Verified Commit b37ba367 authored by Markus Shepherd's avatar Markus Shepherd 🙊
Browse files

corrected date; added Kaggle link

parent c2d24c7a
Pipeline #342917 passed with stages
in 19 seconds
......@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ title: Reverse engineering the BoardGameGeek ranking
slug: reverse-engineering-boardgamegeek-ranking
author: Markus Shepherd
type: post
date: 2020-10-03T08:41:00+03:00
date: 2020-10-03T08:42:51+03:00
- BoardGameGeek
......@@ -158,6 +158,8 @@ Finally, let's do what IMDb does (or used to do), and add to each game's ratings
The effects of more, but higher dummy ratings seem to almost cancel each other out. Compared to BGG's actual top 10, only {{% game 233078 %}}Twilight Imperium{{% /game %}} and {{% game 220308 %}}Gaia Project{{% /game %}} are missing, otherwise this ranking looks very familiar. Turns out, BGG did a pretty good job designing its ranking!
***PS***: You can find the notebook I used to do all the calculations [on Kaggle](
[^min-votes]: Throughout this article I only considered games with at least \\(100\\) ratings, mostly to ensure that the very long tail of games with few ratings won't unduely skew the results. However, most of the calculations would only change in some negligible decimals when including all games.
[^jotl]: {{% game 291457 %}}Jaws of the Lion{{% /game %}} is something of an exception here and will undoubtably shoot into the BGG top 10 very soon. In fact, it might be the only game with the potential to unseat {{% game 174430 %}}Gloomhaven{{% /game %}} as the number 1.
[^root]: It's probably even more common to use the *root* mean squared error, but for boring mathematical reasons, it doesn't make a difference when it comes to optimisation. In fact, we could even drop the word *mean* from our metric and still obtain the same optimal point, so let's not dwell on this.
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment