Subject:
|
Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 00:54:15 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Agree. But they're RATINGS, that is, one presumably is using them as a
> > guide. The reader is guided in what to read and the writer who cares is
> > guided in what to write. If he or she can figure out what the issue is,
> > that is.
>
> I dunno. I can only suggest that people post in the manner that is most
> comfortable to them, and never to worry about the article ratings/scores.
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 argument about showing the scores hurting peoples feelings - I'm
not saying that Larry felt hurt by the scores, but it certainly got his
attention (and will others).
That way, if you get an article rated high enough that it gets put on the table
then great! If you don't get on the table then it doesn't matter - most posts
won't.
This way it's like having a "Negative Spotlight", that highlights all the worst
posts of the system. Put in that perspective is it suprising that some people
complain and feel picked upon?
I'll bet you a pitchfork that most people think 45% is a 'bad' mark, and 55% is
a 'good' mark, regardless of whether this is logical or not.
It's not about what is, it's about what people think is.
I think one of the worst things that could (and probably will) happen, is a
newbie seeing some of their posts marked "less than average" and not feeling
welcome.
It would help stop some forms of strategic rating too. You have to be really
vindictive to rate someones post to 0 when you know they'll never know that
they've been rated 0.. but only slightly vindictive to give someone a 0, when
you know they'll see the results of it next time they look.
It would also stop other peoples votes affecting your own decisions, even when
you try not to let them!
It would also clear uy the colour overloading problem, and contribute
significantly to world peace and harmony.
> IMHO, it's obnoxious to post questions asking why something was rated the way
> it was. But that's just me.
I agree that it could easily be obnoxious, but I don't believe that Larry's
intent was to get higher scores. I believe his intent was to write better
articles, if you think you have posted something of value, and some people
think that it is less than average (correct terminology pending), then IMHO it
is reasonable to ask how you can improve your posts.
Of course, if he couldn't see the score then he wouldn't have minded that he
wasn't on the table, and future searches would have had less chance of picking
up his post - win/win? :)
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
