| | | | |
| |
| Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
<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?
I think most users would activate this setting, if available. That is,
it wouldn't likely solve the problems.
> 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?
One idea is that ratings continue to be collected as they are now, but
conditionally display the numerical results. That is, only display the
net rating result for a post if:
- the sample size is greater than a certain threshold (say 4)
- the rating is greater than a threshold (say 70)
In this way, noteworthy posts would stand out. Also, the ability to
down-rate a message still exists, but there is little chance of
offending the poster.
If the above admin-set thresholds are not met for a post, only the
number of submitted ratings would be displayed.
> 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)
Ratings would help with the 'spotlight' feature, which I find
valuable.
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| In lugnet.admin.general, John Koob writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> > 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?
>
> One idea is that ratings continue to be collected as they are now, but
> conditionally display the numerical results. That is, only display the
> net rating result for a post if:
> - the sample size is greater than a certain threshold (say 4)
> - the rating is greater than a threshold (say 70)
> In this way, noteworthy posts would stand out. Also, the ability to
> down-rate a message still exists, but there is little chance of
> offending the poster.
That's a good idea! I'm not sure what you mean by "sample size"; but I think
that adding another condition would be useful:
-Only display the rating if more than X people have rated it (X = ? Perhaps
5?)
Is that what you meant by sample size? If not, what did you mean by it?
> Ratings would help with the 'spotlight' feature, which I find
> valuable.
Agreed; the temporary "top 40" seems very useful.
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Shiri Dori wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Koob writes:
>
> > One idea is that ratings continue to be collected as they are now, but
> > conditionally display the numerical results. That is, only display the
> > net rating result for a post if:
> > - the sample size is greater than a certain threshold (say 4)
> > - the rating is greater than a threshold (say 70)
> > In this way, noteworthy posts would stand out. Also, the ability to
> > down-rate a message still exists, but there is little chance of
> > offending the poster.
>
> That's a good idea! I'm not sure what you mean by "sample size"; but I think
> that adding another condition would be useful:
> -Only display the rating if more than X people have rated it (X = ? Perhaps
> 5?)
>
> Is that what you meant by sample size?
Yes.
It doesn't really matter what X is, but 4 or 5 seems reasonable
to start with.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
| | | | | | |