| |
Thomas Main wrote:
> And the few times I have used the system...that's the way I've used it. I
> marked a few articles I read at "100" -- I don't think I would ever rate an
> article "0" though...I only rate things that I think are really important (who
> cares if I think something is really *not* important...I guess I just don't
> like to spend too much time focusing on the negative). One thing I really
> don't understand is who goes to the trouble of rating articles that everyone
> realizes are not important....like maybe the "me too" posts (in general groups,
> not the new LEGO ones) or auction posts that just convey information about an
> auction. To me, it seems like a big waste of time on the part of the person
> rating.
I just thought of a way to alleviate this problem.
Don't publish the average rating unless there are at least N values (N =
10?).
If there are fewer than that many values, just say "insufficient sample"
or
something like that. That way only the articles that people feel are
important
will will get ratings, and articles that are irrelevant will continue to
be ignored.
I also think the idea of starting at 0 and going up is a good one, but
that
is an independent decision.
/Eric McC/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> I just thought of a way to alleviate this problem.
> Don't publish the average rating unless there are at least
> N values (N =10?).
I think that if N can be defined by the users, this would work well. I
personally think that if even one person rates a message that some information
is better than none. However that's just me, and I think that new users would
like to have N a little higher. If it could be changed much like the
"skip-filter", that would work well. I like 10 as a default value, but I
personally would change my setting to 1.
Ben Roller
|
|
|
