| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Do you think that a standardized rating-recommentation info-page would help?
Maybe something expaining the "judge whatever you feel" philosophy? Rather than
'an average post should have 50', 'a more than average post should have 60'
etc..
> I've been following Richard Franks's suggestion for the past couple of weeks
> and trying to consider 50 an "average post" midpoint.
Erm, I'm flattered! :) But I really didn't mean to say that anyone should give
average posts '50', or any other figure. LUGNET is full of worthy (average)
posts, I totally respect someone who would therefore rate an 'average' post as
40, 30 or whatever.
What I meant was that people will tend to see '50' as an average - eg Scott who
automatically considers <20 as a terrible mark (worthy of justification)..
which is why I feel it would solve a lot of problems to remove the ratings from
general view.. and let people use tables to see the most popular posts.
I would probably rate quite a few more posts if the scores were removed - there
is a lot of fluff around.. but it's *really* not worth it (to me) to make
someone feel disenfranchised(1) by rating an otherwise harmless post as 0.
> Also, do you think that the default rating should be 0 rather than 50? For
> a default of 0 would mean that articles tended almost always to go upwards
> in rating over time, rather than either upwards or downwards -- in other
> words, no one would feel that their post was ever "marked down from a 50 to a
> 30 or 40," but rather that their post was "marked up from a 0 to a 30 or 40."
No - I think the current default=50 paradigm is great - just that by making the
entire focus of the rating mechanism the scores themselves, people
understandably get hung up on them.
Richard
1 - Unwelcome, picked upon, boring, unworthy, afraid to post, etc - some of
these I've seen people compain about, others I've felt myself to varying
extents; as a result of the rating system.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) I wanted to try that out, to see how well it worked and, after doing that statistical analysis last week (in reply to your original message about what 50 could mean) was encouraged that the average average was already near 50 (I think it was (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
