my take: it doesn't matter and no one takes the ratings seriously i've learned

also, gotta make sure your $8,000 investment was a good one, which is why new pins are rated high

And how would removing the ability of people to rank the newest pinball machines help drive traffic and participation to Pinside, which is the entire point of the ratings system?

It wouldn't.

If Pinsiders ran pinside it would be tits up in a month!

* I do think the current list is silly *

That said, I would not wish to arbitrarily omit new games from being in the top 100 list.

It is what it is... there are perhaps some adjustments to be made to the weighting, but can't make everyone happy, particularly when your goal is to boost the incumbants.

We all get excited when we get a new toy. No game is a 10, and no game is a 0, so extreme voting should be moderated. Other than that, the game will eventually settle into it's rightful position....as they all do. Where is former number one TNA these days?

It is one of many things that drives people here, via google searches. Locking out the hottest new releases in the name of the impossible fantasy of somehow "perfecting the top 100" would be an inane decision from that standpoint, counterintuitive to the goal which is to bring in revenue.

I think a game should need 500 ratings to crack the top 10. Otherwise, it’s fair game.

Who cares, ratings are rigged. Why is this such a big deal?

It keeps people up at night and it's absolutely insane.

If you remove 10 and 0, you'll get 9 and 1 instead.

Look at the IPDB rating system. Eventually they even themselves out. A game takes a while to break in.

Robin has said he’s working on this many times and soon we will see the new and improved system. It takes time to handle such a delicate beast.
Once the new rating system is out we will see the floodgates open on “WTF THE OLD SYSTEM WAS FINE!! THIS IS TOTAL RIGGED CRAP AND I HATE IT! Here’s a poll agree with me that Pinside needs to change it back so I can pump and dump again!”

Won’t happen.

Even if you did you just delay the inevitable.

If you are allowed to control the system this way the results would ve even more inaccurate than they already are.

I think they’d be more realistic

It’s pretty lame that every single new game is the best game ever.

Today’s example: “I wonder how good mando is?” (Checks rating)
“WOW it’s got 10’s across the board!!!”

Proposed example: “I wonder how good mando is?” (Checks rating)
Pinside message: “Sorry, this game is too new for a fair rating. Check back in ## months”

probably should be a minimum number of plays to rate a game but thats unverifiable.50 plays ?

Here's my question. Why do people care so much? The lists are meaningless, and only as good as who actually does them, and does them honestly. Which...as we all know, isn't happening. Quit looking at them. I never do and my life is awesome.

I like watching the new titles get their week or two at number one, then get shot down a bit, then stabilize. It's fine. Eventually the worthy titles stay up high, and the lesser titles stay down low. It's just not a problem.

Games always find their place over time, I wouldn't worry about the temporary initial bump.

For me it’s more about how long the rater not the machine has been around. I typically ignore ratings from new members and scan for well written views from longer term members, particularly ones that share my game priorities. I’m not putting down the opinion of new members and know some have been in the hobby a long time but overall it takes time/experience to gain perspective. I cringe at some of my early ratings.

A list ranking pins is no different than a list ranking movies. It's all subjective, and not to be taken as fact.

I'd like to make a list of the top 100 colors. I bet some shade of blue would be #1.

There is no ratings integrity anymore. Too many douches trying to "protect their investment" with fudged ratings. They have ruined the Top 100.

That's it - maybe 300 would be enough, but 500 surely would be better.
It's really lame and boring to see any new game shooting up to number one.
All of this could be stopped by a certain number of ratings for new machines, and no improved Pinside-system would be neccessary.

Makes me laugh, the pin is a perfect 10!

Also for sale 6 months or less after being rated.

If a game is rated a perfect 10, impossible under the current system.

I think more appropriate would be for older ratings to not be used in the calculations after a length of time (5yrs, 10yrs?), and only be included after new ratings.

AcDc (IMHO) was as close to a 10 as was possible when it first came out, now however there are games that have surpassed that in terms of code, sound, display, etc. (again IMHO)

How many people go back and lower their ratings of games they rated 5yrs ago to reflect their standing against all games now available?

MB, AFM, TAF, TZ etc. can't stand up as well against as they do if they were rated now.

Imposing this rule to improve the useless ratings system would be like giving a corpse a manicure.

