Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:49:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2049 times
|
| |
|
|
I have always felt that the ratings given to my posts accurately reflected
how interested others would be towards those posts.
In fact, if you had asked me to personally rate all of my posts, i probably
would have given them the same number.
I usually read my news through a news program, so I only rarely see those
numbers (usually if I'm searching using the LUGNET news browser).
The numbers don't bother me in the least.
Brad
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FtBuAn.2LD@lugnet.com...
> All,
>
> It seems at this point that the article rating feature -- intended to • help --
> is actually causing more harm than good to the community. It's difficult • to
> gauge how much harm is being done when opinions are so varied, but it's • clear
> that something needs to be changed.
>
> Technically, the rating system is working extremely well and, from an • admin
> point of view, the composite ratings being produced seem very well • consistent
> with the rating system's main goal of being able to highlight recommended
> reading to those short on time.
>
> However, it seems that the high visibility of both the raw and composite
> numbers are having an overall negative effect on the community's morale.
> Some of the deeper concerns are raised in this message and its replies:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=6130
>
> I also received a private e-mail last night describing the rating system • as
> "a fiasco and an embarrassment to LUGNET" and calling for its removal.
>
> Clearly, these are very strong feelings being expressed by people. How • many
> others feel this way? What would you like to see happen? Post your • thoughts
> as a reply to this message (or reply privately if you prefer not to post • your
> thoughts publicly).
>
> As to possible "fixes," there have been many suggestions over the past few
> weeks, most of which center around making the rating numbers less obvious • or
> gone altogether. If you're curious, you can find most of these in the • group
> lugnet.admin.general -- but it's a lot to wade through.
>
> The first, original purpose for having ratings was to be able to lay the
> foundation for the later creation of variety of "what's hot" or "top X of
> group Y" listings for quick browsing -- something akin to the current
> Spotlight pages, only fully automated, instantly updating, and much more
> representative of collective opinion. The second original purpose was to
> lay the foundation for so-called "collaborative filtering" • possibilities --
> the server learns (could learn) what types of things you prefer to read,
> and gives (could give) higher priority to you personally for messages • rated
> higher by people with similar interests. These two main purposes become
> increasingly relevant as message traffic increases.
>
> It was never a purpose of the ratings system to make anyone ever feel bad
> or unwanted or unwelcome. It's core purpose is simply to highlight "neat • or
> noteworthy stuff" but not to downgrade "un-neat or un-noteworthy stuff" or
> regular "fluff" (which there's nothing wrong with).
>
> It seem that no amount of education about what the numbers mean will be • able
> to make a meaningful dent in the natural inclination to view, say, a 40 as
> having been "marked down" from its default of 50. Even if the default • were
> changed from 50 to 0 (so that numbers tended almost always to climb rather
> than to climb half of the time and fall half of the time), it seems likely
> that feelings will still be hurt, because it seems that some people are • hurt
> by the fact that others are getting 80's and 90's while they are getting • 40's
> or 50's or 60's. Going with a scale 0 to 100, in retrospect, hasn't been • any
> better from an overall morale point of view than if a scale -100 to +100 • had
> been used.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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)
>
> 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?
>
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
>
> 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?
>
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article • rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
>
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to • address
> these issues?
>
> 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...
>
> Thanks for your time,
> --Todd
>
> [followups to .admin.general]
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
