[scarletv]

I wonder that a lot of players show up with 2 stars that do not seem to be compatible at all. Could the reason be they use German as language in BBO?

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments:

1. Khrystyna made an extremely important comment:

While I am quite sure that many folks use the "friends" and "enemies" tags, I doubt that they are using them to describe player compatibility. I think this would inject a lot of noise into the system

2. I very much support they end goal that you are attempting. If I were pursuing this type of project, I'd be following very different approaches

(A) Use a quiz like the one dating sites use

Set up a system by which a large number of people can bid a corpus of hands
Divide the population into clusters based on bidding preferences
Determine which bidding choices have the best predictive power and turn this into your quiz

(B) Follow an approach similar to Google's PageRank

Players substitute for web sites
Number of boards weighted by results substitutes for incoming links

I suspect that either of these approaches would yield much better results.

[Fluffy]

 scarletv, on 2014-May-14, 05:42, said:

I wonder that a lot of players show up with 2 stars that do not seem to be compatible at all. Could the reason be they use German as language in BBO?

Same happens to me with spannish flags, I have zero stars for most except spannish who have 2.

[uday]

I have two primary goals here


1. In a tourney context, make it easier for players to find partners in the PD

For this, system-type compatibility is important, but, imo, other things are even more important


2. In the MBC context, make it easier for people to know whether they want to join a table, or whether they want to accept a request to sit from a stranger

I think that here, system type compatibility is not so important unless the person is playing with the table host


I think we can't avoid a full blown quiz at some point, but we have to cater to people who won't bother.

Consider someone who is a total jerk. For whatever reason, for every 10 users who mark him as a 'Friend', there are 100 users who mark him as an Enemy.
I don't *know* this but I think i can safely assume that most of the F/E marks are from people who like/dislike this person. Sure, there will be some noise from people who use F/E for other purposes.


I think we have to be careful about who we claim is compatible with this user. It isn't all about bridge things, i think. This "niceness" thing is pretty important.

is Jerk1 compatible with Jerk2 ?
Is Sweetheart1 compatible with Sweetheart2 ?


All else being equal, I know that *I* would much much much rather play with someone who was not at my skill level but who was polite, than someone who was my clone except that no one liked him.


The 'quiz' will definitely help a great deal. before we jump into that, i want to learn if this approach has any merit at all, before working on fixing it.


What I'd love to discuss, perhaps in a different thread, is 'what goes into determining whether A is compatible with B' ? Who should decide? Can this be made simple enough to be usable?

[uday]

Note: we use country of IP address, not country in profile

[c3cummins]

[

[helene_t]

I would be a bit worried about people who tried to lick everybody's **** in order to boost their f/e ratio (whether such a tactic would backfire or not).

But we shall see. Maybe the overall effect will be positive. Some people will hesitate to be rude if they are afraid of being enemy'd.

[gabivh]

I don't think it's working. Nobody get stars, exceept the BBO stars.
I don't seem to be compatible with my steady pard; I hardly play with anybody else .....
So wonder, which criteria are used

[hrothgar]

 gabivh, on 2014-May-14, 16:16, said:

I don't think it's working. Nobody get stars, exceept the BBO stars.
I don't seem to be compatible with my steady pard; I hardly play with anybody else .....
So wonder, which criteria are used

I suspect that large numbers of people friend stars to facilitate spectating.
In turn, this suggests that the stars are compatible partners.

[barmar]

 c3cummins, on 2014-May-14, 08:10, said:

I prefer this feature to be entirely optional and at the control of the individual player. So the category itself is removable. I would like to be able to "edit" it out of the profile.

It's not part of the profile. It's a comparison between you and the other player.

[barmar]

 patilan40, on 2014-May-14, 05:22, said:

Why I can't see my compatibility score?

You have different compatibility with each player, since compatibility is based on the number of things the two of you have in common.

[barmar]

 eleanorsf, on 2014-May-14, 01:31, said:

Can you make this feature an option, that could then be turned on or off as the player prefers?

Just ignore it if you don't want to use it.

Or are you asking for a way to prevent everyone else from seeing how compatible they are with you?

[barmar]

 Wayne_LV, on 2014-May-13, 14:58, said:

I think it is yet another attempt to measure an apple with a micrometer.

It's an attempt to turn a totally random crapshoot into a slightly biased crapshoot. It doesn't have to be perfect, or even great, it just needs to be better than the nothing we had before.

