[Mbodell]

I wonder if we could incorporate the trait of if you both understand what compatibility scores are and how they are not fixed for an individual but actually represent a rating of a pair into the compatibility formula.

[0 carbon]

Why stars? They already have too many meanings in BBO. Use smilies! Or teddy bears!
I think language compatibility should only be counted for countries where English is uncommon.
We can see MPs in the player bubble - don't use MP level as a criterion.
If either of you mark the other as an enemy, don't show ANY compatibility! It's likely that the enemier(!) won't invite and the enemieed will always be rejected. But enemy status just expresses incompatibility. It does not mean either is a jerk to all.
Categorized friends should be bumped up - you obviously have more interest in friends you have classified.


I'd rather see the rough average scores for the last 2 months or so as a partnership, eg "-3i 53%" You could even have it clickable to explore previous tourneys/hands.

For convention compatibility, check for any "words" in common in the profile. Ideally you would use a synonym list, eg, equating prec and precision. This also encourages people to put what they like in their profiles.

One extra thing you could also do is put a yellow (vs current black) 1-pixel box around players with whom you share a convention card. This would encourage more use of convention cards.

[0 carbon]

All the criteria above are possible indications of alikeness.

But isn't partnership success the main goal?

So why not look in your records to see what successful(good scores,repeated playing together) partnerships have in common Get a stats package like GNU PSPP and run a Logistic Regression to find out what successful partners have in common. Start with everything, and winnow out all the bad performers (correlation < .6) and weight the remainder according to the amount of covariance.

tOM

[1eyedjack]

If you have been flagged as an enemy by a large number of players, would that give you a high compatibility with someone else who had also been flagged as an enemy by a large number (all other factors being average/equal)?

[schi0]

I strongly support Carbon's opinion that PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS should be the main goal, or at least that is what one would expect of that ranking - a successful partnership with a casual partner.

while I am lost in the stats mumbo jumbo which seems pretty clever to me, I would suggest you take into consideration not only historical direct partnership success (A - B) but also an extrapolation like if (A-B) and (B-C) were successful, then (A-C) should be successful. Depending on computing power you can/would allocate you may go beyond A-B-C-D-....... and probably by 5th or 6th level any two players are connected.

I dont think that system preference should be a factor for casual partnerships since we tend to play a standard 2/1 with basic gadgets

obviously experts will have higher rankings overall given a higher success rate....

Compatibility is also about social skills so I suggest a mix of the two approaches

BTW, if you succeed to perform the regression and identify what really makes a partnership successful, please make it public

[john9999]

I agree with Jakhammer. I like it.

[barmar]

0 carbon, on 2014-May-15, 23:08, said:

All the criteria above are possible indications of alikeness.

But isn't partnership success the main goal?

So why not look in your records to see what successful(good scores,repeated playing together) partnerships have in common Get a stats package like GNU PSPP and run a Logistic Regression to find out what successful partners have in common. Start with everything, and winnow out all the bad performers (correlation < .6) and weight the remainder according to the amount of covariance.

tOM

This is mainly oriented towards helping you select among people you don't already know. If you have an established partnership, you don't need us to tell you whether you're compatible.

[barmar]

WrecksVee, on 2014-May-15, 16:12, said:

So when can we sort by compatibility? This may be garbage in, garbage out BUT I would be curious to look at all the five stars to see if they seem to be a possible good partner.

In the Partnership Desk, click on the Compatibility heading and it will sort by them.

If you mean the MBC, we don't currently use the new compatibility rating to sort tables when you use List Interesting Tables. It does test for some similarities (that's how it decides which are "interesting"), but not all the factors that are included in Compatibility. Maybe this is something we'll add in the future, assuming it doesn't make the query too expensive.

[barmar]

jaywalk, on 2014-May-15, 19:03, said:

If I have no compatibility stars, what does that mean? No one will ever want to play with me! How do you get compatibility stars?

You don't "get" them. As I've explained at least twice, compatibility is a comparison between you and the other player. The more things you have in common, the more stars you and they have when you look at each other.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that it be a bar graph instead of a star rating - that may make it clearer to people that it's "compatibility with you" not any sort of global rating. Sort of like the password complexity lines (although that is independent of user, I guess).

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2014-May-16, 09:06, said:

You don't "get" them. As I've explained at least twice, compatibility is a comparison between you and the other player. The more things you have in common, the more stars you and they have when you look at each other.

Arguably, you should list someone's compatibility with themselves as the highest possible rank rather than blank (which looks like the lowest possible rank)

Set this at five stars and you' be able to avoid a lot of bother.

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-15, 09:10, said:

I think that you might want to choose something other than "stars" to indicate degree of compatibility.
Stars are already overloaded and folks associate this with skill levels and the like.

I think I can guess what symbol Lurpoa would suggest.

[c3cummins]

While I can't say that I completely understand the concept, I believe I have a better grasp now. Thank you for your input! Carol

[Oceanss]

barmar, on 2014-May-16, 08:55, said:

This is mainly oriented towards helping you select among people you don't already know. If you have an established partnership, you don't need us to tell you whether you're compatible.

