Batting averages

I was just thinking it might be cool to take the scores of all the tracks in one person's track list, not including ones that haven't been rated, and find the average. That would be a person's 'batting average', and it might be a cool thing to have in your profile. Just a suggestion.[8D]

[Oscar]

hmmm I see what you're saying, I'll see if it's something *I* can do, if not, I'll see if I can get someone to work it for me. Thanks for the idea.
WWS

Cool idea!

I don't like it. Why? Because ALL of us were noobs at one time. It would average in the old coasters that sucked and there were sometimes a lot of them in one persons track record. Then, there were the lesser of the good coasters because it takes more time to do them. So, with the exception of a very select few, it would really not be a good idea.

Dude, I love that idea. But there is the problem that tie just said, I've only got two coasters out that aren't total n00b-ish. So the rest would bring the average waay down.

If someone got togeather all there coasters and the averages i'd do it.

Maybe choose the coasters that want to be averaged, like a minimum of 3 etc.

Or make it so that only the coaster built after, for instance your first ride with a rating of 6. That would in most cases eliminate most of the first tracks. Anyway I like the idea. Could maybe make people think a bit before they upload crappy tracks that could need a few hours more work.

Originally posted by tiepilot35

I don't like it. Why? Because ALL of us were noobs at one time. It would average in the old coasters that sucked and there were sometimes a lot of them in one persons track record. Then, there were the lesser of the good coasters because it takes more time to do them. So, with the exception of a very select few, it would really not be a good idea.

I see what you are saying, but that really wouldn't change anything, because if all of us were noobs at one point, then all of us will be affected in the same way by our n00bish coasters.

And none of us would have a good betting average. If you look at someones average only, it will tell you nothing. Some people have more noobish coasters than others. Like a lot crappy ones (2-3), and some really good ones (8.5-9.5), and lets say their average is 5. Then, theres another guy with an even about crappy coasters and just average coasters. Their average could be 5.5. So you'd think the second guy is better, when he only makes average ones. You'd overlook or not think as high of the one that has improved drastically and has coasters of 8's and 9's now.

Just averaging rates won't work anyways. A really nasty example with just 3.5 users in comparison:

User 1: "UberKewlMasterCraZyFanKingThrilZZZ": No one cares about his tracks, except his bunch of braindead buddies, who permamntly overrate him by at least 4 points. Rates have lots of empty lines for smart appearance and looking enriched at displaying near to nill content. UKMCFKTZZZ of course revenge rates in favor to keep that fake stock bubble from imploding.

User 2: "ShinyShapesGangsta2000". No clue about coasters or their design, not willing to care about either. Every other few months throwing up some horribly crappy track with tons of 3DS objects. However, raters see all these 3DS and immediately enter "deaf dumb and blind" mode: of course this must be 10/10/10 or better. Who cares for bad smell as long as the excrements are gold plated?

User 3: "John W. Doe". Had started as a totally n00bish n00b quite some time ago, had spammed the upload with two dozens tracks and got accordingly beaten up for that. After retracting from the official business for some period, he started to take a different approach. His recent one or two tracks show lots of improvement. But there still are all the old ones with 2.4 ratings flooding the exchange.

User 4: "WithTheUnspeakableName": never uploaded anything. Guess why. [:P]

^sure. We'll go with that. As long as the message is it is a bad idea.

Originally posted by redunzelizer

Just averaging rates won't work anyways. A really nasty example with just 3.5 users in comparison:

User 1: "UberKewlMasterCraZyFanKingThrilZZZ": No one cares about his tracks, except his bunch of braindead buddies, who permamntly overrate him by at least 4 points. Rates have lots of empty lines for smart appearance and looking enriched at displaying near to nill content. UKMCFKTZZZ of course revenge rates in favor to keep that fake stock bubble from imploding.

User 2: "ShinyShapesGangsta2000". No clue about coasters or their design, not willing to care about either. Every other few months throwing up some horribly crappy track with tons of 3DS objects. However, raters see all these 3DS and immediately enter "deaf dumb and blind" mode: of course this must be 10/10/10 or better. Who cares for bad smell as long as the excrements are gold plated?

User 3: "John W. Doe". Had started as a totally n00bish n00b quite some time ago, had spammed the upload with two dozens tracks and got accordingly beaten up for that. After retracting from the official business for some period, he started to take a different approach. His recent one or two tracks show lots of improvement. But there still are all the old ones with 2.4 ratings flooding the exchange.

User 4: "WithTheUnspeakableName": never uploaded anything. Guess why. [:P]

Exactly...User 2 is VERY familiar!

An average might be interesting, but it should not included coasters that weren't rated. Everyone knows what a 0 can do to your average.

It should be flipped around and be the average of the rates you have given... or a percentage of how many of the rates you have made are deleted. Crappy raters beware!

[A7]

It's a funny thing for this topic to come up. I actually averaged my rates last week. My average coaster is a 7.122 out of 10! Weird how I remembered.

Bad idea. Almost everyone here, especially the good designers, have one or two tracks plagued by one or two noobish ratings that would skew the average, not to mention people generally have a drastic difference between their first few tracks and most recent ones. I guess it could stil be a bit of an interesting addition though, but its hardly worth the effort if you ask me.

Ok, ok, I think we've established that one or two bad rates can bring an otherwise good average down. Anyone else want to say it? lol. It was just a suggestion.