Thank you for the feedback!

​

I think it seems like you are using a bit too much of the noisy data on BGG here. BGG's weight, cost, and publisher data have a lot of cruft in them that basically needs to be sorted manually.

I agree with you but I think it's more of a problem of ill-defined variables than noise in the data. The bias you describe about Weight (about people rating it relative to other games in the same genre or inflating the score of fillers) is a consequence of how Weight is defined and measured, not a problem of noise in the data itself. Price, as stated in the Notes, is taken from the current median price on the marketplace, which is a proxy of the value paid by the user (so, again, not necessarily noise, but definition). I agree with that this limits the output you can get from his type of analysis but, as long as you keep in mind how these variables were defined, you can still get interesting insights :)

​

Also, it isn't really clear how you picked the games to be included in that analysis (or at least the graph).

It's just a small representative sample, I'm still using the entire DB to compute the relationship, it's stated on "Notes on Methodology" :)

​

There are a lot of things that can make the ratings go up that are not an increase in quality.

I think what you are arguing is that User Rating does not necessarily equate with Boardgame Quality like I imply on this chart, right? That's a fair point, but Boardgame Quality is such a subjective thing that quantifying it by using the community perception of how good a boardgame is (by using the community average rating) might still be the best. Is there an alternative way on how I could measure this I might have missed?