Pls? Do the clans that BanaN couldn't do

which clans didn't he do?

I may consider it.. Could you give me the clans he didn't do?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=under+the+microscope+site:warlight.net/Forum&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=rG1gVsqQFMnZU9PsoNgD

Should be all the clans he did do.

I'd like to see it done better personally. I basically ignored all but the first few because it seemed to have no basis for any of the scores. Clans which have never had a top 100 ladder player got Bs for accomplishments, as an example. What should be done is using knyte's metrics that he pulled as a basis for scores related to ladder performances, boot rates, etc. Those are found here:
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/105755-alternative-clan-rankings

The other issue is the host did not contact the clan leader at all. If this is done right, you'd contact the clan leader for a summary of the goals/message/plan for the clan (if not defined on their web page well). It is not much of a microscope if you are guessing at what the clan is about. I remember some leaders had to correct the host on who runs the clan and things like that. We had to correct the WG one because the method of formation was not known to the host.

I would also suggest 1 thread that has link to individual threads (and update it each time a new one is added), that way the individual ones can get buried but you still have an index to them.


It could be a really good series, if done well. If someone wants to do the series and wants to discuss ideas for it, let me know. The first step I would suggest is make a google sheet and put all those numbers from knyte's thread into there (under separate columns).

EDIT - I started doing that just now (this is super cool: http://www.extendoffice.com/documents/excel/2701-excel-separate-text-and-numbers.html)

Here is my sheet (need to fix some clan names that have special characters):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ci8G83QA-qSRy4C7qzrF4UNsx9wD6CAk-0hcln8MqPE/edit#gid=0&vpid=A1

Edited 12/3/2015 17:08:14

what already been done (in order they appear on WL's Clans page):
DARKLORDS
Vitrix Mortalis
M'Hunters
The Lost Wolves
CORP
ILLUMINATI
[20]
Poon Squad
The Royal Falcons
[WG]
Apex
101st
{rp} Roleplayer's Guild
{Olympus}
The Gentlemen's Clan
{W.U.} Westeros United
Mongols

+ The Paper Tigers :P

+ Under the Borescope series :P
The Lone Gunmen
Knights Templar

M'hunters hasn't been done, that was by a troll

Chris since you have so many bright ideas maybe you should show us all how's it's done and re-make Under the Microscope. I personally found it enjoyable and I'm sure many will agree with me that it was a good read and a pleasant break from the trolls and porn threads on the forums. Almost all of the responses that I saw was overwhelming positive and encouraging to BanaNa, you seemed to have been the only person who was angry at him for not doing it your way Chris.

Edited 12/3/2015 17:16:06

Homeless you are wrong. Here are some comments from those threads, not made by me (I ignored clan politics):

"I find these threads entertaining, but the actual ratings for most has been crap. As pointed out A for clan activity is wrong, they are not even close to a B."

"I see we're using the IGN scale. 9/10. It was decent. You're also using the genghis clan grading system yee?"

"You could also consider leadership quality in determining a clan's grade. Let's say a completely inactive leader is a failing grade, and Darklordio a D+. But... what grade would one give to Apex????? Apex: the one clan who can exist peacefully with 100% of the members given manager rights"

"If leadership quality were gradable, knyte would have an A, and Blortis would have an A+. Darklordio would have a failing grade, because an inactive leader is a lot better than Darklordio."

"BanaNa, you probably should've taken a few points off in your analysis for horrible administration. Kazuki has no idea what he's doing, and Ox/BigMeck/Tjoex don't really have the ability to correct that until Kazuki steps down and gives one of them the reins."

"what are you basing these grades on (A-, etc.). Seems not to be much based on fact lol"

"9/10 It was pretty crappy."

"I know this is based on the date visible on the clan page, and it's totally fine, but I would like just to point out apex actually started 18.05.2012, very few clans are older (FBG, REGL, WM, [20], V.I.W to name some)"

"Yes, but in no sane world is the Poon Squad's achievements only a letter grade away from WG. Have you seen just how much work that clan does for this community??? Easily an A++."

"While we're at it, I also think you should change your "Overall Clan Quality" rating to be more diverse. So far, you really only have a four-tiered system of 7-10 (7 being the clans with the least quality, and 10 being ones with the most quality overall). I personally don't think all clans are above a 5/10 on a quality scale, and would argue that clans shouldn't have ratings all so close to each other. There are clans that are obviously of much higher quality than others. Maybe if you shortened your scale to 1-4 it would be easier to keep the rankings as you see fit, but clustering them in such a short range isn't very accurate."



