Good work! I recommend you put privacy protection on so people can only edit a blank column, or something more advanced.. As of right now, I can tinker with everyones ratings. So 1 malicious person can wipe out everything, unless you have a plan for this..
Hi guys, thanks for the feedback!
Also thanks to LucidVision and Swarles_Barkley for voting!
My current, low-tech solution to this is to just download a hard copy version of the spreadsheet once a day (just downloaded right now fyi).
That should minimize the risk quite a bit since we can just revert to the previous day spreadsheet if something malicious actually happens.
Not a perfect solution, but doesn't seem like a more sophisticated option is available. Hopefully since there's nothing to gain personally from a malicious action this won't be a problem, but if we encounter that we can think of a more robust solution (like people emailing me their votes or limiting editing to users who send me their emails or something).
I wonder if thers isn't a risk of "priming" or "anchoring" as well when a user goes to input his votes and see a bunch of other votes right next to them, especially by certain influential users. Public voting has always been the case for these power ranking votes though.
I plan on only voting for the top cards, and going from there. If we want to find out what the 20 best cards are in a given color, the random 5 and 6 voting won't matter much. Plus, it's going to be blended with the super arbitrary CT data, so it doesn't matter much anyways.
It's great to hear that you will contribute. I intend to vote for 50-ish cards per colour, which includes the 45 each from my cube and 5-ish that I don't play but are highly ranked in the voting sheet.
I wouldn't call the CT data "super arbitrary". It's far from perfect, but I very commonly find myself filtering a certain colour + cmc and just sort by pick percentage (ignoring the small cube sample sizes). You get very decent results from this method. In any case, given the transparency of the data provided thus far (and that the Excel is public) I assume we could just hypothetically give the votes a weight of 100% and see what cards the forum thinks are best, unadulterated.
That helps a little bit, thanks for the answers. I think it's a bit odd that players can throw low rankings onto cards they just want to lower average ratings for... I think it would be nice if players were capped on the number of votes, or capped on only voting for cards they like. It should be a place to campaign for your favorite cards, not to be able to intentionally lower the score of cards other people like.
It's a bit of a twist on previous power rankings contests but I'm willing to give it a go (I don't see anyone else filling the void). I for one intend to rate cards seriously and objectively, whether I like them or not, and I would expect most users here to do the same. Even in a rankings list, you could hurt cards by not listing them at all. The scope for "downvoting" here is greater, but I don't think it should be much of an issue given the integrity of the people on this forum - as far as I can tell. It's just a bit of casual fun after all.
Good work! I recommend you put privacy protection on so people can only edit a blank column, or something more advanced.. As of right now, I can tinker with everyones ratings. So 1 malicious person can wipe out everything, unless you have a plan for this..
Yup, was just editing your ratings to check if this was possible (I undid my changes..).
That's really weird, because I was positive there was a thread for this already, but I don't see it now.
But no, I don't think this card is very good.
I wanted to follow up to address your confusion here.
Due to a requirement to comply with EU privacy laws, EU users had to opt into not being deleted. The user who created the original Mesemerizing Benthid thread did not opt into this, so his posts and threads were deleted, and took the discussion with it. I can try to restore the discussion sans the original post and merge this one with that if people would like.
Lol, this happened to me as well. Do you know perhaps how I can get my account name back?
- Aggressive Green 4 CMC creatures
- 1 CMC Black creature with discard effect (Putrid Imp and Cryptbreaker are near misses for me).
I wonder if thers isn't a risk of "priming" or "anchoring" as well when a user goes to input his votes and see a bunch of other votes right next to them, especially by certain influential users. Public voting has always been the case for these power ranking votes though.
It's great to hear that you will contribute. I intend to vote for 50-ish cards per colour, which includes the 45 each from my cube and 5-ish that I don't play but are highly ranked in the voting sheet.
I wouldn't call the CT data "super arbitrary". It's far from perfect, but I very commonly find myself filtering a certain colour + cmc and just sort by pick percentage (ignoring the small cube sample sizes). You get very decent results from this method. In any case, given the transparency of the data provided thus far (and that the Excel is public) I assume we could just hypothetically give the votes a weight of 100% and see what cards the forum thinks are best, unadulterated.
It's a bit of a twist on previous power rankings contests but I'm willing to give it a go (I don't see anyone else filling the void). I for one intend to rate cards seriously and objectively, whether I like them or not, and I would expect most users here to do the same. Even in a rankings list, you could hurt cards by not listing them at all. The scope for "downvoting" here is greater, but I don't think it should be much of an issue given the integrity of the people on this forum - as far as I can tell. It's just a bit of casual fun after all.
Yup, was just editing your ratings to check if this was possible (I undid my changes..).
Lol, this happened to me as well. Do you know perhaps how I can get my account name back?