports and 4 forum posters, only one of which was mine.
First column is forum, second media and third combined.
Forster......5......, 5.40, 5.28
Romero....4.62, 5.20, 5.03
Dier...........4.62, 3.90, 4.10
Davies......4.75, 5.10, .....5
Porro........4.75, 5.25, 5.10
Hojbjerg. 5.62, 6.30, 6.10
Skipp........7.50, 6.90, 7.07
Perisic.....6.65, 5.87, 6.42
Kulusev...5.65, 5.25, 5.53
Kane........7.45, 6.50, 7.17
Son...........7.75, 6......, 7.25
Forum team average 5.49
Media team average 5.95
First column is forum, second media and third combined.
Forster......5......, 5.40, 5.28
Romero....4.62, 5.20, 5.03
Dier...........4.62, 3.90, 4.10
Davies......4.75, 5.10, .....5
Porro........4.75, 5.25, 5.10
Hojbjerg. 5.62, 6.30, 6.10
Skipp........7.50, 6.90, 7.07
Perisic.....6.65, 5.87, 6.42
Kulusev...5.65, 5.25, 5.53
Kane........7.45, 6.50, 7.17
Son...........7.75, 6......, 7.25
Forum team average 5.49
Media team average 5.95
Yes...I would prefer it if others debated rather than drive it myself.
Yeah....thanks for your help !!
- Status