You can filter the ratings to see them different ways if you pick "Custom" ratings. If you select "Minimum Ratings Received" be at least 100, then 8 out of the top 10 are Bally Williams games, and only 2 recent games show up. This is probably a little more accurate, although it's very easy for a group of people to pump up one game.
Maybe Pinside could add a few more options to the "Rating Period" choices. Right now, you can only exclude older games. If you could filter out newer games, that would achieve what the OP was looking for and allow people to see how games stand the test of time.

I haven’t looked at the top list in years, it’s useless most of the time.

How about 2 lists. Top games of all time and top games in the last 5 years, and it would take a certain number of votes to get into the all time list.

How about the inability for one user to rate multiple games he same. Force them to pick, (eg. You can’t have everything you score as a perfect 10 you have to pick an order.)

Found someone who hasn't played Thunderbirds!

Not an issue. Happens with every new release, and it eventually falls. Let the new titles and those who bought them have their day in the sun, it’s good for the hobby in the long run.

Mando can't have 10's across the board because you have the ability to rate it differently.

There is a rating system?

I've never considered rating a game....seems like a waste of my time. But I can see how it would be fun to mess with the ratings when people care this much about nothing.

Or hasn't played Whoa Nellie!

Seems like everyone is referencing Mando, but Rick and Morty is at #2. It’s a fine pin, but it’s not the second best pin of all time. I say that being a huge fan of Spooky.

I think the best “fix” is to just require a minimum amount of reviews before posting a score.

Time would help to "cool" ones feeling about ones purchase. Disabling the rating for a preset amount of time but allowing reviews would also help.

People would have to articulate why a pin was good rather than just adding 10s like a monkey.

I say every new game goes straight to #1 by default. That sure gets a lot of people worked up and generates more posts/traffic on pinside. If you just leave a bunch of old games in top 10, nobody cares.

I use the top 100 as a guide only.

I simply remove the titles that don’t rate in my opinion. I also check my judgement by looking at two behind it. Are they better or worse.

It’s not that number one and number two are not good games. They are just not better than the two behind it.

Rinse and repeat. I also use the whole shebang to make my want list, too.

Again, I grain of salt the whole thing.

C041E5DD-28C1-4CAF-8C4F-803AEF5E09DE (resized).png

F0AE5645-DF40-41BA-8F22-37E34430385E (resized).jpeg

I like this analogy. Mando is Fast and Furious #9. Medieval Madness is the Godfather.

People may be taking this whole thing too seriously. There is no "prize" for a high ranking. It isn't determining the seeding for the NCAA Tournament,

This how I look at it...

1- I ignore anything that is artificially high due to the low number of ratings (i.e. Mando LE, Rick and Morty standard, and etc). Look at the other versions in the group instead.

2- Ignore the actual ranking and view everything in tiers

Tier 1 Games from #1 to roughly IJ/TAF - T

his tier comprises the games that most people would call #1. Not every game... but probably 80% of most players' #1 will be found in this tier.

Tier 2 - Where Tier 1 leaves off to roughly Shadow/Funhouse
Games that almost everyone likes, but not necessarily in the running for "greatest game ever"

Tier 3 - From where tier 2 leaves off to roughly #100
Games that are very popular, but generally, have some negative aspects that keep them from being elite

Tier 4 - basically the next 100 or so

Above-Average to average games - most people like to play them, but usually have some sort of drawback

Tier 5 - Average to below-average - Between 4 and 5

Mostly ignored games... very little love, but not bad enough to be remembered as terrible

Tier 6 - The bottom - last 10% or so

Games might be fun to some players, but there is a sizable group that has serious issues with them

***edit - I am adding this***

My point for typing all of that... if you are looking at the list thinking there is some huge difference between #8 and #14, or #50 and #75 then you are fooling yourself.

I never cared about the rating system. Who cares what others think play and enjoy the games you like.

That rating system sounds much better. Those board gamers are pretty smart.

I really don't follow the ratings. However, if the goal is to keep the newer stuff out of the Top 100 until the ratings become a bit more realistic, just make a category for the releases of the past year. After a game has been out in the wild for a year, it could then be moved into the Top 100. If people are obsessed with screwing with the ratings thinking that it boosts their value, they'd have less motivation to do so since they'd only impact a much smaller list of pins.

I find it sad people would do this kind of nonsense just to boost the value of a game. Experienced collectors know better, but anyone new to the habit could get played by the deadbeats that do these kinds of things just to sell a pin.

Many are here on pinside. I would say you are 100 percent correct on their intelligence.

I try to get in there and play, but I’m not so sure about my own intelligence. (Compared to the board gamers I know)