Hi. This may have already been talked about before, but I want to bring it back to discuss (and to clearly understand why this still happens) the most frustrating thing when I am using OGS. The way Glicko rating is presented instead of the pretty much universal kyu/dan system.
I mean, I understand that is possible to see my ranking on the home page (which doesn’t make any sense to me, why do I need to click on the home page to see my own ranking instead of my own profile?) and to see it when I hover in the graph (which is again a usability mess for me. Why can I see my rating in kyu when I use a filter, ex: 19x19 in correspondence? The graph only shows the glicko rating, which doesn’t allow me to understand this information)
Also, I do know it’s possible to use this userscript, which I do use it everyday. But this only changes for me. If I am elsewhere, instead of my home computer, it’s this random numbers all over again.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the Glicko Rating is awesome to use and I really would like to thank OGS devs from improving on that. I just complaining about the how they make all those nice statistics that OGS provides us into the garbage (because, again, I do know how to play go, I do understand the kyu/dan system, but I never have seem any need for the knowing your own Glicko rating instead)
So, summarizing up:
Why is the Glicko Rating being shown on the profile if the kyu/dan is much more known and easily understandable (especially for go beginners)?
Why do I need to be on the home page or to hover the line in the graph to see my ranking in kyu (which, again, it’s way more easier to understand)?
Knowing my Glicko Rating is useless information for me, does it really need to be privileged instead of the kyu/dan, which is used for centuries and pretty much anywhere else around the world?
Below I just attached two images, showing how much easier it’s to understand when showing in kyu/dan, especially for users who are just starting in go.
Firstly, your rank in kyu/dan is displayed everywhere you can see your name. Even in your own picture, you can see very clearly it says “Ptro [16k]” and this is persistent across all locations for every players’ name. As such, I’m not sure what you mean when you say you need to go to home page to see it?
Secondly, the devs believe it to be misleading to represent all the little board and speed breakdowns as kyu/dan ranks and that the glicko numbers are more accurate to the information they are truly trying to present. I can’t track down an exact quote from them at this stage but you’ll likely find it in the main glicko-2 announcement.
That’s my mistake then, never really noticed it there. The persistent part it’s what makes it so inconsistent. Why some places are shown in kyu/dan and other in Glicko? It definitely isn’t clear to a OGS user (not a OGS forum user), and I would never understand what are those number if didn’t had entered in the forums.
Sorry, but now I really have to disagree with the devs. If they think it’s misleading then why they are even showing that info in the first place? If it’s just to be a wall of incomprehensible numbers then those number are not adding any value to the user, therefore they aren’t needed. They must show the information in a way the user can understand and process the information or don’t shown at all, it’s simple.
The web interface is all open source. If you think there is a better way to display it, by all means please feel free to submit a pull request of your implementation and you and anoek can discuss its potential.
Which I would, without a problem. Thing is, I lack the necessary knowledge to implement that. If someone more experienced in that area could do it I would be truly grateful. And, of course, would love to see the devs opinion about this topic.
(Actually I did translated the entire portuguese translation of OGS 2 times. Some problems happened and erased my work both times. I contacted the devs, they cleared up what happened and for me it’s all good. Just saying that to show how I truly would help them if I could)
It’s great that you contribute to the site, and it’s also great that you contributed with translation because I can use that as an analogy.
In almost any work of translating, it is rare that every word will have a perfect counterpart that both literally and contextually matches up in both languages, so in a lot of cases the translator will use their own discretion and pick the words that they think convey the most accurate meaning. Another translator might disagree with their choice, but the one doing the work gets the final say.
This parallels really well into our current situation. There is probably merit for either displaying glicko rating numbers or converting those into loose kyu/dan approximations. However, the person who coded the page got to make that choice and until someone comes along to re-code it, it’ll stay that way unless a very strong argument can be made that the original decision was wrong (not simply something that some others don’t like as much).
I hope I have added more clarity to this discussion and not simply introduced more confusion
Not all, everything you said about translation is completely true. Thing is, it’s precisely what I am trying to do here. The first and foremost purpose of my creating this topic is: try to understand why show Glicko instead of kyu/dan
Exactly what I trying to do here. I’m presenting several arguments and questions to motivate the discussion about this and, if possible, change that.
Now that’s simply not true. I don’t wanted to bring it up because I felt it was a bit unnecessary, but I just spend a semester studying about UX in college. Errors in usability of some sites/apps became extremely visible to me. Nothing I said here is based on taste, it’s backed up by academic knowledge. I could justify all my previous points using academics sources if it’s really necessary (for a quick lookup search for “Nielsen Heuristics”). I didn’t do that in the first place because that’s just being rude to the developer who made that choice and it certainly will detract the discussion about this. I am not trying to have a final voice, I feel this must be discussed by the community and then, if it’s agreed that it is a positive thing then it should be implemented.
I dislike these type of responses to people that are offering suggestions in good faith. It seems to imply that delivering code is a prerequisite, whereas I believe anyone can make helpful suggestions even if they cannot offer the implementation.
Further, in this case, and others where it is a UX/design issue, I think it’s especially worthwhile to discuss the design amongst the community, rather than just two people.
You all are right, I didn’t respond yesterday with as much tact as I could have. I’m under a lot of stress currently and I apologise.
I don’t have time to look up the exact quote right now, but somewhere in these forums (I’m assuming in the Glicko-2 launch thread) @anoek discussed his choice of design for the panel in questiono. He said, if I remember correctly, that he believed using kyu/dan numbers in that section would be inaccurate, and that he was weighing up between displaying the glicko rating numbers or simply removing the table entirely.
