Jump to content

Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........


M.B.Diouf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Mine was pointing out the idiocy of some people :)

Just not in the way you intended it :)

The point is that that isnt all that true' date=' they have reviewed more players in the new system than they would have in the old one.[/color']

Position wise and club wise maybe but ratings wise no. Hardly any ratings are added daily to the Player database/player changes section.

The point of the original post was that the new system reviews players more slow than the old system? was it not?

I started writing a response based on whats been mentioned already in recent posts but then thought its all there already and takes longer than I can be bothered to rewrite/ find to quote. I know youve posted on here before so must follow this thread? .. but if not I would recommend taking the time to read back the criticisms of SM's reviewing (some of Germlads and Soccahappys spring to mind amongst others as pointing out the flaws in the review system and SW in general). Also take a look at the voting poll on this subject too as a great point is made their too by the op (can't remember his name at the moment:o/tired. If this comes across as curt I don't mean it to because as far as I can tell your a sound fella so don't take it the wrong way. I just find it amazing that people can think what we got now is better, truely amazing. Its like I'm not playing the same game as some of the people on here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Just not in the way you intended it :)

Position wise and club wise maybe but ratings wise no. Hardly any ratings are added daily to the Player database/player changes section.

I started writing a response based on whats been mentioned already in recent posts but then thought its all there already and takes longer than I can be bothered to rewrite/ find to quote. I know youve posted on here before so must follow this thread? .. but if not I would recommend taking the time to read back the criticisms of SM's reviewing (some of Germlads and Soccahappys spring to mind amongst others as pointing out the flaws in the review system and SW in general). Also take a look at the voting poll on this subject too as a great point is made their too by the op (can't remember his name at the moment:o/tired. If this comes across as curt I don't mean it to because as far as I can tell your a sound fella so don't take it the wrong way. I just find it amazing that people can think what we got now is better' date=' truely amazing. Its like I'm not playing the same game as some of the people on here![/quote']

I suppose it comes down to personal preference. Personally I would rather have random players get their rise than a set league get their review and know about it before hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I suppose it comes down to personal preference. Personally I would rather have random players get their rise than a set league get their review and know about it before hand.

Yep a fair enough point :)

I don't mind not knowing what leagues are about to be reviewed either though I can see adavantages for the community both ways' date=' so again preference I suppose.

But wouldnt you rather complete leagues get reviewed in a timely fashion so as to keep the database more organised rather than random players being rewarded in game at a time when the rest of the squad is being ignored?

Would you rather they review some players multiple times in a short amount of time as has been seen recently or to use that time reviewing more than 1 player?

;2420299']just out of interest Monkeyshuffl, how long have you played SM?

25th July 2008 according to my profile page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Yep a fair enough point :)

I don't mind not knowing what leagues are about to be reviewed either though I can see adavantages for the community both ways' date=' so again preference I suppose.

But wouldnt you rather complete leagues get reviewed in a timely fashion so as to keep the database more organised rather than random players being rewarded in game at a time when the rest of the squad is being ignored?

Would you rather they review some players multiple times in a short amount of time as has been seen recently or to use that time reviewing more than 1 player?

25th July 2008 according to my profile page.[/quote']

not a personal attack but after 5 years you come onto the forum and now start complaining over the reviewing structure? how did you bare it for so long in the first place when the old method was clearly flawed?

there are too many leagues to put in a so called complete review in a timely fashion. SM have tried to do it for 5 years and ultimately it has failed. Some leagues were left for almost 3 years before being updated. Slovenia, Slovakia, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador to name but some.

even if SM tried to do for example the Bundesliga (20 teams) at 4/5 teams a day so it could be completed in a week and done 3 times a season that would = 3 weeks. Now say the other top 4 leagues on the same basis at 3 weeks each per season, that would total 15weeks. Plus another 5 weeks for all their 2 Divisions thats 20 weeks. Almost half a year taken up already and you still have to work all nations leagues into that system.

A quick count shows me 62 Top Divisions have been reviewed at some point in SM's history. that doesnt include 2nd divisions ie Championship etc or even Englands League 1 & 2. Also many leagues did get reviewed twice a season, ie Holland, Turkey, Portugal, Belgium... so your looking at like at least 90'weeks' if they managed to cover 4/5 teams a day...

Ultimately you could still would be waiting up to 3 years for the cycle to be complete and start again from the beginning, which IMO is too long to be waiting for players to get their accurate ratings.

its going to take a while to organise a new approach. As Duncan said earlier, already we have probably had more players reviewed with the new method than what we would of had the old way in the same time scale, but so many SM players judge it on how many teams get reviewed per day, rather than the number of players unfortunately.

