Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:26:33 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2176 times
|
| |
|
|
Hey Todd,
I've been avoiding a direct and complete opinion about the rating system till
now, mainly because I wasn't sure of my stand on it. But now I know where I
stand... here're my answers:
> 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.
This is a good idea and I'll be glad to ee it implemented.
> 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.
This, IMO, would work if (and only if) the rating were *not* based on numeric
rating, because the numbers can be perceived in oh-so-many ways. It would work
well, IMO, if there was a rating system based on written-out choices, for
example:
-this post is in the wrong NG (ie, off-topic)
-this post is OK, but not very useful
-this post is very informative
-this post features great MOCs/web sites/[etc]
You get the picture.
This could be very useful once (if?) the RSS/channels are implemented. I could
say, for example, that I want to see informative posts only; while Jeff (just
throwing around names) will ask to see MOC posts as well as informative ones;
and Eric will want to see all posts regardless... that kind of thing.
> These two main purposes become
> increasingly relevant as message traffic increases.
Right; but pure numbers aren't really helping. Categorizing posts
by "usefulness" is downright inappropriate and unhelpful. Because what's
useful and important to someone (e.g. info about a cool new mindstorms set
that is sighted in stores), will be useless to me and vice versa.
> 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"
That's why I think that written-out statements are more useful than numbers.
Like Jeremy and others mentioned, a numeric scoring without a reason does not
help the person posting to realize what he/she has done wrong (or done
excellently well).
> but not to downgrade "un-neat or un-noteworthy stuff" or
> regular "fluff" (which there's nothing wrong with).
Right! "Fluff" is one of the things I like in lugnet, we are here day-in and
day-out; and there aren't Brad Justus posts every day, or MTT sightings every
week. Lugnet contains of a whole lot of fluff, and I personally like to read
it-- and see what's happening every day, regardless if it's highly "useful".
> 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.
Sorrowfully enough, no. :-(
Numbers are numbers, no matter what they are.
> 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?
Neither better nor worse.
> 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?
Better. I would like that.
> 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)
Neither better nor worse. I think it is a good idea but it needs to be re-
thought.
> 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?
Yes, to some extent. Not very often, though.
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
I can't recall such a situation.
> 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?
Neither, and no.
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
Originally, I thought it was a great idea. After seeing it in action, I still
think it's a good idea; but it has to be reworked.
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to address
> these issues?
Right time. Perhaps a tad too late, but it doesn't matter.
> 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you?
> LEGO sets?
Yes; but again, not pure numerical value.
> Websites? Individual web pages?
No way. Much, MUCH more potential for insults and bad feelings all around.
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
