The new star policy

[Bbradley62]

I cannot find any explanation on the website of the meaning of a "star" designation. Maybe such an explanation would help people understand who the "stars" are and why we non-stars might be interested.

[matmat]

I thought it was obvious that:

 

Nothing was a star qualification according to whatever the policy is right now.

 

The inconsistency here is not bias, it is simply a policy change. Had Tim tried to become a star a year or two ago with his current qualifications, he would be qualified multiple times.

 

I might be missing some information/have some of my dates wrong, but it seems to me that:

 

Event A happened.

People B through P asked for stars based on event A. got them.

BBO revised its star awarding policy.

Person Q asked for a star based on event A. did not get it.

 

of course BBO is free to do whatever the hell it pleases, but it does seem inconsistent.

[Aberlour10]

Remove all existing stars. Please do that, too much abuse going on those now.(by abuse I mean that people who got a star when it was easy to get one can now profit by having more students/recognition while people who won more can't just because policy has changed).

 

IMO the solution with change to a same star-symbol with 2 different colors in design (f.ex) would be much better. One for all players who fulfill the new criteria, other for these who not but got the star before it was introduced. Of course only if this solution would not cost BBO stuff too much time & work for new verifing etc etc.

[nige1]

To me, the great question (by far) is whether Fred was conciously thinking of sneetches when he chose the term "star"

:) :) :) Good work, Hrothgar! IMO the Star system recognizes expert achievement and helps me find a table to kibitz. Perhaps stars could wane with time. Arguably, however, rating systems are complex/confusing enough already. Star-criteria should be objective, clear and published, to remove uncertainty and to ensure that sneetches can locate themselves on the Gitelman-Hertzprung-Russell diagram.

[hotShot]

I think it would be a good idea to award people who won a world championship with some sort of icon.

Perhaps their star could be golden while others have a silver star.

Juniors could get a bronze star for their achievements.

[gwnn]

I nominate hrothgar's for Post of the Decade.

[JLOGIC]

I might be missing some information/have some of my dates wrong, but it seems to me that:

 

Event A happened.

People B through P asked for stars based on event A. got them.

BBO revised its star awarding policy.

Person Q asked for a star based on event A. did not get it.

 

of course BBO is free to do whatever the hell it pleases, but it does seem inconsistent.

 

These both seem reasonable to me:

 

1) A certain result was deemed starworthy at some point in time. Anyone who at any point asks for a star based on this can receive it, regardless of start criteria change.

 

2) A certain result was deemed starworthy at some point in time. The rule change makes this no longer starworthy. However, if you received a star based on it, you are grandfathered in, as BBO does not want to strip anyone of their star. However, if you did not receive a star before the rule change, you are not grandfathered in (as the point of the grandfathering is to prevent people from being stripped), and thus do not get a star.

 

Maybe BBO is receptive to point 1, it is the best argument, but if they are in the point 2 category that also seems reasonable.

[JLOGIC]

The problem with "superstars" or a star ranking system like bronze/silver/gold, is that you are effectively greatly reducing the value of the current star by creating it. It would be similar to just stripping current people of their star if they are not worth it.

 

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, BBO does not really owe anything to the current stars. But it will lead to a lot of hurt feelings which I presume is why BBO has grandfathered people in, and I presume in general avoids rating systems.

 

Perhaps BBO should never have introduced stars, but the original idea was that a star meant BBO endorsed watching this person if you are a random person on BBO and don't know who to watch. It wasn't really supposed to be a merit badge. This is definitely true, because you can for instance be stripped of your star based on bad behavior (sadly I learned this several times!). The idea being, BBO will not endorse watching you by giving you a star if you are very poorly behaved, regardless of your results.

 

The idea of now creating a system of a better star and a worse star(s) is that you are now saying "actually, you should REALLY watch these people, but these other people do not suck." And then there would be fighting over the criteria of a super star. I am not part of BBO but from what I know about them, they try to avoid stuff like this, which ironically is the whole point of the objective criteria rather than the former subjective criteria.

[cherdano]

The criterion I would like to see for "superstars" is quite easy, and 120% objective: Any player whom cherdano enjoys kibbitzing.

 

:)

[nigel_k]

I had a star once. It was in kindergarten and the teacher stuck it on my hand when I did something good. Now that I am more than five years old these things seems less important. This is a very sad thread.

[1eyedjack]

Depending on the magnitude of the issue (and whether this thread is representative of feeling), I thought that the earlier comment of removing ALL stars and then starting again seems quite plausible although in the first few months it would involve BBO management in a huge amount of work processing reapplications.

 

The main point being: No individual previously in receipt of a star need (justifiably) feel aggrieved at the (initial) removal of his star, as he is not being singled out or treated any differently from all other former star players.

 

I would however sympathise with the workload placed on BBO and that could indeed be prohibitive.

