I did post the wiki link about the ELO system on our Board a couple of days ago. I think it's on our Expert thead.

I'll post it here, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Thanks for the reset, Terry! It is great to see some new names on the Board and to have the ratings reflect who is actually playing the games! Thanks again!

<< Then I read Terry's post above that he didn't even bother reading most of this thread. What's the point in even contributing on this forums if it all just gets dismissed anyway? Now I know why I don't post here very often. >>

If you really think I'm going to read 8 pages of people sniping at each other about the most mundane and pointless things and waste an hour of my time learning absolutely nothing then yes, you're going to be disappointed.

I read all feedback that is sent in a sensible, reasonable fashion. In general, it is ineffective to post an idea inside a shouting match, because it's simply not going to get heard.

And yes, our ELO system is very similar to that Wiki article above. I just changed a few of the constants to shape the bell curve in the manner I wanted. I can't remember what they are, but the general idea is the same.

The general idea might be the same as the Wiki article, but it's still way over my head. I just don't get it. :P

I was interested in the constant(s).

Prior to the ELO reset, it seemed like the constant was actually 1 based on big wins or big losses. I was able to semi-consistently figure out where I was going to be within about .5 after a win/loss. This was based on looking at the ELOs of the people in the set, and for anybody not listed I'd assumed an ELO of 1350 (1800 vs 1300 or 1400 has a swing of about .05).

However, when I beat only one person I expected to gain something like .4 or .45 since I had a higher rating, not 4+ points.

So, not the most critical thing in the world to know, but if it's possible to easily figure out I'd be interested in knowing.

Yes, I thought I had done that. Very politely and respectfully as I've done with all of my posts. Forgive me, I wasn't aware of the criteria that you use to determine what you read and what you don't read. Perhaps you could post that somewhere Terry so that we can all keep up.

I think you did that, Barbarini, unfortunately, it was a post found deep within the bowels of the argument, and thus, it was missed. Terry most likely read several posts, realized it was getting far out of hand and did not care to continue reading non-stop arguing. A post found within such an argument is easily missed by more than just Terry. Most people who read the forums stop reading the thread all together when arguments begin.

This thread has become one of the worst possible places to post something for Terry to see. There is too much argument to sort through to even FIND the good posts.

Or an admin will come in and close it if it is too out of hand. I've been a FT member nearly 11 years and in the forums for over eight, and even I get to where I don't read a lot of "going back and forth" (for lack of a better phrase) posts either.

Sure seems to me that Terry did the right thing. No one is completely happy! I would hope that Terry hears my ELO plea (the group). Don't Bring Me Down!

I'm actually OK with the ELOs being reset as mine goes up

Thanks bubba. On second thought, I will benefit too!

post has been moved

I would suggest a new thread - this one has been dealt with, and might not get close scrutiny.

I have a somewhat related question. Would it make sense for hourly games with ELO ratings to penalize starting a game but failing to complete it? I have noticed in Word Wizard that, to move up, it is important to get a quick and perfect score. One slow game, or one 14/15, drops a ranking considerably. That means there is an incentive to quit a game as soon as a hard word shows up.

I tested this for a while, and sure enough my ranking improved. But I decided it was more fun to keep playing - hard games or easy - and let my ranking bounce up and down accordingly. But I am curious anyway. (And however it is scored, if I ever complete a game faster than dsimpy I can retire from FT happy.)

The reasons for not penalizing are understandable - sometimes connections drop, computers freeze, etc. But at least one other hourly game (Mixed Trivia) does give a zero if a game is started but not completed.

My apologies if this has been addressed - I searched for a while, but didn't find a discussion of this point in the forum.