Thanks for clarifying this.
Additional question: Wouldn't the current ranking system (by total score) be bias towards larger population servers?
Assuming the followings:
- each servers tries to encourage its players to write reviews legally (just general, non-intrusive and non-incentivized reminders)
- the percentage of reviewers over the total population players is constant (not every player will spend time writing a review). I.e., the larger your player population, the more reviews a server will likely receive.
- current system favors Quantity over Quality. As of today, AnthemRO has 72 reviews. It's ranked 5th on the Low Rate Default Ranking. It's Average rating is 71. On the other hand, a smaller server like SerenityRO has managed to obtain 53 reviews with an average rating of 88. By using the default ranking system, any review is good - coz, good or bad; it still adds to the "Total Score" contributing a minimum of 10 points each review... and in AnthemRO's case, it might be just enough to be listed as a TOP 5 with >20 less than average review (flagged with the option of owner comments). Of course, one could always argue, a reader could always click in AnthemRO's server page- note the average rating and peruse through six pages of comments.
Another way of looking at things:
When applying to college, instead of using GPA; we introduce Total Points. Student A, takes 5 subjects and achieved a Total Points of 450. Student B, enrolls in 10 subjects and achieved a Total Points of 500. According to the Total Points system, Student B is better than Student A; even though he/she may have failed in several of his/her subjects.