 

 

[shintaro]

To me, the great question (by far)

is whether Fred was conciously thinking of sneetches when he chose the term "star"

 

http://www.maggiewilliamswanderer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pages.jpg

 

 

 

ROFL now this one I like :D

 

 

Can I suggest us 'Old Age Pensioners' of the Bridge World are awarded 'Oak Leaves' for longevity to Bridge :P

[bluecalm]

This is really quite ridiculous that some people have unfair advantage on coaching/self advertising market due to bad policy before.

I mean I know that bbo stuff have more interesting things to do than reviewing star applications but just cancelling all of them would be better than current situation imo, even more so because star system doesn't fulfill its role anyway as most stars aren't world class/kibitzing worthy players as of now.

I also don't agree that there that much work to do with reviewing applications. If criteria are strict and clear it's about 3 minutes google for each person. There could be even requirement to give a linkg to result of required tournament so it's easy to verify.

There won't be that many stars with current criteria and I guess identity verification work is already done anyway.

[peachy]

Several USA Juniors have stars, of course.

 

So do juniors from other countries.

[peachy]

Subjective criteria never good, well "never" say never, and sometimes that is all there is.

Representing one's country in international competition is a variable concept. Representing US or France, for example, is totally different than representing Malta or Zimbabwe or other smaller countries who have never even approached of winning something. Then there are Nordic Friendship League, Small Federations Cups and other limited international events where the level is not even close to World Class

 

I like the idea of scrapping stars and starting over with more accurate and measurable objective criteria. Or just scrap the stars altogether.

[Chick]

How about we just scrap all stars altogether and forget the whole idea!

 

Fred, you promised us you would not have a rating system on BBO, and you have created one anyway. A two-tier system -- Star or non-Star. Regardless of how objective you try to be, it's still a rating system.

 

Let's just dump the whole idea and remove them all permanently.

[Foxx]

Fred, you promised us you would not have a rating system on BBO, and you have created one anyway. A two-tier system -- Star or non-Star. Regardless of how objective you try to be, it's still a rating system.

 

Those stars are awarded for achievement, very much like the card ranks for playing in ACBL tournaments on BBO. They are earned by winning in events of national profile, and are recognition for being of expert level in your own country. They are not an objective indicator of skill, like OKbridge's Lehman ratings aspire to be.

 

It's true that the stars distinguish some players on BBO from other players, but a rating system? That is an overbid, by a king and an ace.

[mrdct]

How about as a mouse roll-over on the player's name or somewhere in their info there are some details of their star qualification achievement(s). Then the kibitzers can easily see who actually won something of note, but we don't need to take grandfathered stars off people.

 

Another thing that might enhance things for kibitzers who don't know who's who is to include a link in each star's profile to their WBF playing record; although there is a problem with the WBF playing record being very eurocentric in that it includes lots and lots of EBL events but does not include any events from other zones (ACBL, APBF, BFAME, etc.). Linking to the WBF playing record would also have the nice advantage of providing a photo of the player in many cases.

[diana_eva]

This is why the stars must have their full name in profile. Anyone who wishes to know what their achievements are can google the name and find WBF record or personal site or any other info.

[nige1]

It seems to me that anyone with a WBF title (World Master or above) should qualify for a star. Of course, there will probably be many other combinations of credentials, but that one should be sufficient.

This is why the stars must have their full name in profile. Anyone who wishes to know what their achievements are can google the name and find WBF record or personal site or any other info.

Bbradley, Mr Dct, and Diana_Eva seem to have the right idea. Simplest would be:to define

 

star = WBF world master or person with a specified level of perfomance in specific WBF events.

• Stardom would recognise significant achievement.
• The BBO sneetch fixitup computer could determine stardom.
• The process would be objective, automatic, and up-to-date.
• (Rare) adjustments to stardom criteria would be immediately reflected in profiles.
• The result would be easy to understand, meaningful, and useful.
• Accusations of inconsistency and human favouritism would diminish.

[peachy]

Bbradley, Mr Dct, and Diana_Eva seem to have the right idea. Simplest would be:to define

 

star = WBF world master or person with a specified level of perfomance in specific WBF events.

• Then the BBO sneetch fixitup computer could determine stardom.
• The process would be objective, automatic, and up-to-date.
• (Rare) adjustments to stardom criteria would be immediately reflected in profiles.
• The result would be easy to understand, meaningful, and useful.
• Stardom would recognise significant achievement.
• Accusations of inconsistency and human favouritism would diminish.

 

 

It would be no fairer than the current star policy. Spingold, Vanderbilt, and a few other events in ACBL and maybe elsewhere, are not WBF events and success in those is definitely at LEAST as prestigious as in some WBF events. I'm in favor of scrapping the whole star idea, unless everyone is made to understand that HAVING A STAR DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON IS A WORLD CLASS PLAYER. It does not even mean he/she is a good player.

