Subject:
|
Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:30:37 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
790 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Franks writes:
> > > "Marking up" or "marking down" is a figment of the imagination.
> > Everything I snipped I agree with, and I'll try and use better terminology -
> > less than average/better than average?
>
> 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 an average, but I don't think that 50% of all articles will end
> up <=50 and 50% will end up >=50.
>
> 50 could be thought of as "typical" or "average" or "half the way insanely
> great." 90 could be thought of as "90% of the way to insanely great" or a
> 10% feeling that it wasn't useful. 10 could be thought of as "10% of the way
> to insanely great" or a 90% feeling that it wasn't useful.
>
> The numbers are just numbers on a linear scale, and you can feel free to
> put whatever interpretations to them that you like. How strongly do you feel
> that some article was useful to you? How strongly do you feel that the world
> (or your own personal world) would be a lesser place without that article?
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 useless. Of course I tend to view any
rating system as close to useless anywise. Unless you understand how the
particular individual is making the rating, you have no idea of how
usefull the thing being rated is to you.
I'm not sure what the exact goal of the system is for Lugnet. If the
goal is to allow someone who comes along two years from now to be able
to easily find the posts and threads that have permanent value, then I
think that should be stated. If that is the goal, then I would rate
things like a post in .trains which lays out module standards as very
high. I would rate a post in .shopping which tells about todays sale as
a 0 (after today the post is useless). If I'm able to change the rating,
I'd rate the .shopping post 100 today, and 0 tomorrow.
Unless it is clear what the intent of the rating system is, people are
going to feel bad if their articles are consistently rated lower than
other articles, and they are going to want to know why, and personally,
I think in that case they would be deserving of hearing the reasoning.
It may in the end be something totally impersonal (the person may just
be talking about things that are of low interest to the group, perhaps
an example might be someone who's primary interest was Duplo trains and
was trying to strike up a conversation in .trains).
In another post, you talked about people being able to customize the
system rating on a per group basis, what might actually be better, from
the perspective of ordering searches, is for people to be able to scale
ALL the ratings in a group (say I'm searching for stuff about trains,
obviously I want to search .trains, but there might be some stuff in
.town and .general, so I might chose to scale them down by a factor of 2
so I only have to look at the train related posts there which really
impressed people).
Because of all of the above, I have to say that I am essentially
ignoring the rating system. I just don't see how it is usefull to me
right now.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
