[gwnn]

There have been stars awarded for teams who finished in the top 25% in the U28 Swiss in China (in a field with the likes of Zimbabwe and so on). That was quite excessive, I thought...

[JLOGIC]

 gwnn, on 2011-April-21, 03:17, said:

There have been stars awarded for teams who finished in the top 25% in the U28 Swiss in China (in a field with the likes of Zimbabwe and so on). That was quite excessive, I thought...

Perhaps that is a large reason that they chose to change their criteria for getting a star?

[gwnn]

Yes sure. I guess I was applauding the efforts, but it does create an odd situation where people who finished, say, 14th got a star because they asked for one at the right time and people who finished, say, 4th, didn't. Not saying it's unfair, or bad. Just that it feels odd.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, too many stars for mediocre players. Even I am better than some of them and I am yet to win anything in bridge.
I would like very strict policy like:

a)only open events and women world championship counts
b)only place in first 4 counts

If you:
a)were in semis in BermudaBowl/Olympiad/WMSG
b)were in finals of Vanderbilt/Spingold
c)were in top 3 in World Open Pairs or European Teams Championship
d)won the lesser but still major tournaments (Yeh Bros Cup for example, or European Pairs Championship or USBF or European Champions Cup) then you are a star. If you haven't you are not.

(obviously details could vary, but should be strict and public)

And one thing which I think is very very important to restore star status: Remove all existing stars. Please do that, too much abuse going on those now.
(by abuse I mean that people who got a star when it was easy to get one can now profit by having more students/recognition while people who won more can't just because policy has changed).

[Phil]

I don't think creating 'superstars' creates any kind of rating system, any more than a 'star' imparts differentiation from the herd.

As a matter of fact, I think its a perfectly good way to separate those that have won something significant, from those that have either achieved stars through subjectivity, winning restricted events (seniors / juniors and women's), or by simply representing their country (LOL usually).

I would love to see superstars awarded to those that have won any major open NABC, or major open WBF event. It seems there are other elite events that should also qualify, like the European Teams for instance. Events like the Transnationals wouldn't count, nor would many of the 'lesser' NABC titles.

Stars get to keep their stars, but to the uneducated, they get to understand that someone named Sillafu is more significant than a random player from say, Tunisia.

[Bbradley62]

I cannot find any explanation on the website of the meaning of a "star" designation. Maybe such an explanation would help people understand who the "stars" are and why we non-stars might be interested.

[matmat]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-April-21, 02:11, said:

I thought it was obvious that:

Nothing was a star qualification according to whatever the policy is right now.

The inconsistency here is not bias, it is simply a policy change. Had Tim tried to become a star a year or two ago with his current qualifications, he would be qualified multiple times.

I might be missing some information/have some of my dates wrong, but it seems to me that:

Event A happened.
People B through P asked for stars based on event A. got them.
BBO revised its star awarding policy.
Person Q asked for a star based on event A. did not get it.

of course BBO is free to do whatever the hell it pleases, but it does seem inconsistent.

[Aberlour10]

 bluecalm, on 2011-April-21, 09:04, said:

Remove all existing stars. Please do that, too much abuse going on those now.(by abuse I mean that people who got a star when it was easy to get one can now profit by having more students/recognition while people who won more can't just because policy has changed).

IMO the solution with change to a same star-symbol with 2 different colors in design (f.ex) would be much better. One for all players who fulfill the new criteria, other for these who not but got the star before it was introduced. Of course only if this solution would not cost BBO stuff too much time & work for new verifing etc etc.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2011-April-20, 08:54, said:

To me, the great question (by far) is whether Fred was conciously thinking of sneetches when he chose the term "star"

Good work, Hrothgar! IMO the Star system recognizes expert achievement and helps me find a table to kibitz. Perhaps stars could wane with time. Arguably, however, rating systems are complex/confusing enough already. Star-criteria should be objective, clear and published, to remove uncertainty and to ensure that sneetches can locate themselves on the Gitelman-Hertzprung-Russell diagram.

[hotShot]

I think it would be a good idea to award people who won a world championship with some sort of icon.
Perhaps their star could be golden while others have a silver star.
Juniors could get a bronze star for their achievements.

[gwnn]

I nominate hrothgar's for Post of the Decade.

