Thread: Alternative rating method?

Yes I could see a new rating based on more than rarity as well, as I've already made a suggestion to that a few pages earlier. The topic of this thread is still "what invites are worth" and therefore, any change has to be made carefully. In the beginning the rarity should be weighted highest above all other criteria to not reverse the whole list with introducing a new rating system.

i think that the actual way of rating tracker by rarity is ok, because the title of the trade is "what invites are worth" not which is the best tracker to get. It's like everything, there is value associated with rarity.

why diamond are expensive... because they are rare

why honus wagner baseball card worths 300,000$, because it's very very rare...!

not because honus wagner was the best baseball player of all time, there are other kind of rankings for that

i think people are questionning the ranking now that sct and ftn aren't at the top level anymore. Because they were the best trackers, it was natural to see them at top rank also. What happen these days, is that shitty tracker are the rarest, but we don't know what will happen in the months to come, maybe a top site will return to level 10 and uk-t drop to 8, we cannot predict the future

hope you see my point here

so patriot and buggyme, you are doing a good job with this thread i think

Originally Posted by KFlint

i think that the actual way of rating tracker by rarity is ok, because the title of the trade is "what invites are worth" not which is the best tracker to get. It's like everything, there is value associated with rarity.

Well, I think you have a point because this is still a list that is used as a basis for trading invites and accounts. On the other hand, quality and true value of a tracker isn't displayed distinctively enough and some people, including me, are missing this. If there's no way to change the whole level and rating issue by recreating a new formula for it, maybe more should be done about the ratings then.

While it's good that the best ratings (9 and 10) are very rare, too little thought was put into the ratings of "average" trackers. In fact, most listed trackers range from 6 to 8 with hardly any tracker below that number. Why is that? Almost 90 trackers are hardly distinguishable by their ratings even though they're worlds apart in reality. Is that a problem of keeping the list up to date or has it always been this way? I mean, some tracker has to be the worst, why hold back with giving ratings of 2, 3, 4 or 5?

Furthermore, separate lists with directly comparable trackers (ie only/mainly music, elearning/books, tv and a large list of 0day and general) would help to create a working rating even more. Then they could be rated with complete disregard to their level.