[Free]

AFAIK the point of the stars is to quickly recognize good players. With some of the current stars it seems like this goal got lost because of an initial error in star policy. Some of the stars are decent players, but not world class (Belgium shouldn't have that many stars for example, not to say none). Re-evaluating all the stars or adding new kinds of stars is a poor idea imo.

 

I think there's a very efficient way to award stars IF BBO would start from scratch. Reverse the system and let BBO award the stars instead of letting people apply for one. The people occupied by investigating star applications can now do something more useful. All relevant international events are already covered by vugraph, so the vugraph operators can easily ask their email addresses if the people who deserve a star are unknown. Also people with the same achievements in the past should get a star. This is a big one-time effort, unless BBO changes the criteria again ofcourse.

 

Obviously, some very good players won't get a star according the criteria set by BBO. But, considering the purpose of the stars, what do you think is worst:

- All stars are good players, but not all good players have a star

- All good players have a star, but some of the stars aren't good players

I think having poor players with stars is by far the worst solution, and that's the current situation btw. I also don't understand the problem with retracting everyone's star. If there's a new star policy, then there's no reason to feel hurt at all. But BBO should try to avoid this in the future, for example by setting very strict criteria which they can expand if necessary.

[fred]

AFAIK the point of the stars is to quickly recognize good players. With some of the current stars it seems like this goal got lost because of an initial error in star policy. Some of the stars are decent players, but not world class (Belgium shouldn't have that many stars for example, not to say none). Re-evaluating all the stars or adding new kinds of stars is a poor idea imo.

 

I think there's a very efficient way to award stars IF BBO would start from scratch. Reverse the system and let BBO award the stars instead of letting people apply for one. The people occupied by investigating star applications can now do something more useful. All relevant international events are already covered by vugraph, so the vugraph operators can easily ask their email addresses if the people who deserve a star are unknown. Also people with the same achievements in the past should get a star. This is a big one-time effort, unless BBO changes the criteria again ofcourse.

 

Obviously, some very good players won't get a star according the criteria set by BBO. But, considering the purpose of the stars, what do you think is worst:

- All stars are good players, but not all good players have a star

- All good players have a star, but some of the stars aren't good players

I think having poor players with stars is by far the worst solution, and that's the current situation btw. I also don't understand the problem with retracting everyone's star. If there's a new star policy, then there's no reason to feel hurt at all. But BBO should try to avoid this in the future, for example by setting very strict criteria which they can expand if necessary.

 

And how do you propose we decide who is a "good player"?

 

One of the nice things about the current method (from our point of view at least) is that it is managable. Human judgment is removed from the equation of deciding who qualifies for a star. If a given candidate doesn't qualify according to the existing rules, it is easy to (honestly) say to them "Sorry - we realize that you may well be an excellent player, but the star symbol is an indication of specific accomplishment. It is not necessarily an indication of skill."

 

Any reasonable person should be able to understand and accept this.

 

If instead we had some kind of star-panel that was assigned the task of somehow deciding whether or not a given candidate was a "good player" we would then have to tell rejected candidates "Sorry - we don't think you are a good enough player to have a star".

 

Many people would be upset by this.

 

Besides that please keep in mind that we have players from over 100 countries who log in to BBO on a regular basis. We would prefer to have the most successful players (who tend to be the best players) from all regions of the world recognized as stars on BBO. This raises at least two problems:

 

1) Most countries have few if any "good players" if you define "good players" to mean "approximately as good as the best players in countries like Italy, Poland, USA, etc".

 

2) Judging whether or not a person is one of these many countries really is a "good player" would be even more difficult than judging the same for players who have frequent opportunities to participate in "major tournaments".

 

I have read this thread carefully and with an open mind, but it has only managed to further convince me that we are handling this about as well as is practically possible. The bottom line is that the very first sentence of your post is incorrect - we have always said that the star symbol is meant to signify accomplishment as opposed to skill.

 

Perhaps we need to do a better job of explaining what exactly the star symbol means, but I believe it would be a huge mistake to change its meaning as you suggest - we really do not want to get into the business of trying to evaluate the skill of our members.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

And how do you propose we decide who is a "good player"?

Oh, apparently I deleted my small example before posting, that would've clarified a bit. Personally, I agree that's the best way to use objective criteria. But I'd use very high standards to start with, for example only (semi)finalists of top events. If that doesn't cover enough stars, then you can always add other ranks of these events ofcourse.

 

The problem with this approach is that you probably won't have stars in each country, but I don't know that for sure because I don't have all the data. But as an example: in open team events Belgium doesn't do good, but we had success in other classes: 2nd in the World University Team Championship 2004 and 3rd in Seniors European Team Championship 2008. So it depends on which events qualify.