In the end he decided to include the glicko numbers and see how it goes. Hopefully someone with a bit more time can track down the reference for me. @GreenAsJade have you and anoek discussed the rating table at all during your numerous design conversations?
It’s also visible on the home page, above your kyu/dan rank. However, this is precisely my point. It’s creating an inconsistency which doesn’t serve any purpose besides creating an unnecessary confusion when using the site.
Promptly accepted. Despite the fact that this kind of attitude is a bit too common within open source communities, we all lives outside go which sometimes makes us to things we don’t actually want to. There is no reason for hard feelings and I actually appreciate the fact you came here and apologized.
I can totally agree that the rank thing is overly complex on OGS. I like playing with people +1 to -1 of my rank. There was a time where I tried to figure out my rank but at one point I just gave up and I use a workaround.
I create a game with the setting I like and then in the game listing I see my rank. Then I cancel that posting and create a game where the min max rating limitations I put 1 less and 1 more than my rank.
I’m so used to my workaround that only now I realised that I wish this would be easier.
That’s the main thing about errors in usability in systems which are already in place. You are so used to the way you know that you almost never notice how much easier it could be if you could chose another way, only when someone points out and say “Hey, things doesn’t need to be this harder. Let me show how this can be easier if we made this way instead”.
Well, I disagree. Let me point out a few more things:
There are right now 2 rating systems being used in OGS. Can you tell me which purpose they serve? You may say that: “Glicko is used for matchmaking and kyu/dan is showing that info in a more accessible way to everyone”. Well, in that case, you just proved my point. Because, right now, Glicko is being shown as a main info on the player profile, which isn’t what he was designed to in first place. Which makes the player ratings table and the graph, in some cases, unreadable.
Can read (that is, clearly understand) Glicko rating? If yes, then where/when do you learned about it? Because I can tell you one thing for sure, I didn’t learn how to read in Glicko when I learned how to playing Go. In fact, if wasn’t for OGS I would never even know that it existed in first place.
You said that the current rating display placement doesn’t detract in any significant way from a UX point of view, but you haven’t stated why do you think this way. Can you please elaborate more on why you think UX isn’t being degraded in this case?
I know this may sound rude and definitely isn’t my intent, but can you be 100% sure that all users agree with you (that is, none of them has a UX problem with the player profile)? But if you can’t, and surely neither can I, this poses a big question for both of us. What I think about this, however, is a pretty simple concept. Despite if a UX problem happens with the majority of users or with a minority of users, I feel that no one should have your usability degraded because of something that adds little or no value to some users, especially when all of them (and in this case I can tell you for sure) would be profiting from this change.
This issue being discussed here doesn’t affect my ability to play hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of games.
I would content (without evidence) that the ability of my many, many oppponents’ ability to play Go against me is not affected either. I would stick my head above the parapet and go further to suggest that for most people on OGS it doesn’t matter.
As previously mentioned the rank is everywhere in one’s face where it matters - the Home page,
the Game page and also on the profile page right after one’s username.
The number rating (Glicko) is (I believe) only prominent on the Profile page in the chart and the graphs. But even with the graph, hovering over it shows both the number rating and the rank.
Does it bother me? No.
Does it affect my use of the website? No.
Do I understand number ratings? Yes - check out Wikipedia for a comparison of ELO ratings against ranks.
If there is no specific reason for number ratings on the chart and the graphs and it’s easy to change in respect of the code then sure, why not…
It is fairly easy to change, but perhaps it should be made an option in the settings.
Only the overall rank is actually used. All the other rating are purely for information. Were they kept as ratings to avoid confusion? Would people assume that a 19x19 rank would be used when creating a 19x19 custom game?
Sorry, I worded that question a bit poorly. Let me rephrase that. Can you use the Glicko Rating as a personal mean for referencing your own skill, the same way as you do in kyu/dan?
Not exactly. Kyu/dan is only shown in the graph when your overall skill is selected. Try selecting another cell in the table, and you will see that only glicko rating will appear when hovering in the graph.
Oh, I think I see where are you coming from. It seems that we are disagreeing even on the subject of what we are disagreeing on. I will again explicit some more UX concepts that I used when formulating this suggestion.
One of the very widespread methods for evaluating the severity of an error in usability of a application (Nielsen, 1998) is to divide those problems in 3 categories, ordered from the most severe to the least severe:
Catastrophic problem: which completely hinders the user from finishing its task (Example: some problem that might cause stones appearing in the wrong place on the board)
Serious problem: which disturbs the user from finishing its tank (He manages to finish the task, but the experience isn’t what it’s supposed to be)
Cosmetic issue: which doesn’t affect his usability in general, only annoys him. (Think of a typo or a visual glitch)
You seem to think that I am categorizing this problem as a “Catastrophic” which isn’t true. I am categorizing the way Glicko Rating is shown in the user profile as a “Serious Problem” . Why is a “Serious Problem” and not a “Cosmetic Issue” you may ask. Simple, because it’s not possible to utilize the information that Glicko is supposed to present in the way it’s supposed to be used. Therefore, it’s hindering my access to that information and a correct utilization of this information.
You could solve this by changing to a kyu/dan which is already widespread adopted ranking system, and this time you can assure the user can understand that information, since it’s expected that a user who plays Go online to understand about the kyu/dan system.