Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m thinking this is pointless

# Is there any point to the Average Score Hall of Fwame? Edit Subject

Hi. I just had a look at the Halls Of Fwame, which are always interesting. Usually I just look at current or All Time Top 50, but today I also had a peek into the Most Wins and Average Score Top 50s. The "Most Wins" is as expected, full of regular Artwiculate players and not really containing any shocks.

But when I looked in the "Average Score" Top 50, I had a real shock. All of the top 25? 30? and many of the rest, were players I had never heard of, and who don't appear in the other charts. Maybe this is caused by some kind of statistical anomaly. If so, is there not some way you can re-calculate the chart? Right now, it is a pointless kind of thing. Any regular players are near the bottom. The names all in the top half, do they really belong there?

One way to perhaps correct this anomaly, is to create a formula that applies "number of words used" as some kind of positive adjustment factor. For example, you could maybe have a rule that no-one can be considered for the Average Score chart until they have a minimum number of entries, e.g. 30.

At the moment, I'm not sure anyone takes that chart seriously? Even worse, it may come in for some mockery, or even contempt, so far is it from the "real world Artwiculate".
1 person has
this question
• I think the scoring system may have been different early in the game, Tidd. Which is why it is as it is. You and I started playing around the same time, I think.
How does this make you feel?
I'm
• Yes, it was different early in the game. I have seen a single entry getting about 400 points. That was before I started playing. Now many winning entries have around 70 points (I've won with 50 too) and anything around 100 is considered really really good. Because of this, early players have much higher overall scores and average scores as well. So unless they re-calculate the scores for the older entries based on the new system we will have this anomaly. :)
• Well, yes - I think they SHOULD re-calculate the scores anyway, as it's something of an anomaly. And your answer is interesting Nav - but it fails to explain one thing : Artwiculate is a young game (September 2009, I believe?) - so how is it that all these players with high averages from the early scoring system, are people I've never heard of? For this to be explicable, I'd have to theorise that there was a whole heap of players who played in the early days, then all fled together when the scoring system changed? And that NO current players were playing back then? I can't believe that!
Isn't it more likely that these were occasional players who had only a very few entries, did quite well out of that scoring system, and now sit on top of the charts? Which could be corrected quite easily if Artwiculate adopted my idea of using a minimum count of "words used" before a player could be in the average. I could confirm this sometime, by clicking on each name and looking at which words they used - I wouldn't be too amazed if most of them only had a few words? Which would skew the averages completely.
I'm possibly making too much out of this : it's not really a very useful chart, but if it's going to sit there, it should at least be reasonable!!
How does this make you feel?