 | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) While I don't think people should need to justify why they mark anything up or down, I think it would help if people were prepared to give/suggest reasons if someone genuinely is curious why they have been downscored. Otherwise they are likely (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) "Marking up" or "marking down" is a figment of the imagination. The initial score of 50 shown by the webserver is simply the result of a single value 50 in the average. If an article is rated 30 by someone, it hasn't been "marked down" to 40 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) are (...) Thanks for your reply. Todd gave a completely accurate response to your comments which nevertheless didn't actually shed any light on what might have been done to make my post more useful. ++Lar (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) If you're talking about... (URL) can only speak for myself (not the other 40-value that's there, and I hope whoever it is feels no pressure to speak up) but IIRC, I gave it a 40 because I was quite confident that the trains would turn out to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Everything I snipped I agree with, and I'll try and use better terminology - less than average/better than average? Richard (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Hmm, I wouldn't assume that 50 is an average. 50 is 50, whatever 50 means. 50 is just a midpoint between 0 (lowest) and 100 (highest). An average article might be 63.262 to one reader and 43.828 to another reader. We might strive for 50 to be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Here's my thinking, no one should feel pressure. But... feedback works better if one knows why. Normally I don't ask. But when I do, it's because I'm genuinely curious and want to improve. (no one OWES a post good feedback because of who the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Article ratings aren't supposed to be feedback. The ratings are supposed to describe to readers approximately how helpful or useful or interesting or fun an article might be to them -- giving them some sense of what to expect. (...) What's (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) 50 Means "average" to me - 0 means "pants", and 100 means "insanely great". The focus being on what the individual thinks, rather than the application of the mathematics. It probably depends on context - saying "Why did someone mark my post (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Yup! :) And asking that question when there are only 1 or 2 people rating an article is really annoying (IMHO). OTOH, asking why 20 people all rated something really low or really high isn't so annoying, IMHO. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Well sure. But have we HAD an article rated by 20 yet? So it's a moot point. ++Lar (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) 10 then. 8. Whatever. You know what I mean. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Is there a chance of hiding the ratings/scores once the tables are up? By showing the scores next to the articles, web-interface users can't help noticing responses, and then wondering why they are the way they are. I'll repeat the old (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) If that's true, then maybe the default vote from the system should be 0 rather than 50. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) The problem I see with the rating system is that if it is something totally subjective and each person who rates an article can use whatever method and scale they feel like to assign ratings, then the rating system seems to me to be close to (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) There are many different methods that people can use in their minds as they give input, but all of the methods have the same net effect: They give a number which gets averaged, and that average score is a reflection of a collective "read (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) One problem I could see with this is that lets say a given set shows up for 10 weeks in S@H, and all those S@H specials posts end up with a very high rating. Then, a review of the set, which is a set people generally don't care for gets a (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) Sorry, I wasn't clear... :) Lemme try again... Hmm, I wouldn't assume that 50 is an actual average (that's what average means, after all). 50 is 50, whatever 50 means. Thus, it's perfectly fine IMHO to say that an "average" (note the quotes) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) That was probably me, chief. I thought my post was just arguing the point, without making any new ones. I also thought it would be secretly ironic to give it a '20', as I'd included the whine 'Why did someone rate my post as 20?" in it. But (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
|
(...) I don't mean one person in specific (same person each time), I mean one input of zero in those cases where there was a zero, which could certainly be different people each time. I just ignore that. If two or three people all marked something (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Top-N article list adjusted for article-age
|
|
(...) Here's a crude example -- a static list built "by hand" from a few one-liners using current data: (URL) told it to examine all the articles which have been rated so far, and adjust their ratings downward the older the article, according to (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age
|
|
(...) that's pretty cool - what would be interesting is to see what articles were _missed_. Also, I started thinking about the default rating... Say, something posted to .announce should probably be rated higher by default than, say, something (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age
|
|
(...) addition to time value, takes the NUMBER of ratings into account. To my way of thinking 2 articles both rated 90 aren't quite the same if one is rated 90 by 5 and the other by 50. Just something to ponder. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age
|
|
(...) [...] (...) I'm with you on this. This is the only real problem with the system as it stands - not enough readers are rating the posts. Scores on post with only one rating are of little value (to me) - especially when the single score is 0 or (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