[JLOGIC]

 matmat, on 2011-April-21, 10:52, said:

I might be missing some information/have some of my dates wrong, but it seems to me that:

Event A happened.
People B through P asked for stars based on event A. got them.
BBO revised its star awarding policy.
Person Q asked for a star based on event A. did not get it.

of course BBO is free to do whatever the hell it pleases, but it does seem inconsistent.

These both seem reasonable to me:

1) A certain result was deemed starworthy at some point in time. Anyone who at any point asks for a star based on this can receive it, regardless of start criteria change.

2) A certain result was deemed starworthy at some point in time. The rule change makes this no longer starworthy. However, if you received a star based on it, you are grandfathered in, as BBO does not want to strip anyone of their star. However, if you did not receive a star before the rule change, you are not grandfathered in (as the point of the grandfathering is to prevent people from being stripped), and thus do not get a star.

Maybe BBO is receptive to point 1, it is the best argument, but if they are in the point 2 category that also seems reasonable.

[JLOGIC]

The problem with "superstars" or a star ranking system like bronze/silver/gold, is that you are effectively greatly reducing the value of the current star by creating it. It would be similar to just stripping current people of their star if they are not worth it.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, BBO does not really owe anything to the current stars. But it will lead to a lot of hurt feelings which I presume is why BBO has grandfathered people in, and I presume in general avoids rating systems.

Perhaps BBO should never have introduced stars, but the original idea was that a star meant BBO endorsed watching this person if you are a random person on BBO and don't know who to watch. It wasn't really supposed to be a merit badge. This is definitely true, because you can for instance be stripped of your star based on bad behavior (sadly I learned this several times!). The idea being, BBO will not endorse watching you by giving you a star if you are very poorly behaved, regardless of your results.

The idea of now creating a system of a better star and a worse star(s) is that you are now saying "actually, you should REALLY watch these people, but these other people do not suck." And then there would be fighting over the criteria of a super star. I am not part of BBO but from what I know about them, they try to avoid stuff like this, which ironically is the whole point of the objective criteria rather than the former subjective criteria.

[cherdano]

The criterion I would like to see for "superstars" is quite easy, and 120% objective: Any player whom cherdano enjoys kibbitzing.

[nigel_k]

I had a star once. It was in kindergarten and the teacher stuck it on my hand when I did something good. Now that I am more than five years old these things seems less important. This is a very sad thread.

[1eyedjack]

Depending on the magnitude of the issue (and whether this thread is representative of feeling), I thought that the earlier comment of removing ALL stars and then starting again seems quite plausible although in the first few months it would involve BBO management in a huge amount of work processing reapplications.

The main point being: No individual previously in receipt of a star need (justifiably) feel aggrieved at the (initial) removal of his star, as he is not being singled out or treated any differently from all other former star players.

I would however sympathise with the workload placed on BBO and that could indeed be prohibitive.

[shintaro]

 hrothgar, on 2011-April-20, 08:54, said:

To me, the great question (by far)
is whether Fred was conciously thinking of sneetches when he chose the term "star"

ROFL now this one I like


Can I suggest us 'Old Age Pensioners' of the Bridge World are awarded 'Oak Leaves' for longevity to Bridge

[bluecalm]

This is really quite ridiculous that some people have unfair advantage on coaching/self advertising market due to bad policy before.
I mean I know that bbo stuff have more interesting things to do than reviewing star applications but just cancelling all of them would be better than current situation imo, even more so because star system doesn't fulfill its role anyway as most stars aren't world class/kibitzing worthy players as of now.
I also don't agree that there that much work to do with reviewing applications. If criteria are strict and clear it's about 3 minutes google for each person. There could be even requirement to give a linkg to result of required tournament so it's easy to verify.
There won't be that many stars with current criteria and I guess identity verification work is already done anyway.

[peachy]

 wyman, on 2011-April-19, 20:21, said:

Several USA Juniors have stars, of course.

So do juniors from other countries.

[peachy]

Subjective criteria never good, well "never" say never, and sometimes that is all there is.
Representing one's country in international competition is a variable concept. Representing US or France, for example, is totally different than representing Malta or Zimbabwe or other smaller countries who have never even approached of winning something. Then there are Nordic Friendship League, Small Federations Cups and other limited international events where the level is not even close to World Class

I like the idea of scrapping stars and starting over with more accurate and measurable objective criteria. Or just scrap the stars altogether.