Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:31:51 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2097 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
snip,snip,snip...
>
> Specific personal questions:
>
> 1. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of the ratings
> were not displayed to you unless you specifically requested (via some simple
> setting) that they be displayed to you?
That's probably a good idea (it doesn't worry me) for the sensitive, but
people will always be tempted to look at their 'mark' and get upset.
> 2. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of the ratings
> were not displayed ever to anyone but collected and used by the server only
> for internal calculations, hotlist generation, and personal recommendations
> to you?
I think the rating system has a purpose. The problem is the number of people
rating a post (would you like a jury of one or two ?). It showed it's purpose
in response to Brad J's recent post, where a more significant number of
raters had their say. We Australians got a bit carried away and were marked
down accordingly because our concerns are outside Brad's jurisdiction, and
there would be little point in his reading them.
So maybe the rating system should stay 'public' in certain groups, such as
Lego.direct (quite narrow guidelines) to cut down noise, and stay 'public'
for a different reason in lugnet.general just to trim the fat.
> 3. How would you feel (better or worse) if the ratings were not even
> collected and collated in the first place? (i.e. the destruction of the
> feature altogether)
No it should stay, as Lugnet traffic grows we will need some tool to pick
items of most interest for those of us with less time.
> 4. Have you ever felt victimized by the rating system? Have you posted
> something which has obtained a low rating and felt uncomfortable or unhappy
> about yourself or about LUGNET because of the low rating? How often?
No, I think a post that gets no replies or a thread that dies is a worse
feeling. We all shouldn't get too precious about it though.
Now that the hounds have got auction announcements back to .marketplace,
who is marking them down there ? Something of interest to someone, will be
of no interest to someone else, so maybe no ratings in a group such as this.
The post title should be specific and people can decide from there. The
purely commercial aspect of some Lugnetters is irksome to me as it seems to
be to others, but I am not about to mark an auction announcement down just
because the item is of no interest to me and has been posted to where it
should be.
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
Not really, but some must have.
> 6. Do you feel that the article rating system makes it easier for you or
> harder for you to share your ideas? And does this bother you?
People who are continuously marked down may be deterred from posting and we
need the widest possible community base as possible.
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
I must admit I thought what has happened would happen. At whatever part of
life people are evaluated and marked the lowly marked will get testy.
Maybe a marking system that instead of a 'fail' mark, articles of no interest
were unmarked (which does happen with articles unrated and left at 50 now).
Just have a star system (3 stars,5 stars ...) for posts of note, or maybe
a tally of the number of readers of a post.
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to address
> these issues?
Better now than later.
> 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you? LEGO sets?
> Websites? Individual web pages? etc...
Lego sets definitely (inanimate objects),but it's hard enough already getting
enough reviews in .reviews. Websites....here we go again, it's getting
personal.
We do need a rating system, just fine tune it, more members rating and more
members joining Lugnet (my IMO's in the mail !), and try and cut out negative
ratings just neutral and positive.
-pete.w
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
