Hey, look at that. Navy beat Notre Dame. Texas is still better.

This is a very interesting discussion, with several important questions and ideas. I want to share my opinion on some of them:

- I agree with Paul's suggestion, rating until you have finished the game is a good limit, if you played it you have some basis to rate fairly, and someone who is just being a vandal will have less motivation since they would have to finish each game, 1 by 1

- I, myself, rate games using all the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Each and every game I have played in the site I have rated, I think this is good for all of us, it's feedback for creators (I usually leave a comment too) and it's a notice for players. I try not to be extremely subjective. 1 star would be a worthless game, like when the whole info is wrong (not just a couple of mistakes), I rate 2 stars when the game has a big problem that makes it hard to focus or lean, like awful spelling all over or its concept it not coherent, I rate 3 stars when I think it's a fair game but maybe it's been done a million times, it won't teach you much, etc, I rate 4 stars for good games better than those, and 5 stars to great games (it's very fun to play, or too creative, or a nice challenge, or it teaches very well, great to look at, etc.. any of those will do).... I've given 5 stars lots of times... Anyway, I don't think people should give a bad rating just because they're not interested in the subject. Or all I'd be making would be geography games because it's what most people here seem to love. I want myself and everyone else to be able to create games of diverse areas, some of them few people will be interested on. And if only people who finish them (doesn't need to be 100%) are allowed to vote, then there's a standard and voting isn't so meaningless to them.

- But I also don't think voting should be mandatory. That'd make people not take it seriously, and maybe they'd rate a 3 or whatever in every game without thinking, just to get out of it.

- I also think it's important to say, I really disagree with some people that imply in several threads here, that the amount of dot makes a game better or worse than other. A game could have 3 dots and teach something important, or 100 dots and be worth to play. Or 20 dots and be awfully made.

Anyway, just the fresh opinion of someone very new to the site...

Well, I read the discussion there, and I think that it truly did not result in anything. But, I agree with it. To get to the point of this game, I often look at a game, and don't play it, but still rate it low or high, depending on how complex and accurate it seems to be. But, I tend to be a bit perfectionist, if the spelling is bad, I might reduce my rating just for that. I also often play a game, and really like it, but forget to rate it, for one reason or another. Then there is the rather dangerous subject of games which don't deserve to be rated well. I recently (mistakenly, as I later realized) had a campaign to down-rate a gambling game, because it was very unfair for anyone trying to keep their average high. But that should also not happen. PG is a pretty well sorted out site, but, as with anything, there are still some problems.

Well, I don't really mind the one or two dot games, but I think there should be a seperate category for them in the main game page. Unfortunately, as someone said before, who is going to go through and organize the games, when there are thousands to sift through. I have made a variety of games, from ones based on books and movies, to a nonsense game just for the fun of it. The ones which have no point are often made in order to help people practice clicking quickly. But low rating without a reason, well, I don't really like that, especially as my games are particularly vulnerable to it. I think that most PGers are sensible enough to rate the game where they think it deserves. But, One man's junk is another man's treasure (human's, if you will). For example, most people couldn't really care less about Elves from Tolkien's Middle Earth, But I do. As far as how I rate games, If I like it, and it has a low rating, I will compensate with a higher-than-it-deserved rating, as then the average shows up closer to my opinion of it. Same goes in reverse. If a game has a 5 star rating, and it is worth only three, I might rate it at a 1, at which point it has an average closer to the 3 I think it deserves.

Hi sunny1 and all the rest of you. Here you can see the former discussion: http://www.purposegames.com/topic/922
(I haven't yet learned to link, even though tickman and Wentu tried to learn us all the other day... I have tried several times!)

Has David given an opinion on the issue in the past?

A problem with people rating games without playing them is that some people finds it funny giving 1-star rating to a lot of games. It has happened to my top rated games 3-4 times, and then it is not just a couple of games, more like 20-50 or worse...

I think Wentu has had the same problem.

the thunder did it too

I see your point Slaaty. Sometimes I forget it doesn't count you as playing the game if you don't finish it.

Before you joined PG, paulfunI made the same suggestion.

I respectfully disagree, in spite of agreeing that such a limitation would eliminate some of the ratings abuse around here. The problem is that there is just no equitable way to really police it, and there are legitimate reasons for rating a game without playing it, just as there are bogus ratings and ratings vandalism that can be done in spite of such a rule. And FWIW, a quick look at your Geologic Clock game gave me sufficient cause to give it a compensatory 5 star rating, without even playing it.

As someone who likes making relatively challenging games, I would be concerned that many more games would remain unrated for longer if completing them were required. A discerning player can make an informed judgment about the merit of a game without completing it, and I do so fairly often. Some players who try to protect their 100% stat, will refrain from completing a game until they perfect it, but that doesn't mean that they are not very familiar with it before that time.

If anything, I kind of wish that the % stat didn't exist, or at least was not so instrumental in the ratings, because it produces some artificial behavior around completing (or not) difficult games that hurts the site. I confess to occasionally going back to get 100% on some game that I'm really not interested in, but truly that is pretty silly behavior.

As tickman frequently offers - good fun and good games! or something like that. :-)

Actually, that was the Rockets who took the lakers to OT and only lost by 1.

OKC has some playmakers. they took the lakers to OT the other night. and kevin durant is a beast. if they don't make it this year, they will next year

Well, your last three teams are just crazy. the thunder? Come on. The 76ers? Please.

Hi :) Well, I have games I have made that rarely get played by anyone other than me, but that's not a problem, because at least I enjoy them and I hope other people will eventually find them.

There's only 1 particular game that I created a week ago and has never been played by anyone other than me (I have played it 11 times myself :P). It's the Geologic Clock game.

Now, my surprise today is that it was just rated 1 star, without even being played. I know this, because it still says I was the last person to play it, 4 days ago.

I'm wondering if there are any other people who think rating a game you haven't played isn't fair and I wonder if *maybe* the rating option shouldn't be allowed 'til you played the game.

im not going to make a championship prediction, but i think there are a few sleeper teams who could surprise come time for a playoff spot.
1. Portland
2. Phoenix
3. Oklahoma City
4. Toronto
5. Philadelphia

On the contrary Kennera1. Unless the cavs can pick up the pace, they will not be going to the playoffs. 3-3. Not a championship caliber record when you have Shaquille O'neal, Mo williams, Zydrunas, and others that are above average. Lets not forget of course, Lebron james. That is amazing roster but yet they lose to teams not quite at their level yet.

I am gonna have to go with my team here. I think the Cavs have a very good chance with the added middle men and the addition of a couple shooting guards the team looks much better and now it doesn't NEED LeBron to play good to win although he is the King so when does he not?
Although, they only lost 2 home games all last season and have already matched that with 2 home losses this season in the first 2 weeks... Let's hop they pick it up. Champions don't have to be perfect, just dedicated.

I thought I'd start a topic on sports. So, who do you think will win the NBA championship this year? My choice is the Houston Rockets.

I thought she just began to play, then forget it for a while and came back to the pc to end it... isn't that the case Alcyone ??