Rating

Bias is a bit of an ugly word, isn’t it? It certainly has become one of those battle phrases in the culture war, where both sides of the argument accuse the other of forcing their biases onto society. Board game reviews frequently need to justify themselves for their biases affecting their views. Dan Thurot 🗄️ recently wrote a very eloquent piece on the matter, diving deeper into different kinds of biases.

But bias also has a well defined meaning in statistics. Moving from emotions to cold hard numbers, the word bias loses its antagonistic nature and simply becomes a measurement one might want to minimise or remove entirely. Hence, debiasing the BoardGameGeek (BGG) ranking is about asking the question what it would look like if we removed the influence of a particular parameter. One such parameter is a game’s age: we’ve seen in the previous article that ratings have gone up over time, so removing the age bias from the BGG ranking means correcting for this trend.

BoardGameGeek (BGG) users can select their country of residence in their profile. The main purpose is to find other users in your region to play face to face or maybe trade games, but but over here at Recommend.Games we obviously cannot help ourselves but to use this information for some interesting statistics. 🤓

Let’s start with the usual disclaimer: We will have to rely on whatever information BGG provides. In particular, users can freely choose their country. As mentioned, this is meant to be the country of residence, but some users might rather choose their country of origin – or some outright nonsense. There are 19 BGG users who claim to be from 🇦🇶 Antarctica, for example. While I’m sure that the long polar nights on lonely research stations are perfect for playing board games, I’m not sure if they have a lot of time to rate them on BGG. 🐧 (If they actually did, Antarctica would have 6,880 ratings per 100 thousand residents, which would make them the second biggest board game enthusiasts in the world – only behind the 🇻🇦 Vatican’s 6 reported users, resulting in almost 20,000 ratings per 100 thousand residents. 🙏)

This is the second part of a series explaining and analysing the BoardGameGeek rankings. Read the first part here.

Last time I left you with the nice result that BoardGameGeek (BGG) calculates its ranking by taking users’ ratings for a particular game and then add around 1500-1600 dummy ratings of 5.5. This so-called geek score is used to sort the games from best (Gloomhaven) to worst (Tic-Tac-Toe).

One detail however we touched on in passing, but did not resolve, is how that number of dummy ratings develop over time. When the current calculation method was introduced, BGG founder Scott Alden mentioned that this number would be pegged to the number of total ratings, but did not reveal any details. Challenge accepted!

TL;DR: BoardGameGeek calculates its ranking by adding around 1500-1600 dummy ratings of 5.5 to the regular users’ ratings. They called it their geek score, statisticians call it a Bayesian average. We use this knowledge to calculate some alternative rankings.

I often describe BoardGameGeek (BGG) as “the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) for games”. Much like its cinematic counterpart, the biggest board game database not only collects all sorts of information obsessively, but also allows users to rate games on a scale from 1 (awful - defies game description) to 10 (outstanding - will always enjoy playing). These ratings are then used to rank games, with Gloomhaven occupying the top spot since December 2017.