I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I wrote out a very thoughtful series of suggestions and he flat out ignored them. So I moved on and stopped reading them, as I am sure most did. I am simply saying here that if someone else wants to do it, they should think about HOW they want to do it.

I might even be willing to do the numbers/chart myself, if someone else wants to do the descriptions of the clans. I would only really be able to do the bio's on the older clans that I have more experience with.

Edited 12/3/2015 17:30:59

Homeless chris isn't angry. He just pointed out what was bad with under the microscope o far. It was a good read but the ratings of the clans were completely off. Also i never got the impression banana did investigate about the clans he was writing. He had a good idea and made some good threads but he missed the purpose of giving players informations about clan quality or rate them.

i think the main point is it could be a better read. what if we came up with some kind of systematic approach (or at least somewhat systematic) to get ratings and have people volunteer to pick a clan and gather information and write a summary with the best attempt at accurate ratings? i would volunteer for something like that.

Yeah, I would be interested to know back stories, etc...if someone took the time to find them out. I'm looking into doing the stat part of this, so we can at least have sort-able columns on all this stuff at our fingertips.

It may have been enjoyable, but it had so much misinformation that it really wasn't very useful.

The fact that he rated all clans from such a small difference in quality (I see Chris quoted my primary issue with the ratings) made it quite impractical. For example, CORP and WG were essentially put in the same tier (pretty sure that was a bias there). Looking at it from the perspective of diplomacy vs. strategy-based clans, CORP is clearly lacking in the same figures that WG has (recognition as a good diplomacy clan among one of them). Yet, they are still rated the same as WG. Similarly, The Royal Falcons are rated worse than DARKLORDS even though they probably have a more cohesive and collective community. It was an entirely opinionated affair that was not executed very well.

"The other issue is the host did not contact the clan leader at all. If this is done right, you'd contact the clan leader for a summary of the goals/message/plan for the clan (if not defined on their web page well). It is not much of a microscope if you are guessing at what the clan is about. I remember some leaders had to correct the host on who runs the clan and things like that. We had to correct the WG one because the method of formation was not known to the host."

I agree with the majority of that statement. The ratings were pure guesswork for the most part or slightly biased; the only way any clear ratings could have been made was if the rater put alts in each clan and judged them after a week or so (which would have been extremely inefficient). Getting information from the clan leader would certainly be more accurate, but there's always the problem that they could lie or select information that shows them in a better light than they really are.

To be honest, I don't think anyone is qualified to put out such ratings. There would be too much bias (which was evident in the "X-Factor" category for the original "Under the Microscope" threads) given towards clans based on the rater's whims. If anything, a clanless player should be the one to rate clans, as they should not be biased towards any one clan. Still, even with proper research, a correct rating of clans is purely subjective, and thus they cannot be accurately created.

The M'Hunters one was a fluke, done by an alt of an M'Hunters player bragging about his clan. Same with the Paper Tigers.

Well, he did spend sometime in clans he wrote about(TLW, Falcons at least), but yeah, it seemed he was using the game rating system in which 8.0/10.0 is playable. Anything less is just complete trash.

(in order they appear on WL's Clans page)

Gentlemen are above both {Olympus} and {rp}

Edited 12/4/2015 03:59:50

+ChrisCMU
+AwesomeGuy

Did anyone actually like them? I'm surprised at this thread. They were awfully done, but ChrisCMU and AwesomeGuy went into detail with that. (note that on some of his ratings, I put a mini-summary with more varied grades).

9/10; was pretty crappy.

"9/10 it was pretty crappy"

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/108599-under-microscope-apex

Just another zinger from genghis haha i keep em coming

If you are going for impartial ratings, perhaps have a panel consisting of several collaborating judges using a single alt? It would require no less work from any of them than it would to do it solo, but provides less opinionated results.

It would also keep bias from creeping into the writings.

I agree that the achievement rating should be pulled from knyte's data set.

TL;DR: ChrisCMU is right. These need to be redone, accurately this time.

I did it, you can thank me now

AWESOMEGUY - I agree (about who would be qualified to rate all these clans). I would not do ratings at all. Why add subjectivity to it? IMO, the best way would be to just have all the stats in a chart people can look at. Then write up a bio on the clan (contact the leader if message is unknown). Let the numbers speak for themselves. No need for people to add bias at all.


The point of this should not be to rank/score the clans in some way. It should be used to just let people know more about the clans. Basically, it should be an aggregation of information so people don't have to search out what each clan is about.

Edited 12/4/2015 07:31:04