Decent set of ratings from you by the way .!
-
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
Decent set of ratings from you by the way .!
If I want to call the Admins rating thread ''the proper one'' I shall. The only person that appears to have left a rating on this dour thread for the last match (Palace) is you.
I doubt many posters pay this thread any attention.
Your rating thread now relies on the information that you read on the proper one, ie you need it but it doesn't need you.
Oh a destructive poster, just what this forum needs. I am trying to do something constructive which is appreciated by admin. If you look he has thanked me with a thumbs up for my ratings summary.
My thread uses ratings from a wide spectrum, not just this forums. My thread does not rely on this forums input although I encourage it.
I get the vibe you are another nasty piece of work this forum seems to breed.
All the usual bully boys chipping in, what a sad bunch.
I don't mind your ratings and think it's impressive the amount of effort you put in to them but you really need to try to refrain from little digs at the new system like that, especially when
Admin
's done a lot to try and accomodate you and your ratings. He initially pinned your thread and also added it to the bar at the top, made a new system to give you more data, changed it so there was an option for the ratings to be posted, gave you access to the data etc.It's also likely not true that the new system is less 'accurate'. Any potential benefit gained by greater individual precision through smaller increments would be offset by your sample being much smaller. On top of that, hand picking ratings you think are fair also likely has an impact on the 'accuracy', although it's not that clear what you actually mean by accuracy on something which is so subjective. If you drove a car at 50mph and asked 100 people to guess what speed the car was going you would get all sort of off answers, but the expected average would probably be close to 50 as some people would over-estimate and some would under-estimate. In football, there's no absolute value to players performances. There's loads of games where people think X had a great game because he got a pre-assist and made a couple of big blocks whereas somebody else might look at the game and think X had a bad game because they got no assists and was out of position for a goal, neither are wrong they just see the game in different ways. If it's pointed out before the game on the forum that X is always out of position for corners then people might be more likely to notice it more here but it doesn't necessarily make the rating less accurate because it would still be reflective of the forum. Ratings pulled from other forums wouldn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the forum. Different forums have different cultures, discussions and opinions on players and that's perfectly normal. You said in one of your other posts that a 5 is poor but 6 about minimum acceptable, 6.5 is good and 7 very good. A lot of people would probably consider 5 as average rather than poor and a 3 or 2 as poor, so do you normalise people's ratings for your system because that could also surely affect the data significantly for a small sample? Sorry if this ends up being a big block of text by the way!
I don't mind your ratings and think it's impressive the amount of effort you put in to them but you really need to try to refrain from little digs at the new system like that, especially when
It's also likely not true that the new system is less 'accurate'. Any potential benefit gained by greater individual precision through smaller increments would be offset by your sample being much smaller. On top of that, hand picking ratings you think are fair also likely has an impact on the 'accuracy', although it's not that clear what you actually mean by accuracy on something which is so subjective. If you drove a car at 50mph and asked 100 people to guess what speed the car was going you would get all sort of off answers, but the expected average would probably be close to 50 as some people would over-estimate and some would under-estimate. In football, there's no absolute value to players performances. There's loads of games where people think X had a great game because he got a pre-assist and made a couple of big blocks whereas somebody else might look at the game and think X had a bad game because they got no assists and was out of position for a goal, neither are wrong they just see the game in different ways. If it's pointed out before the game on the forum that X is always out of position for corners then people might be more likely to notice it more here but it doesn't necessarily make the rating less accurate because it would still be reflective of the forum. Ratings pulled from other forums wouldn't necessarily reflect the opinion of the forum. Different forums have different cultures, discussions and opinions on players and that's perfectly normal. You said in one of your other posts that a 5 is poor but 6 about minimum acceptable, 6.5 is good and 7 very good. A lot of people would probably consider 5 as average rather than poor and a 3 or 2 as poor, so do you normalise people's ratings for your system because that could also surely affect the data significantly for a small sample? Sorry if this ends up being a big block of text by the way!
My reply was disputing which thread was the proper one. I used examples as to why my system could be viewed as more proper. It turns out the poster was just having a pop at me personally. Admin has already stated there are merits to both systems. My explanation was about the differences. Admin can't adjust to a 0.50 increment facility and does not filter out venting ratings to the extent I do. Admins system is about this forums posters, mine uses a broader source so gives a more balanced cross section of opinion.
Both systems can run alongside each other. It's destructive posts which try to debunk my system that deserve criticism . Admin and myself are both doing something constructive and trying to provide the basis for debate.
To clarify....a 5 is not an average performance.....its poor. As in an explanation for Skipps performance on one website. Rated a 5....not his best day. Then went on to highlight instances of why. We don't want Skippy averaging at 5. It's not average for him...morelike 6.50 I would guess.
5 is poor, 6 below acceptable, 6.50 acceptable. 7 is good and never achieved as an average by any player across a season since I started compiling the data. 8 is very good and 9 exceptional. 10 is pretty much perfection.
5 is poor, 6 below acceptable, 6.50 acceptable. 7 is good and never achieved as an average by any player across a season since I started compiling the data. 8 is very good and 9 exceptional. 10 is pretty much perfection.
Your ratings were actually quite balanced apart from one player for which your whole effort is spoiled. I hope admin excluded your ratings otherwise his whole system is skewed by one biased rating. My system does not allow such stupidity.
I’ll rate players how I want…. Stick your censorship up your ass, son. This thread is a laughing stock as are you
Wrong. I hadn't chipped in yet.
So you've just made your ratings that nobody uses, even more pointless because you're trying to dictate what someone can and cannot rate!
Unbelievable tekkers
I'm not trying to dictate. I am excluding stupidity.
They are not my ratings, only one set is. The rest are sourced from various providers. If you mean it's my ratings thread, it's just a collation of ratings summarised after I have enough data.
Who are you to determine what 'stupidity' is?
Dictating is exactly what you are doing.
You wanted people to give ratings, yet when they do, if you disagree with it, you censor them.
That is one of the, many, reasons why nobody takes or will take you or this thread seriously.
Consider this a free lesson in how to treat other people. No charge.
I have stressed many times...I want only considered and unbiased ratings, not angry venting.
Take lessons from you ? That's very funny. I censor only those who display stupidity because I want a fair representation of performance untainted by hatred.
And who are you to determine what is 'considered and unbiased'.
Either you accept ratings from everyone or you don't do a thread about them. End of.
Too late for you in any case - this thread is...
You said I was trying to dictate. I'm actually not trying to, I am dictating I don't want any idiots ratings.
- Status