First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #3464?
dr glaze et al: Should a person who appears on BGG and rates a game 10 and then leaves permanently have their account kept active indefinately? Would making long-unused accounts inactive help BGG keep with current opinions instead of 5-year-old ratings?

TheGrimReeple: Interesting idea. Certainly has more merit than most of the proposals I've heard for changing the ratings system.
Ryan_Paton: maybe remove inactive members scores after a couple of years but keep the inactive accounts incase they come back one day....
pwilz: If the answer is yes or no, then no. If the answer is a number, then 42. Otherwise, who cares?
Spirit of 70: It probably would.
Doctor X: Yes.
coyotelaughs: good idea
tanis: long-unused accounts should be deleted, together with their ratings
Narlgoth: I agree that old, unused accounts should be deleted. Totally :- 1
thedude05: your question made my head hurt
BloodyJack: No. Yes.
Wibblenut: unused accounts should be closed after 6 months activity to free up memory if nothing else
1000rpm: Sounds like a great idea! I'd kill ratings (only, keep the content) from accounts that haven't been used in 2 years which have 5 or less games rated. Then we wouldn't lose valid opinions.
mentis: Long unused accounts should be purged.
PopeBrain: no
DHEK: That would help, yeah.
scriptorum: For the first part, deleting old accounts should have nothing to do with the ratings system. It should purely be a handle availability issue. For the second part, if it makes sense to limit game ratings to those issued in the past year (it doesn't), then let's do that (we shouldn't). Instead we should encourage players to review and update their ratings, perhaps with some GG incentive. In any case, the rating system we use could use an overhaul. The descriptions for 1-10 do not allow enough variation for good games (I'm mean really, you're looking at 7-10 for good, which means 60% of the ratings system is there to detail how BAD a game is -- who cares! It's bad! I've already moved on to the good games!)
Sevenflatfive: YES
Critical Mass: if the account is on life support, euthenase them. I have 3 old user names I would like turned off.
martybjsg: No. Yes.
POvidiusNaso: I don't worry about ratings.
hadz: Um...that's complicated
puzzleme: To find out if a user has left permanently you have to wait for ever. But a fair solution may be to keep the inactive accounts for 5 years, however, after one year of inactivity their ratings would not count.
Spinch: On the first- absolutely. People who come in, rate one game, and then never come back skew the ratings. However, if it's account with multiple quality reviews but has gone unused, it should be kept.
aleo09: No / Yes
duchamp: Just open two scoring files: all in history and recent (without ratings by users offline for the last year).
chisainikkoo: Yes it most certainly would.
SisyphusX: A) No. B) Yes.
vampywife: I think if someone isn't active for maybe 6 months the account should become inactive, unless the owner informs BGG about a prolonged absence. I agree that this would help make ratings current.
Nap16: No
Nevarus: No.Yes.
jasta6: Keep their opinions. Just because they left doesn't make the rating invalid...............
brainrob: Depends how many games they rate
LemonyFresh: Probably
Fawkes: No. No.
Adiegirl: I don't see why an account shouldn't be deactivated after a certain period of inactivity. There would have to be a few reminder emails, of course.
_Kael_: Should a person who appears on BGG XXXXX and then leaves permanently have their account kept active indefinately?> No. And yes to the next.
puffinge: Does this happen often enough to really skew things?
Loquutus: A year?
Krishna: I'd say yes, but this would be somehwat of a pain to enforce, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the level of dictatorial control that this would entail.
skrutsch: Umm...it sounds like your mind is made up.
GrandpaDave: I dunno
Culvan: That way lies tyranny.
Debate: I am told that this is already done, but clearly inactive accounts should be deleted. About 12-18 months would be about right.
meshuggener: I don't see how his rating would be any less vaild now than it was five years ago.
sourwyrm: doubt it would make much difference
djlg: Yes. No.
ssmooth: Yes, there should be a 3.14-year statute of limitations.
CharlieWonka: Yes very good Idea
ValJor: No. Yes
skelebone: That idea has some merit.
Spielfreak: Bah! You attach too much importance to ratings. Seek out the opionions of those you trust, add those people to your GeekBuddy list, and use their average rating as a measure.
davidme: Doesn't matter. The mass's opinions overwhelm the single.
jttm: Why does it matter?
Lord_Prussian: Some system of suspending inactive accounts would not overly bother me.
CDRodeffer: Ratings isn't the only reason someone might visit the BGG or have an account, so I wholeheartedly disagree.
CortexBomb: It's a two edged sword that I don't like the other side of though. People who have contributed to the site a lot have been known to go inactive for long periods of time, I would not want to have any of that data lost due to a purge, so by that rationale I can't justify purging other users for that either
heli: not sure a single 10 makes that big a difference -- anyway, Aaron Fuegi's the Internet Top 100 is a more solid voting system since there's better association of voters to real people.
chaddyboy_2000: I don't really care. It's just one rating out of a ton of ratings for any particular game.