IMO the culture of just been told where to look for your next bunch of risers/ cash boost just had to be eradicated from the game to make it more challenging to play. The feeling of logging on and finding player X getting a +5 or whatever based on your own research and not copying off the forum or being prompted to look in his corresponding league by a 'next league to be reviewed' heads up is one of self satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

;2420625']even if SM tried to do for example the Bundesliga (20 teams) at 4/5 teams a day so it could be completed in a week and done 3 times a season that would = 3 weeks. Now say the other top 4 leagues on the same basis at 3 weeks each per season' date=' that would total 15weeks. Plus another 5 weeks for all their 2 Divisions thats 20 weeks. Almost half a year taken up already and you still have to work all nations leagues into that system.

A quick count shows me 62 Top Divisions have been reviewed at some point in SM's history. that doesnt include 2nd divisions ie Championship etc or even Englands League 1 & 2. Also many leagues did get reviewed twice a season, ie Holland, Turkey, Portugal, Belgium... so your looking at like at least 90'weeks' if they managed to cover 4/5 teams a day...

Ultimately you could still would be waiting up to 3 years for the cycle to be complete and start again from the beginning, which IMO is too long to be waiting for players to get their accurate ratings.[/quote']

Bundesliga doesn't have 20 teams (like the rest of the big-5), but 18. And most leagues in the world have less than 20 teams. 18, 16, 14 most of them. There are also respectable leagues with even less teams (Austria 10, Scotland 12, Denmark 12, Switzerland 10 etc). Also, not all the teams in the world have as many players on their list as the clubs of the big-5.

So, if SM tried to do 4/5 teams a day (like you say and which is a very good and acceptable rate), they wouldn't need a week (=5 days) for each league, but an AVERAGE of about 3/4 days for each league (average more close to 3 than 4). They would need about 4-4.5 days for each of the big-5 and less for other leagues.

IMO the 3 reviews per season for the big-5 aren't needed, since it's so time consuming for them. They should do them twice a season, one at Christmas and one at the end of the season (and not like last year, when they failed to review them after the end of the season!). Generally, they should be reviewing the 10-15 most important leagues twice a season and the rest once. (By the way, there's another thread about this issue with a poll, created from Glen Hysen:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=142980

Glen Hysen gives a very good example of a schedule there. And the poll results i think it says it all about how people are feeling towards old and new system).

If they followed a schedule of this way, then with a rate of 4/5 teams per day (= 3-3.5 days, AVERAGE, needed for each league) the vast majority of the leagues around the world would be reviewed.

;2420625']its going to take a while to organise a new approach. As Duncan said earlier' date=' already we have probably had more players reviewed with the new method than what we would of had the old way in the same time scale, but so many SM players judge it on how many teams get reviewed per day, rather than the number of players unfortunately.[/quote']

Both you and Duncan are wrong about the numbers. We don't have more, we have less players reviewed now with the new method.

Before, when they reviewed 4/5 teams a day, this means (if each team has 20-30 players) that they reviewed an average of about 120 players a day.

Now, with the new system, we have for the last 2-3 weeks: 2, 1, half or even less of a team per day (average less than 1 team) and some random ratings varying from 10-15 up to 40-50 per day (the more random we have, the less of a scheduled team is reviewed). The total average is about 50-60 players a day with this new system. It's half the amount of players they were reviewing before!

;2420625']IMO the culture of just been told where to look for your next bunch of risers/ cash boost just had to be eradicated from the game to make it more challenging to play. The feeling of logging on and finding player X getting a +5 or whatever based on your own research and not copying off the forum or being prompted to look in his corresponding league by a 'next league to be reviewed' heads up is one of self satisfaction.

The speed of the reviews is not affected whether they announce the leagues to be reviewed or not! I think this is very simple for everyone to understand it. Personally i don't mind if they announce them or not, as i do my own researching and already have the players that i want in my teams. The most important thing here is, regardless if they announce the reviews or not, they must find a way to do the reviews in a way that the ratings will be as more updated as possible. And from what we 've seen so far, their new system is much slower and worse than the old one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

We have "scouts" on the forum. If just ONE SCOUT was set the task of reviewing for say 7 and a half hours a day/ 5 days a week/ 46 weeks a year?

How many clubs and players would be reviewed per year? Remember every squad player in each club would have to be looked at. Opinions please.

Basically I think, SM can't afford to pay researchers /reviewers to do the job. That's why they struggle to keep up & why they have asked for basically "Free" help via SW. Does this make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

;2420625']not a personal attack but after 5 years you come onto the forum and now start complaining over the reviewing structure?

I didn't realise there was a time limit I was meant to stick too. When would have been acceptable in your opinion for me to come on and start complaining that standards have declined?

