+1 this post: Ghost Ratings

Which of the the two systems do you think is the superior rating system?

I've voted for both. Each of them reflects different skills.

Is this for replacing antes for games, or jsut what's a better determinant of skill?

In the case of antes--Points, easier to calculate with and set up games
In the case of overall rankings--Ghost Rankings, a more evenly-balanced rating system

I'll try and answer this in a neutral fashion. If you had to choose which should be displayed on your profile which would you choose? The whys and wherfores of that decision I'll leave up to the voter.

On my profile: The Ghost Rating.

Next to my name on the Forum: Points (again, so as to more easily facilitiate antes and set up games.)

sorry silly question .
Ghost Rating is what?

Ghost Ratings attempts to be to webdiplomacy what Elo is to chess, a measure of the skill level of the players. It is calculated by one of our members The Ghostmaker every month. All active players are ranked anonce list is to be found on a site hosted by The Ghostmaker.
Obi makes a good point about webdip points though. It does help us start games. As you am only join a game if you have enough points. I think GR could work in a similar way whereby the game creator specifies a GR range for eligible players. I would love to see that.

Sorry... lots of weird autocorrects on my iPhone...
All active players are ranked *each month. The list may be found on a site hosted by The Ghostmaker (I don't have a link handy but if you google webdiplomacy and Ghost Ratngs you will find it).

Just to emphasize my last point: imagine if you could specify a GR range when set up games. You could always find players for a decent game. Not too challenging and not too hard. I think GR has the potential to do a better job of this than points.

both are good. But points is useful only, doesn't reflect skill. Lets say a 1000 point player joins a thousand point game. He looses it all. Now hes at 100 , but is clearly not a novice. What if a player comes in at 100, ut is actually much better from outside the site. Also inaccurate. Babek for example is second in points but nt in GR (hes 3rd, not far of, but still).

... that should read "not too challenging and not too easy".

I think GR is better.. I find myself playing for points sometimes, just to be able to have them to join the high stakes games that I want to.. GR would eliminate that..

bump to see if there is anyone else who agrees with with me the GR should replace points.

I don't understand Baskineli? What skill do points show that GR doesn't?

Also, spyman, I like the dual system. I like that as I get better I can participate in higher stakes games that filter the noobs out. If we switched to GR entirely there will always be idiots in my open games, and that I don't want. If I bet 100 , I like to be reasonably sure that the other players have some fundamental grasp of the main concepts.

YJ firstly you will be rising in the GR very shortly if you haven't all ready. I don't think GR has been updated for a while, but I'd say your days as a newb are over now (time to graduate to WTA if you haven't all ready). Secondly specifying GR range could be optional (including how broad or narrow the range is), or even specifying a range at all (much like starting a five point game now). I think we could kill two birds with one stone while at the same time removing the gambling element (some might like it I suppose, but it has nothing to do with diplomacy). Also I think playing for points, especially in PPSC distorts the in-game incentives, in a way that detracts from good play. IMHO.
Maybe GR as it stands isn't even the best way, but points are definitely not the best way. Points has its good aspects, but as a single system which both rates players and facilitates setting up games it is seriously flawed. I think we should look for something better. The popularity of an unofficial system, namely GR, shows there could be a better system.

I agree totally... if it came down to just one I'd take GR. I prefer the dual system because it's nice to know that I could have Babak in one of my anon games and get a huge jump in GR with a win or draw. If the game was GR specified to join there would be less skill diversity.

Haha I agree about switching too... I see the purity of the WTA game and think it brings more room for interesting developments than PPSC. I haven't tried it yet, but I think I will soon.

At what point was I no longer considered a noob? LoL I don't FEEL any different.

I think after your first victory you are no longer a newb. Some people don't stay newbs for very long.

I think that it doesn't matter. I play for fun. I think of myself as Chevy Chase's character in Caddy Shack. When Ted White asks him how he measures himself against other golfers since he doesn't keep score, Chevy's response "by height". For me, by fun.

BTW, my Ghost Rating has fluctuated, but my points keep going up so what does that say? Just a commentary on the whole rating system. It is what it is and that's it.

@Czech:

If you play gunboats with less capable players (and let's face it, most of us are inferior to you in a gunboat), and win/draw most of them, you're going to sweep up points. But from a GR perspective, you're not playing much better than expected.

So if your points go up, but your rating remains steady, it means you don't play with players of your own skill. Either because you don't search them out, or simply because they don't exist.