Ratings calculation

It makes my life a lot more difficult!!

Though, i love and hate everything at the same time...

http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=13410 there's 3,77 for example, with two 5-stars.

Maybe we should vote about it. Why are rating averages changed??

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?

Yes, and no. It isn't listed above them, at least if there's tow ways to list them and users could choice the way. And the previous system worked well.

And there's always top 100 (or 500) lists. There are lists for genres also. Why not for artists? It is only calculating, not taking too much resources.

It is very odd that you must look into each album's ratings trying to calculate yourself the absolute  average.  And who says reviewers' ratings are better? Or that the album is better when there's more ratings. I think proggers are quite intelligent people and because there's so few ratings in many albums, we should take them seriously and not "banning" non-reviewers or single voices.

And whatabout situation when there's album with three 4-star votes, one with two five-star votes? And Im still not sure if it is a weighting factor whether you are reviewer or not.... obscure. Very obscure things.

Can't go on like this.

Dying.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?

That's the key point! Leave the algorithm for ratings as it was (it took into account who gave the review and how "long" it was).
But when you need to list the albums anywhere... It is this place where to use an algorithm which takes the number of reviews into account as well.

So the ratings would remain in a state people got used to already (when a collab rate 5, and a noncollab rate 4 the average used to be equal to 4.60 or near - I guess, it was Ok for most visitors), and least reviewed albums won't pop up on tops of rating-lists or something.

What's done now is going to make most popular albums even more popular and the least popular albums would receive even less attention. Visitors will just look at the rating (which is now modified by a number-of-ratings-dependent algorithm, but how a visitor would now THAT??) and see it is 3.89 or so - would they be willing to get it?? It doesn't attract even to read the reviews!

Hope, you got my point of view: the current algorithm scheme is not that evident to an average visitor (it just isn't natural) and surely would make some potentially good albums unattractive.

Edited by XPEHOPE3KA - July 15 2007 at 11:09