| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 59: |
Line 59: |
| | | | |
| | If I edit this table again I'm going to modify the script I used to make the wiki table to at least include the expansion as a column. I'm toying with the idea of just putting the card name and the rating(s) in the same box, making it impossible to sort by card rating but maybe using the sortable table to function as a less-good way of filtering by the other fields that are available. This might be an acceptable compromise. | | If I edit this table again I'm going to modify the script I used to make the wiki table to at least include the expansion as a column. I'm toying with the idea of just putting the card name and the rating(s) in the same box, making it impossible to sort by card rating but maybe using the sortable table to function as a less-good way of filtering by the other fields that are available. This might be an acceptable compromise. |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Adam, multiple people have told you that they want this table to be sortable by ranking. If that means you want your name taken off of it, then it's just some random ratings, and that's kind of pointless. This table is either going to have your name on it and be sortable by ranking, or it's not going to be on the wiki at all.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | P.S. you can sign your post using four tildes in a row, like so: [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ---
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Take it down then.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -Adam
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ---
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wero, I asked you to delete the page instead of continuing to revert it back to a sortable table. Just delete the stupid thing already.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -Adam
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ---
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Adam, I find your take on the sorting unpersuasive. The problems you describe like high variance are problems inherent to rating itself, not to comparison, and saying you don't see the uses for sorting given them doesn't mean those uses don't exist.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | > The relevant comparison(s) to make here are between a card and the 0-10 scale. When cards get compared to each other is when it starts to deviate from what the data is trying to show. Sorting the data invites the reader to make only the "smaller" comparisons (comparisons between cards of similar rating) which are the least valid ones to make.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is not the only way to use a sort to make comparisons. For instance, a very common practice in games is to use a sorted list as the basis for a tier list, in which you look for natural divisions in the data to carve out tiers, inviting comparison between cards that are far away on the scale (you will clearly see that KC is "better" than Transmute) while discouraging comparisons between nearby ones.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | > This is a good reason for someone to sort the data on their own, but not a reason for the data to be presented in a way that encourages readers to sort it.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is an unjustified assertion and completely backwards. This takes about a second to perform if the list is sortable on the wiki while it may take minutes to perform if someone has to download and sort it themselves. It's exactly the kind of task that a sortable table on the wiki makes most worthwhile.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On a broader note, I think I disagree philosophically with the mindset you're approaching this from. Wikis are public resources, and I think trying to gatekeep what people can and can't do with the info that you put on them is presumptuous and condescending, especially since it's clear you've been overlooking common use cases that involve sorting, such as checking for data rescaling and forming a tier list. Imo we should assume that people are in general better judges of what best serves their own purposes than we are, and so we should try to accommodate the broadest range of common use cases that we can.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My hope would be that this data can remain on the website for common use, in a sortable form. Taking it down over a relatively minor disagreement about its presentation seems extreme to me. I also think this discussion of removing your name from the page kind of misses the point of contributing to a wiki, where you're releasing the data to the community of people who will also contribute, and further changes don't have to represent an endorsement by you of those changes. After all, it does say right below this very edit window "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[User:Panama|Panama]] ([[User talk:Panama|talk]]) 14:42, 7 February 2019 (EST)Panama
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * With Panama's response, I have reconsidered. I'm going to revert the table to being sortable, and keep the page on here, as clearly there is some desire to have this information available. What I will do, however, is amend my ultimatum from deleting the page if AdamH reverts it: I will instead block AdamH from editing for 1 month if he reverts it again, because hey, I can do that, and technically he is removing information from the page, which is one of the drop-down reasons I can use for blocking a user.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | You're not going to win this, AdamH. Please don't make me take action that will make you hate me even more. [[User:Werothegreat|Werothegreat]] ([[User talk:Werothegreat|talk]]) 15:53, 7 February 2019 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ---
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I've talked to several other people about this, including Qvist. These people were actually willing to have conversations with me about what's going on here and what features they actually want from these ratings, as opposed to making threats and turning this into a competition.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Based on those conversations, people were asking for many features related to this data that a wiki table won't support. Maintaining the page is also an issue, since the poll is constantly open and is updated several times a year, I don't want to be responsible for keeping this wiki table up-to-date, especially given how hostile you've been, Wero.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So what I've done is this: I made a Google Doc that's suitable for sharing with anyone interested in the data. It contains the raw data as well as statistics on that data, which satisfy all of the features that people who were willing to have a conversation with me have actually asked for. And yes, the data is sortable by all fields, including rating.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The most important thing here is that people aren't going to sort the data by rating when what they're really trying to accomplish is some kind of filtering or something else (which the Google Doc supports). The next most important thing is that nobody has to maintain this wiki table whenever the data gets updated (which it already has).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | So the table that was on the page before my edit is now obsolete and I'm no longer willing to maintain it. I'll continue to maintain the Google Doc, so I'm going to delete the table and replace it with a link to the Google Doc. If you want to block me from editing wiki pages based off that, go right ahead man. I'm ready to wash my hands of this situation
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -AdamH
| |