;2420625']how did you bare it for so long in the first place when the old method was clearly flawed?

The old method did up to 6 teams a day (not every day granted but generally 4-6 teams) but wasn't perfect and needed improvement. However that was the game I signed on to though so accepted it and trusted that the powers that be would only improve the game over time.

With the introduction of SW and SM's reliance on it' date=' I and others have felt let down by said powers and decided that after at least a year of its introduction its fair enough time to to make our feelings heard and give balance.[/color']

;2420625']there are too many leagues to put in a so called complete review in a timely fashion. SM have tried to do it for 5 years and ultimately it has failed. Some leagues were left for almost 3 years before being updated. Slovenia' date=' Slovakia, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador to name but some.

even if SM tried to do for example the Bundesliga (20 teams) at 4/5 teams a day so it could be completed in a week and done 3 times a season that would = 3 weeks. Now say the other top 4 leagues on the same basis at 3 weeks each per season, that would total 15weeks. Plus another 5 weeks for all their 2 Divisions thats 20 weeks. Almost half a year taken up already and you still have to work all nations leagues into that system.

A quick count shows me 62 Top Divisions have been reviewed at some point in SM's history. that doesnt include 2nd divisions ie Championship etc or even Englands League 1 & 2. Also many leagues did get reviewed twice a season, ie Holland, Turkey, Portugal, Belgium... so your looking at like at least 90'weeks' if they managed to cover 4/5 teams a day...

Ultimately you could still would be waiting up to 3 years for the cycle to be complete and start again from the beginning, which IMO is too long to be waiting for players to get their accurate ratings.[/quote']

Why does it have to be only 4/5 teams a day? For a start Ive seen 6 done on numerous occasions in the past, but that aside still why so limited. SM is constantly adding new players to the database from the time that I first started playing 4 and a half years ago to now. The database has swelled by several thousand and will likely only continue to grow. This however has not been balanced in the review system. If the plan was the database to grow at the speed it has then plans/resources should also have been implemented to keep apace of this. They have not.

;2420625']its going to take a while to organise a new approach.

SW has been running more than a year. That was the "organised" approach. How long do you expect paying customers to wait before complaining about a decline in service? I don't accept it from other services I pay money to and I'm not about to start now.

;2420625']As Duncan said earlier' date=' already we have probably had more players reviewed with the new method than what we would of had the old way in the same time scale, [/quote']

As Ive said before not rating wise we haven't.

;2420625']but so many SM players judge it on how many teams get reviewed per day' date=' rather than the number of players unfortunately.[/quote']

I disagree with that. I think many are not only judging it on both, but also on the consistency of the players in any given league (ie no preferential treatment for certain players over the rest of the teams players)

;2420625']IMO the culture of just been told where to look for your next bunch of risers/ cash boost just had to be eradicated from the game to make it more challenging to play.

I agree. I haven't helped feed that culture though.... where as you... :P:)

;2420625']The feeling of logging on and finding player X getting a +5 or whatever based on your own research and not copying off the forum or being prompted to look in his corresponding league by a 'next league to be reviewed' heads up is one of self satisfaction.

Again I agree' date=' that's why like you I do my own research for risers :)[/b']

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Basically I think' date=' SM can't afford to pay researchers /reviewers to do the job. That's why they struggle to keep up & why they have asked for basically "Free" help via SW. Does this make sense?[/quote']

That's about the size of it except for the rating side of things where it's to in house for the resources they have at their disposal and need to let more people like JMH help if they are willing of course. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Have to agree with Monkeyshuffl would be MUCH BETTER if NO ONE posted risers on the Forum & let the best scouts stand out. As we are in custom stup "87+" where its ALL about finding them yourself & (mild expletive deleted!) hard at that. I get to 90%+ of risers just a bit late and there already gone :)

Most rewarding part IS FINDING THEM YOURSELF b4 anyone else does :D

PLEASE DON'T PUT THEM ON THE FORUM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Basically I think' date=' SM can't afford to pay researchers /reviewers to do the job. That's why they struggle to keep up & why they have asked for basically "Free" help via SW. Does this make sense?[/quote']

I think thats a fair assessment tbh... always comes back to bad management though.... You got to hand it to them though, expecting the ratings system to be user-led because they don't have the manpower to do it themselves on account of being too busy implementing new ways to get cash out of us :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I've been around SoccerManager since 2006/2007. I believe it has always been a small operation since then and is ran by a small group of people. Maybe it has grown as I have not paid attention to its business development, but I don't believe they have "hundreds" of researchers/scouts as some here have speculated. It's pretty much self-explanatory. Nothing wrong with being small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I've been around SoccerManager since 2006/2007. I believe it has always been a small operation since then and is ran by a small group of people. Maybe it has grown as I have not paid attention to its business development' date=' but I don't believe they have "hundreds" of researchers/scouts as some here have speculated. It's pretty much self-explanatory. Nothing wrong with being small.[/quote']

