Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:51:16 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> This is the best option I think, at least better than the option below
> (which I was thinking as the best, until reading your message). It
> doesn't included the feeling of "elitism is at the front door" by
> satisfying an automated "top n list" feature at the same time.
OK, good, we need to get rid of any feelings of elitism...
> Actually, before I read your opinion request, I didn't care about
> ratings of my posts (I use NNTP) so I checked the ratings of my posts
> several minutes ago for first time. It's very interesting that my
> highest rated post is the one in which I expressed my dislike about
> rating system..:-)
Isn't that ironic? :) I've marked almost every message on this thread as
100 a recommendations to read and for the insightful comments. Perhaps
others did as well, or others agreed directly with the concerns (I agreed
with the concerns, BTW).
> I won't hurt in anyway by seeing my posts are rated
> low,. but this doesn't mean that (in anyway) I feel comfortable about
> the procedure. Lugnet is not an academic place where participants
> supposed to present scientific assays or defend their master thesis to
> an academic council, IMHO. I visit Lugnet in my SPARE TIME, and it's an
> integral part of my HOBBY, which is obviously a SPARE TIME activity by
> nature, of which the purpose is nothing but FUN and RELAXING. I can
> explain further but I'm sure you get what my point is.
Oh yes! :)
> Web sites? Yeah, may be. Web sites and news group posts are very
> different in nature and I think former is very suitable for rating,
> while the latter is no need to be rated (besides being not suitable),
> especially in the Lugnet case, where signal to noise ratio is very very
> low, or noise is organized in a way that never bothers not interested
> people.
I think you're onto something there, but I also think that the signal-to-
nosie ratio is an extremely personal thing. By "exteremely personal" I mean
that it varies widely from person to person. Someone said, for example, that
they found approximately 75% of the messages here to be fluff or noise, and
another said that they enjoy reading what they consider fluff.
Not everyone does or wants to read everything, and I know people for whom
90% of all the messages here are just noise -- because their time is limited.
That's a very _low_ signal-to-noise ratio.
> Actually, don't we rate web pages already? Your CLSoTW elections
> made primarily on "rating" basis, AFAIK.
The resulting list of sites spun out by CLSotW is a very crude "in or out"
list. The main (read: 99%) original purpose of of CLSotW was to give a place
to visit once a week to curl up with a cup of coffee and visit some "cool"
(and hopefully relatively new) LEGO-related website. The archive of past
picks is just a by-product (a nice freebie). The summaries of the sites are
the writings of one person -- not extremely helpful compared to what could be
possible instead.
But more importantly, there can only be one CLSotW per week, and at any given
time there are dozens of sites out there which most people would consider
"cool" but which, for one reason or another, aren't easily findable. The
CLSotW page (in its current form) can only show so much.
What I'd like to see someday (this is just me, and I haven't collected
opinions from others on this yet) is a system to rate not only whole websites
but individual pages of websites -- and then collate the ratings and produce
hourly revolving "top N" lists. Age of last addition would be an important
factor here, so that things would drop in their position on the list with the
passage of time. Currently, there is just no way to keep up with all the
great stuff that's being put on display at all the various fan websites.
Without some collaborative rating system for webpages, I'm going to miss at
least half of the great stuff no matter how hard I try...so I'd rather miss
the things that didn't get high ratings and see the things that did. Then
if I have a bit of extra time I can go down the list and look at slightly
lower-rated things. And it would be especially helpful to me if it knew my
preferences and also gave me the option to turn them off or to show me random
things. And categorizing and tagging is important too.
In other words, I trust the collective opinion of a bunch of people far more
than I trust random events which might lead me to something interesting. (Of
course, a mix of both is needed, otherwise one never exposes oneself to new
things -- but that should be a personal decision.)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Rating websites.... (was: opinions on rating)
|
| (...) If you consider this original purpose, CLSotW has definitely lived up to it and much more! I look forward to the new pick every week, and I usually check out the nominations too. I think it's a great thing as is and should not be mixed with (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