Yet, it's bit embarrassing having only half star with a good friend that one occasionally plays with, and does reasonable well.

[timouthy]

Two things: My own personal idea of a compatible partner is not just whether we can agree on a method of bidding (I already assume this to be true) but more importantly whether they will look at the results of a hand and decide whether they are satisfied with the result and adjust the bidding and/or play accordingly for next time. I also like people who are inclined to do this ASAP after the hand, but really anytime after the hand is also fine. If you could assemble this info. for me in the next version of your compatibility algorithm, say in a week from now, you can assign 5 stars to anyone who says they are like this, no matter what else they say about themselves. We all make "mistakes" playing this game and not all are entirely foreseeable. The goal is to always be looking to improve and the faster you improve, the better you perform.

Next: I hope you never get rid of the friends/enemies list. I don't care one whit that the term enemies has a negative connotation to it. There are all sorts of reasons to put someone on the enemies list. I could list them here but don't get me started. On my list I always include the reason they were put there, so I know why. I could be wrong but I don't think most people's careless/thoughtless/rude behavior changes much over time. If I could copy my list and disseminate it, with the reasons to avoid someone on BBO, I would think it would save others lots of time and avoided insults.

One more next: You need more skill levels. I am between advanced and expert and there should be a skill level for this and probably one between intermediate and advanced as well. Since you didn't have one, I had to get creative and name myself this way. I now can get onto most expert tables and compete there where before I wouldn't have been allowed.

sincerely,
Adv exp

[barmar]

timouthy, on 2014-May-21, 15:17, said:

Two things: My own personal idea of a compatible partner is not just whether we can agree on a method of bidding (I already assume this to be true) but more importantly whether they will look at the results of a hand and decide whether they are satisfied with the result and adjust the bidding and/or play accordingly for next time. I also like people who are inclined to do this ASAP after the hand, but really anytime after the hand is also fine. If you could assemble this info. for me in the next version of your compatibility algorithm, say in a week from now, you can assign 5 stars to anyone who says they are like this, no matter what else they say about themselves. We all make "mistakes" playing this game and not all are entirely foreseeable. The goal is to always be looking to improve and the faster you improve, the better you perform.

Are you being facetious? How would we be able to tell anything about player's attitudes?

Quote

Next: I hope you never get rid of the friends/enemies list. I don't care one whit that the term enemies has a negative connotation to it. There are all sorts of reasons to put someone on the enemies list. I could list them here but don't get me started. On my list I always include the reason they were put there, so I know why. I could be wrong but I don't think most people's careless/thoughtless/rude behavior changes much over time. If I could copy my list and disseminate it, with the reasons to avoid someone on BBO, I would think it would save others lots of time and avoided insults.

There are no plans to get rid of this.

Quote

One more next: You need more skill levels. I am between advanced and expert and there should be a skill level for this and probably one between intermediate and advanced as well. Since you didn't have one, I had to get creative and name myself this way. I now can get onto most expert tables and compete there where before I wouldn't have been allowed.

It's hard enough for players to figure out what skill level they should be in now, and most lie anyway. Adding more levels won't make it any better.

[u4eni4ka]

I have a lot of enemies, either becaus the lack of compatability in bidding/play or because of their exclusively unacceptable (for me) play, or their rudeness.. and I VERRY OFTEN see on the partnership desk they are higher rated then my regular partners.. this is... tooooo funny.

[barmar]

As I said earlier, the compatibility rating does NOT take into account whether the two of you are friends or enemies. Compatibility is based on the number of similarities we find between the two players.

Enemies are already marked in black, that should be enough to tell you that you probably don't want to play with them, regardless of the number of stars.

[timouthy]

barmar, on 2014-May-22, 09:18, said:

Are you being facetious? How would we be able to tell anything about player's attitudes?

The same way you assembled all of the current info. to make up your "compatibility" rating. The only thing I want you to determine is a player's post-hand predilection to discuss hand results. Your terse tone/answer suggests your lack of imagination how to do this, so heres a blueprint: Ask the question and have players pick from these possible responses: yes! very much, No not really, sometimes, or other with explanation. Thats not so hard now is it?

Quote

There are no plans to get rid of this.

Oh good!

Quote

It's hard enough for players to figure out what skill level they should be in now, and most lie anyway. Adding more levels won't make it any better.

I love your answer to this one. You cite a reason without a hint of attribution, and you make it sound like your first statement is proof of your second statement. If you/bbo have actually tried this "experiment"i.e. more skill levels and seen "won't make it better" result please show us what you used to judge the "not better" result.

I will put money on this one that you will have a much lower level of rancor in games. I suggest you adopt a different philosophy to suggestions on this forum; namely "its easier to get forgiveness than permission". Try something and don't worry about a potential catastrophic failure. You just may learn a thing or two.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2014-May-23, 10:08
Reason for edit: separate quotes from replies

[barmar]

The skill levels have been discussed ad nauseum for years. Everyone knows that lots of people do not set their skill levels accurately. The criteria are very subjective.