Yeah i agree, but the problem with it being a small group is how it comes back to how they rate the players. If they don't have scouts watching matches, they either have to go off stats which i believe is a safe option, or they just go by hearsay or random guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I wonder how they get away with NOT PAYING thousands of players & clubs IP rights' date=' copyright, image rights? With many thousands that might add up to a fripence or 2, most of it going to Wayne Rooney I might add :)[/quote']

I'm pretty sure if SM has lasted this long, that isn't an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I wonder how they get away with NOT PAYING thousands of players & clubs IP rights' date=' copyright, image rights? With many thousands that might add up to a fripence or 2, most of it going to Wayne Rooney I might add :)[/quote']

Ive always wondered that too. Pro Evo has always had problems with that (haven't bought the latest couple so might have changed) Yet the mighty SM seems to have no trouble. Maybe that's where all their money goes and is the reason they can't afford adequate staffing levels to do things such as reviewing in a timely fashion ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

I'm pretty sure if SM has lasted this long' date=' that isn't an issue.[/quote']

Wouldn't be so sure, it's been known some companies wait almost 10 years & then claw back 10years worth of profits they say should rightly be their's :eek:

Ive always wondered that too. Pro Evo has always had problems with that (haven't bought the latest couple so might have changed) Yet the mighty SM seems to have no trouble. Maybe that's where all their money goes and is the reason they can't afford adequate staffing levels to do things such as reviewing in a timely fashion ;)

Would doubt that also. Just consider the time it would take to just send say 10,000 players worldwide (Just writing the Cheques, addressing the envelopes & licking the stamps :rolleyes:). I know some Clubs have the same lawyers dealing with image rights, copyright etc but still a lot of clubs world wide to stay on the right side of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

Would doubt that also. Just consider the time it would take to just send say 10' date='000 players worldwide (Just writing the Cheques, addressing the envelopes & licking the stamps :rolleyes:). I know some Clubs have the same lawyers dealing with image rights, copyright etc but still a lot of clubs world wide to stay on the right side of.[/quote']

Maybe they use a scatter gun approach and pay some of the players some of the time and hope for the best ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy........

It seems that they are reviewing 1 and a half teams now.

Granada and half Mallorca on Tuesday,

Half Mallorca and Celta yesterday

and Bilbao and half Sevilla today.

Plus the usual individual reviews from all over the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review policy..

I wonder how they get away with NOT PAYING thousands of players & clubs IP rights' date=' copyright, image rights? With many thousands that might add up to a fripence or 2, most of it going to Wayne Rooney I might add :)[/quote']

Ah, so i'm not the only one that wondered about that, since the licensing from Fifa is not mentioned anywhere... :D but I am not so sure they ever dealt with that.

I think SM, in some way, can be considered a site about soccer statistics, that of course have not to pay for teams and players name rights (think to the sport page of a newspaper). Being a game, it is a bit different, but i think the reason it's not far from that. For the photos, stadium photos have the copyright written on them, so they are used with permission...while for players photos i think they re-use photos on soccer statistic sites, so i think responsability goes on the original sites, they just re-link to them. :rolleyes: (or the other sites re-link from SoccerWiki? :confused: ) and logos are not used, for copyrights reason i think.

But it would be an interesting thing to read something official from SM's staff. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: Re: Guess at next leagues to be reviewed, & discuss SM's review poli

Ah' date=' so i'm not the only one that wondered about that, since the licensing from Fifa is not mentioned anywhere... :D but I am not so sure they ever dealt with that.

I think SM, in some way, can be considered a site about soccer statistics, that of course have not to pay for teams and players name rights (think to the sport page of a newspaper). Being a game, it is a bit different, but i think the reason it's not far from that. For the photos, stadium photos have the copyright written on them, so they are used with permission...while for players photos i think they re-use photos on soccer statistic sites, so i think responsability goes on the original sites, they just re-link to them. :rolleyes: (or the other sites re-link from SoccerWiki? :confused: ) and logos are not used, for copyrights reason i think.

[b']But it would be an interesting thing to read something official from SM's staff.[/b] :)

Don't think there would be any comment, sensitive business issue. Hope they have it right tho :)

My thought was it can be represented as a FREE game & the incidental charges are for expenses only (wages, web design etc etc.). So no profits to go after .... They could still be asked to "refrain from" etc etc tho :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...