| |
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Thomas Main writes:
> > [...]
> > but I can understand "look at these articles...a majority of LUGNET • members
> > thought these were excellent." Simplifying the system would also • eliminate
> > some of the subjectivity of the scores the articles receive. Someone • might
> > think "40" is a ok score whereas someone else might choose "60" as a low
> > score.
>
> Do you think that a standardized rating-recommentation info-page would
help?
Yes.
I would also suggest that some explanatory text (i.e. how ratings
should be interpreted) be added to the rating histogram page itself.
I think that some people might interpret a low rating as "a bad post"
in general, which is not the objective, of course.
For the casual user, the intent of the rating system should be
as clear as possible.
> Also, do you think that the default rating should be 0 rather than 50?
I think that the chance for misinterpretation of the rating system
would be the same regardless of the starting point. The current
system works well for those who understand what it means.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) Well, it doesn't really mean (and isn't supposed to mean) anything profound but simply that the 40 is 10% higher than 30 on the recommendation-to-read scale. Similarly, an 80 is simply 10% higher than a 70 -- nothing profound. But the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
75 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
