Ratings...so much discussion has been given to whether or not they are meaningful, accurate, clear, full of shill-ratings, full of anti-shill ratings, etc...

I'm here to say that none of this really matters. Or at least it shouldn't. No one else's rating, regardless of its shill-fullness or anti-shill-fullness, its silliness or seriousness, or its perceived accuracy or inaccuracy should effect/affect your rating.

Why? Because whenever you rate a game, you should rate it HONESTLY.
You know, just give your opinion, and give your honest one.

That's it, be honest...it really shouldn't be that hard. For a site that has such hard words for cheaters, BGG members are amazingly tolerant of people cheating the rating system. Or, at least, people feel compelled to fight the cheating with more cheating, just in the opposite direction. Given the average age of our members, I have only one thing to say..."what the Hell?"

It's rather embarrassing to see such stupidity and pettiness, especially since most of it is coming from fully grown men who can understand 300+ page rulebooks, but fail to understand the importance and value of being honest.

The bottom line is, you cannot be held accountable for other people's ratings. However, your ratings are yours and you are responsible for those. Giving a shill or anti-shill rating is dishonest and stupid. Aldie has already promised to deal with and omit ratings that are coming from shills/anti-shills. It is not your responsibility to correct it. It's his.

So be honest...it's really not that hard after all.

Call me a traditionalist, but I believe that the vast majority of users on this site agree that an honest opinion is the most valuable one to everybody and that is, mostly, what we are getting.

I always rate honestly.

That pretty much sums it up.

It certainly is disappointing that it needs to be said.

I will admit that at one point in time, I was an anti-shiller. I gave Agricola a "1" just to piss off the masses, because to me, it was impossible for any game to be THAT good. It really was (and to some extent, still is) being treated as the next coming of the messiah of board gaming. Caylus got it in 2005, and BattleLore in 2006, and we saw what happened with those games.

But then I realized a few things:

1.) I am a grown adult - I should act like one
2.) Aldie's algorithmic Bayesian averaging model will adjust for my anti-shill rating anyway
3.) I haven't played the game - how can I say it is "broken" and give it a "1"
4.) It is incredibly insulting to those who have played the game and rated it honestly. Even Mr. Skeletor is at least being HONEST in his rating, even if those "10 spot shillers" hate him for his rating of a "4".
5.) It is incredibly insulting to those who had a say in designing and publishing the game - guys like Uwe, Hanno, Melissa, Zev, Dale, etc.

I would think that everyone else should follow those same guidelines. So, my rating has been removed, because "Honestly", I haven't played the game yet. Therefore, how can I rate it honestly?

Jeremy, if your comment has nothing to do with the current ratings war going on between Agricola and Puerto Rico, then feel free to ignore my comments. However, I believe that your post was prompted by the ratings fiasco currently going on with these two games, so I think my comments are somewhat relevant.

That is why we love you so much, Chapel...

Actually, no it isn't. It's your compelling nature and keen wit.

Good job you didn't tell Chapel you love him in a GM or else you would of felt the wrath of the admins

Nope, it's the monkey avatar. Monkeys rule.

There are 2 problems as I see it.

If we are going to be honest then everybody has to be honest, this dosen't just mean giving an honest rating but also to occasionaly go back and rerate your games. It may also be hard to rate games lower if you have had a "halcyonic" time with them.

Secondly, I could rate Agricola which I have played once, I can see the reason why so many people love the game, but it isn't my type of game, I could be talked into a game tho which according the the BGG rating system is a miserable 4. So who exactly should rate the game? people who like this type of game should IMO. When I first joined a gaming club about 10 months ago I rated everything I played, partly out of enthusiasm and partly because I didn't know what type of game appealed to me. Now I only rate games which are of a type I like. I like wargames for instance and if I ever came across a very poor wargame I would give it a low rating.

I don't want to start a flame war but I would love to see the gaming preferences of people who rate a game, ie could we see what the ratio of people who are wargamers, Ameritrashers, Euro gamers, Filler games and other gamers. I could then see at a glance what wargamers think of Memoir, it could also help eurogamers to see what ratings other eurogamers give to Memoir. More games these days seem to be crossing over and I am sure this feature would be of benefit to all.

That's your honest experience, that 4 is *just* as valid as the guy who plays the game a few times and joyously rates it a 10.

In Aldie's shillbuster we trust...

I asked you about your rating, and you responded unkindly. Infact, you were quite hostile from the beginning.

Your rating was "good enough" for me; I merely asked you if that's really what you thought. I also told you repeatedly in that email that I didn't care at all how you rated it, but I thought that you had some facts mixed up.

I apologize if my inquest offended you. I'll be sure to steer clear of sending you any and all geekmails. Sensitivity is duly noted.

-Jeremy

P.S. It was not a "series" as you claim. I sent one, you responded. I then responded, and so forth. I apologize again if you did not intend to have a conversation with me. I took your response, no matter how hostile and different from mine, to be an invitation to talk. Again, I'm sorry, but if you go back and read the first email, you'll see I was VERY respectful and told you MANY times in that email that your actual rating made no difference to me.

After a single play I give a game an initail rating. Then after a few more plays (usually around the 6 mark) I revise my rating and add comments.

I rate all my games according to the definitions given by BGG. So if a 7 means good game usually willing to play then that's what a 7 means for me. Currently my lowest games are 3's and highest are 9's.

I'm not opposed to changing a long standing rating and have done so. This is normally accompianed by an update in the comments section.