It's an accurate reflection of what the community thinks of a person's skill level. If you hover over someone's stars with a mouse, you will see the exact number. Compare people that are considered strong battlers today (or in their era) and you'll see that the stronger battlers always have higher stars.
The only "inaccuracy" is when you're comparing battlers from two different eras, because people used to give much higher ratings than they do today, so a newer account with less stars might actually be considered a stronger battler than an older account with more stars. I remember a time when it used to be considered "hate voting" if you rated someone less than a 7.
It isn't broken and it does work. People don't pay attention to a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they don't work.
---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------
Thinking on it further, I can see that the standard deviation (how much a person's rating fluctuates from one rating adjustment to the next) may lessen over time...So averaging out a low rating for someone who has dropped one shitty vote against their long history of having dropped much better votes with higher ratings won't affect them that much...but it will affect them if they are now habitually dropping shitty votes and those are getting rated. I actually like this idea the more I think about it. This is a much better alternative than a mod lowering or raising vp after seeing just one or two votes.
|