The Star Rating System
Tue, 16 Apr 2002, 11:20 amThe Review Master10 posts in thread
The Star Rating System
Tue, 16 Apr 2002, 11:20 amHi all,
It was brought to my attention last night that I had apparently given Playlover's JCS two stars in the review I wrote about it.
Not true at all. I have no idea what the stars mean. What do they mean Grant?
The Review Master
To Rate or not to Rate
Sat, 20 Apr 2002, 09:22 amHearty agreement with your post, Craig. You've neatly summed up the reasons for including a ratings system.
There are a couple of other issues people might like to consider - and while it's under the broad subject of ratings, the Reviews section is probably as apt as any other.
:-)
I'm curious to know what barriers people might see to their rating a post?
I wonder if some people won't rate posts because the rating they apply is visible for everyone to see?
Would more people rate if their rating wasn't visible for all to see? Should ratings be "anonymous"?
On the second matter, if you check a person's profile, you may notice that it records the number of posts they've made (under that login) and also the number of ratings they've made, together with the average rating they've given.
After the average rating they've given, there is sometimes a number in brackets. I've not been quite sure what to call this, but it is the average of the ratings that this person has received - rather than given. I'll shortly be using this figure and a few other factors such as recent activity on the site - e.g. updating/adding events/companies and the number of recent posts - to allocate registered people a personal star rating. This will appear next to their name at various points around the site.
Any ratings you apply to yourself are ignored when calculating a personal rating. To prevent people buddying or teaming up to rate each other highly, the system weights in favour of the number of different people that have rated you. And if you persistently rate other people down, this might even begin to drag down your personal rating.
:-)
This type of feature is becoming common on many web sites - a rough and ready meritocracy that attempts to "reward" and encourage productive, social behaviour.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
There are a couple of other issues people might like to consider - and while it's under the broad subject of ratings, the Reviews section is probably as apt as any other.
:-)
I'm curious to know what barriers people might see to their rating a post?
I wonder if some people won't rate posts because the rating they apply is visible for everyone to see?
Would more people rate if their rating wasn't visible for all to see? Should ratings be "anonymous"?
On the second matter, if you check a person's profile, you may notice that it records the number of posts they've made (under that login) and also the number of ratings they've made, together with the average rating they've given.
After the average rating they've given, there is sometimes a number in brackets. I've not been quite sure what to call this, but it is the average of the ratings that this person has received - rather than given. I'll shortly be using this figure and a few other factors such as recent activity on the site - e.g. updating/adding events/companies and the number of recent posts - to allocate registered people a personal star rating. This will appear next to their name at various points around the site.
Any ratings you apply to yourself are ignored when calculating a personal rating. To prevent people buddying or teaming up to rate each other highly, the system weights in favour of the number of different people that have rated you. And if you persistently rate other people down, this might even begin to drag down your personal rating.
:-)
This type of feature is becoming common on many web sites - a rough and ready meritocracy that attempts to "reward" and encourage productive, social behaviour.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···