No one is forcing anyone to partner only with players with high compatibility scores. If you want diversity, go for it. If you don't care whether partner will understand you when you try to discuss system, then play with someone who speaks a different language.

[eleanorsf]

 barmar, on 2014-May-14, 18:02, said:

Just ignore it if you don't want to use it.

Or are you asking for a way to prevent everyone else from seeing how compatible they are with you?

I want to disable the feature so i don't have to wonder why my regular partners get 1.5 stars, and people i've never played with get 5 stars. it's impossible to ignore since it's right there.

I don't care if others can see my score w/r to themselves, it's their decision how to use this info.

[1eyedjack]

 hrothgar, on 2014-May-14, 06:32, said:

1. Khrystyna made an extremely important comment:

While I am quite sure that many folks use the "friends" and "enemies" tags, I doubt that they are using them to describe player compatibility. I think this would inject a lot of noise into the system

I don't see Khrystyna's comment as having such importance, As the poster acknowledges, she would rather not partner players flagged as enemies, which is precisely what the parameter measures. The fact that the reasons for her flagging them as enemies might differ from the traditionally expected reasons is not important. Indeed she is if anything likely to get a more accurate compatibility rating for other players from having done so.

Perhaps what is required is a user-configurable panel in the options settings that allows the end user the choice to set how much weight should be assigned to each factor that is taken into account (with a reset to recommended defaults button). That seems like a fair amount of programming work resulting in a fair amount of screen clutter for what may not get much use in the end (certainly not by me but I can't speak for others).

One interesting (to me) point is that compatibility does not seem to be reciprocal. If I flag Bloggs as a friend, and Bloggs flags me as an enemy, then we shall each see differing compatibility when viewing the other's profile. I think that most users in ignorance of how it is calculated will not realise that. I could be wrong. Perhaps the system takes into account the friend/enemy settings of BOTH players before assigning (common) compatibility scores to either? Maybe I can the predict who has flagged me as enemy, reducing the privacy of that setting.

[Antrax]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-May-14, 20:32, said:

Perhaps what is required is a user-configurable panel in the options settings that allows the end user the choice to set how much weight should be assigned to each factor that is taken into account

Why would anyone know which coefficients to use? With BBO they can ultimately see how well a pair meshes together (say, by counting how many boards or sessions they choose to play together) and apply some machine learning based on that. What can a human do?

[govind]

It would be interesting to know how this Compatibility Score is computed. Does it depend on the tournament? Or Enemies? What factors are taken into consideration?
It looks to be behaving in a weird manner as of now. I got 5 stars score in Tasmanian devils, 4 1/2 in Early Bird, No score at all in Yin and Yang on two successive days. How strange? Will this behavior be of any help to people on BBO? Instead of giving a correct representation of Compatibility, it seems to be damaging the credibility of a player!
Please look into this.

[Ms Grizzly]

Hi. I like the idea of showing compatibility, esp with systems used. I do not like matching by country or language, though. One of the best things here is accessibility to many different nationalities, and this enriches our experience.
Thank you,
Ms Grizzly

[1eyedjack]

 Antrax, on 2014-May-14, 21:46, said:

Why would anyone know which coefficients to use? With BBO they can ultimately see how well a pair meshes together (say, by counting how many boards or sessions they choose to play together) and apply some machine learning based on that. What can a human do?

I may be missing the point. As I understood it, the current system takes account of variety of disparate factors such as country and masterpoints, applies some arbitrary but opaque weighting to those factors and arrives at a "bottom line".
Individual users might, if provided with the default weighting applied to these factors, prefer to apply different weightings of their choice. Some might, for example, place a premium on country correlation. Others may regard that as utterly irrelevant.

I envisaged a table of sliders, like you get if you apply for a pay-day loan from Wonga. Each slider would represent a factor that is taken into account, pre-set to the BBO default. But you could drag it over to the left or right if you disagree with the weighting.

All this presupposes that we are not going down a blind alley and that the whole exercise is worth doing at all.

[rcarle]

 diana_eva, on 2014-May-13, 10:19, said:

A new version of BBO was released today. Version 1.48f. Partner compatibility score is the main change in this version.

For details, see:
http://www.bridgebas...-compatibility/

Please post your suggestions/feedback here!

Will my rating change depending on who reads it?