Joe. Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 By the way Bert, I wasn't particularly having a go at people's opinions, just the twats who vote silly. Just want to get that bit straight like.
Bert Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 By the way Bert, I wasn't particularly having a go at people's opinions, just the twats who vote silly. Just want to get that bit straight like. Yeah i know. I said they ruin it for every one else. It is annoying, just a shame we can't do anything bout it really.
davieG Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 All we really need to agree is that 6 is the average performance. Beyond that it's always going to be difficult to get comparative scores because more often than not people don't agree on who's had a better than average game anyway and this is reflected in the variations for MOM. I think Sheff needs to emphasise that if you didn't go you don't vote because that will definitely skew the results. What would be interesting would be a separate MOM nomination to see if it matched up with the scoring.
Cheese Me Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 For me:2 = getting your boots on the right feet 5 = Below the players usual standard 6 = standard game and doing your job effeciently 7 = some good moments that set you above a standard performace 8 = you stood out 9 = Did something that extra bit special in the game 10 = Trevor Benjamin. Agreed - I think that's generally the scale most use I gave Dyer a 9 (cos frankly I think he deserved it), and there were a couple of 8's for Oakley, Howard, Hobbs, few 7's and a couple of 6's And there's it being applied properly
Stuliasz Posted 2 September 2008 Author Posted 2 September 2008 All we really need to agree is that 6 is the average performance. Beyond that it's always going to be difficult to get comparative scores because more often than not people don't agree on who's had a better than average game anyway and this is reflected in the variations for MOM.I think Sheff needs to emphasise that if you didn't go you don't vote because that will definitely skew the results. What would be interesting would be a separate MOM nomination to see if it matched up with the scoring. I remove probably three or four ratings from the results where people have voted all 10s or all 1s without fail every game. This is why I set the +-2.00 from the team average policy to filter out any results that were way out of line. So far it has worked but obviously on this occasion a few seem to have got through the net. I don't want to bring it down any further than +-2.00 though as this could filter out genuine opinions on the game. I must say another thanks to the people who do vote genuinely though, the more of you there are, the more it will make the non-game-goer votes insignificant.
Head Honcho Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 All we really need to agree is that 6 is the average performance. Beyond that it's always going to be difficult to get comparative scores because more often than not people don't agree on who's had a better than average game anyway and this is reflected in the variations for MOM.I think Sheff needs to emphasise that if you didn't go you don't vote because that will definitely skew the results. What would be interesting would be a separate MOM nomination to see if it matched up with the scoring. Yeh maybe someone can tell Newtonfox off of TB that This guy must be a clown! He's posting on the match and post match thread and then goes and votes
Stuliasz Posted 2 September 2008 Author Posted 2 September 2008 Problem is there isn't an awful lot I can do about it. The periods after the games are when I get the most votes so I don't want to leave too much of a delay and I don't have time to trawl messageboards against voter names to see if people were on messageboards during the game and still voted.
Head Honcho Posted 2 September 2008 Posted 2 September 2008 Problem is there isn't an awful lot I can do about it. The periods after the games are when I get the most votes so I don't want to leave too much of a delay and I don't have time to trawl messageboards against voter names to see if people were on messageboards during the game and still voted. Oh I know that mate. Maybe we can identify the culprits and out them at the same time this may shame them into not voting
Nod.E Posted 22 September 2008 Posted 22 September 2008 Well i'd say that 6 is average, 7 is good, 8 is very good and 9 is fantastic. What's 10 then? Or is that not on your scale?
lildave3 Posted 22 September 2008 Posted 22 September 2008 What's 10 then? Or is that not on your scale? 10 is tremendously outrageously good. Practically perfect.
davieG Posted 22 September 2008 Posted 22 September 2008 What's 10 then? Or is that not on your scale? Plays for someone else.
Nod.E Posted 23 September 2008 Posted 23 September 2008 10 is tremendously outrageously good. Practically perfect. Like me, then Plays for someone else. More than likely
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.