|
So I saw something you wrote about ranking clans not being based on personal preferences,
and to that I argue this:
Clans being better than one another is almost the same thing as comparing two different types of candy bars.
Most categories you mention lack numerical expression, or the numbers are irrelevant.
For example, size. The size of a candy bar doesn't make it much better to somebody who say can't eat a lot of candy.
To that individual who can't eat a sizeable chunk of candy, the bigger candy bar is not better for him at all.
So say an individual can't get along with a whole lot of people. Sure, in a big clan he can choose to limit himself. But that is a hypothetical. What we can observe numerically (objectively) is that, for say FEAR it'd be a ratio of 200,000:1
Another thing, "war". "fighting". "training". "activity".
Those are also some categories that aren't always relevant or are incompletely analyzed.
Activity is a big one that is not looked at a lot in depth.
For example, again with FEAR. FEAR still rallies a good amount of members right, compared to a lot of other clans potentially. Weekly visits to their games don't look that bad. BUT proportionally, of 200,000 members recorded only a little over 10,700 have put forth interest enough to purchase identifying patches (that number derived from their most purchased sash in the store). That's 1 per 200 members.
Another thing, to acquire those numbers above I had to look to the store in order to observe the most reliable number available to me at this time.
This leads to this point: how are you getting your numbers?
Places don't show weekly place visits anymore. Nor are those reliable as a representation of same-clan same-member. The players might be other clans members.
All in all, it looks as if the primary categories for ranking clans are heavily subjective and based on unverifiable observations/conjectures.
In the end, at least if we honestly give our opinions about clans, we can rank clans by popularity instead of our subjective bs.
that way, we get a better sense of which clans have a stronger impact in the community.
The greater a clan is represented proportionally, the better we're able to surmise what clan is more successful than another. |
|
|
|
|
WB says so much
but not here |
|
|
FINALLY!
FACTS
TheDarkVaraug, Evan || Add 23,771 Posts
|
|
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
I didn't come across this until about a minute ago. I kind of understand your argument but not entirely since it's a bit all over the place. Could you wrap it up in a couple of sentences and tell me what exactly is the main reason people should not be consistent with their ranking criteria when evaluating different groups? |
|
|
"...is the main reason people SHOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT..."
So my point isn't really that they shouldn't be consistent.
Rather, I am offering a valid means of consistency.
Because as far as ROBLOX goes other means of consistency are rather inconsistent.
This is evidenced by the inability to collect accurate data that is NOT SUBJECTIVE.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Winning a raid or dozens of them does not make your clan BETTER.
Especially when nobody has DEFINED BETTER.
It just means it won more often. |
|
|
Also, you might be thinking,
"well taking a survey is asking for people's subjective input"
Aye,
I agree.
However, it is more objective that we analyze SUPPORT for a group based on PROPORTIONS, which can be numerically expressed and is itself not subjective. |
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
I don't follow you at all lol |
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
Is your argument that people should not be explaining the criteria they use for their group ranking scheme because there isn't accurate data for every single component that they could use? |
|
|
this is dumb
clans have so many identical factors in them that they are easily comparable.
his argument would only be valid in comparing ro-nations and war clans |
|
|
what lol
okay
my argument is that you cannot be consistent on here
in the ways that you have attempted before
this is because consistency demands that the same methods be followed the same way over and over without bias
the issue here, is there is no way to eliminate bias or even get close to getting rid of it in the methods you have suggested in other threads
You also particularly said you cannot determine a clan's status or rank using your personal preference
SOOOO
I spelled out how exactly your methods cannot be consistent or bias-eliminating
You cannot categorize clans in a ranking system where the criteria are based on subjective (opinionated) input
"this clan fights good" < subjective. Cannot prove this.
You CAN say "this clan won"
but that is only 1 aspect that can be numerically represented
and it assumes that victory is a criteria
In addition to that,
I spell out how personal preference in the way of surveys can express numerically how much better a clan is
this is because as opposed to other criteria, the representation that a clan has on a survey is not itself biased although those representing it may be biased
this is irrelevant as long as you have PROPORTIONS as parameters:
so in a clan of 100 people, 70 answer the survey saying they love it right.
7 in every 10 members.
another clan with 100,000 members has 200 people saying they love it.
2 in every 1000 members
Proportionally speaking, the clan at 7 in every ten has to be more successful if their turn out is greater proportionally on a survey. |
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
My argument isn't even that the same criteria must be used for evaluating all groups. It's obvious that to different people different factors matter. My argument is that when you're making a top clan list, you should state what you personally are ranking the groups on (factors that matter to you) and that you should be consistent with them. Ranking a group top 3 for its war performance, then another group 5th for its activity doesn't make for a good subjective evaluation. What people who look for activity and war performance do instead, is give a rank to all groups on both their activity and war performance and then state which they find to be more important. Otherwise even these subjective top clan lists just don't make any sense. |
|
|
"identical factors"
I don't know what that means. Define that.
The factors I see involved are "activity"
"fighting"
"tech"
These are all based on opinion. You cannot tell me you watch a clan fight another one, and step back and say "oh that was pretty good I do say so myself"
You can't. Not without it being opinionated at least. Your opinion as to what defines "good" and "bad".
Your opinion is not the same as the next person.
So, validity... eh. If you want to break this into syllogism be my guest but I am hunting for the truth not validity. You can say lies that are completely valid statements. |
|
|
Oh okay, I see what you mean.
This isn't a diss on you btw.
I just wanted to see what you thought and maybe spark discussion on it.
For a long time I've seen clan ranking threads and never see their criteria defined.
At the very least you're supporting that they bother trying. |
|
|
|
"this clan fights good" < subjective. Cannot prove this."
if a clan is made of good gunfighters who often wins raids at difficult bases we can say they are skilled
there has been no problems on the topic of this |
|
|
Eh not with anyone in your crowd.
And it is skilled relative to the systems in play (weapons, the place, etc)
there's too much opinion involved, I feel like.
And you lot may well enjoy that your opinions seem accurate, but you cannot call them full proof. |
|
|
you just make things over complex honestly.
|
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
Activity could be measured using the developer statistics ROBLOX provides to all creators. These statistics show hourly visits, weekly visits and monthly visits giving you different ranges where you could use to compare the activity of groups. This is precise and objective input, but it's not the only one that's valid. Observation is also a very valid way of ranking something. If a clan consistently has 20 people at its events, and another one has 8 with a 40 man rally once in 6 months it's fair to say that the former clan is more active than the latter one.
War performance can be objectively ranked too by looking at the track record of different groups. This process would be no different than the evaluation system top sports organizations like UFC use - UFC also goes by track records in evaluating how good the fighters are.
With regards to stability, you may not find an obvious numerical system demonstrating which group is more stable, but it's easy to say that a clan without internal strife is more stable than a group that had plenty of it to the point where the account of a leader got stolen and 1000 LRs were promoted to the rank of 'general'. |
|
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
It's totally not true to say that for an evaluation system to be meaningful or effective it must be entirely objective. The financial world shows this better than anything else. Look at credit rating agencies like S&P that conduct national evaluations for credit in different countries and regions, look at the stock market that uses its own set of a logarithms to put a value on different corporations. Many of the world's most influential evaluation systems are entirely not precise yet they govern the way people live, so to say that on a game like ROBLOX there must be objective input to have meaningful evaluations is just not true man. |
|
|
also your ratios idea is the dumbest thing i have heard all day |
|
WannaBetJoin Date: 2011-01-01
Post Count: 23607 |
Plat, I didn't know that you considered me to be the greatest clan analyst on this website. Thanks man, respect. |
|