![]() |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1234> |
Author | |||
Roj ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 02 2008 Location: Manchester, UK Status: Offline Points: 3126 |
![]() |
||
Hi Rob. I know what you mean.
Shadowlands et al certainly deserve more than a 4 Star rating, as you've indicated in the reviews. The only option from a reviewers point of view is to round up to 5 stars ( as too many people appear to do) or do as you have, and leave deserving albums harshly treated given the current system.
Until the reviewing system changes, you simply have to read between the lines in the reviews. Check whether a reviewer's tastes fit in with yours by checking their other reviews and then act accordingly.
Using my theory, as my taste is very much in line with yours, I will not be buying The Culture of Ascent, however Inconsolable Secret will be a must!
Go on, review those ABBA cds!!!
Roj.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Rivertree ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17663 |
![]() |
||
5 stars or 10 stars or .5 stars - for me it makes no important difference
they are only for somebody's guidance - let's say for a first visual orientation how to evaluate an album The main thing is your personal impression embedded in the review content So more grades would be fine but I don't see the ultimate necessity ... |
|||
![]() |
|||
M27Barney ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: November 09 2006 Location: Swinton M27 Status: Offline Points: 3136 |
![]() |
||
I love statistics, I love Cricket averages, how quintessentially BRITISH, thus more complexity would be more up my street as it were, 5 grades is just to inflexible, like only 5 heights for human beings to grow to!
|
|||
![]() |
|||
micky ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46843 |
![]() |
||
have I told you recently I love you.... ![]() amen brother... worry more about the quality of your reviews.. and less about the frickin ratings... if they really meant anything (ie. didn't have multiple different meaning based on how a reviewer reivews) I might see the logic in it. the name of the game is REVIEWING albums.. not rating them. pfffff..... not to mention... and our collabs should know it. The site.. and M@X have more important things to be concerned about. Too much work... for no real purpose. |
|||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Pnoom! ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: September 02 2006 Location: OH Status: Offline Points: 4981 |
![]() |
||
I've considered suggesting this but I doubt it will happen given how worried the site can be about the feelings of its members. I also think a 10 step system is needed, though I doubt it will ever happen, since it's been suggested and seemingly well-supported ever since I've been here and still hasn't happened. The main problem Bob and Guigo raise is having to change all the reviews, which I think could be solved by adding 5-10 temporary reviews editors to work for six months or so until they're all changed. Or they could simply not change the ratings at all, at the risk of angering non-collabs.
Maybe M@X does "have more important things to be concerned about" but surely the satisfaction of the members of his site should be a top priority, perhaps THE top priority after the security and safety of the site (which I imagine constitutes much of what you're referring to with "more important things"). As for calling meeting the wishes of the "general populace" (so to speak) "too much work for no real purpose," all I can say is I disagree about as much as I possibly can. It seems like every change to the site's format and design (of which there have been a lot in the past year) have been made with no input from members (and, unsurprisingly, widely disapproved of in many cases), whereas ideas like the half-star system, which have been around forever and supported every time they've been brought up, are consistently ignored. @ those who are suited with the current system: the beauty of the .5* system is that you are still able to use the the basic five star scale. In that sense, those who want .5* options get their wish, and those who don't lose nothing. Edited by Pnoom! - July 14 2008 at 16:55 |
|||
![]() |
|||
Pnoom! ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: September 02 2006 Location: OH Status: Offline Points: 4981 |
![]() |
||
consolidated into previous post
Edited by Pnoom! - July 14 2008 at 16:33 |
|||
![]() |
|||
Rivertree ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17663 |
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
micky ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46843 |
![]() |
||
private???? pfffff.... I guess have a bit of a streak of voyaurism in me ![]() ![]() |
|||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Rivertree ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17663 |
![]() |
||
![]() I don't wanted to ask for - but now I know .... |
|||
![]() |
|||
Dean ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
![]() |
||
Changing the system is unlikely to be the problem. It would take a few minutes to write a script that rips through the database doubling the exisiting scores and not much longer to run it. I assume this would have to be done even if ˝-scores were adopted because the rating field would probably be an integer variable.
The problems arise when everyone decides that they want to modify their old scores to take account of the new system (I know I would). This then becomes an arduous process of exchanging PMs and manually altering each review (we cannot automate that) - a backlog would quickly build up since there are nearly 177,000 reviews/ratings in the database.
If we assume 10% of those need changing (conservative guess - I think it would be closer to 30%) - that's 17,700 - allocate those to 10 temp-editors and that's 1,770 each, assuming 2 minutes to read the PM and make the change, that will result in 59 hours unpaid work for each editor!!!
And that's before we consider the fact that the PM system would have collapsed long before then from the shere weight of PMs.
|
|||
What?
|
|||
![]() |
|||
micky ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46843 |
![]() |
||
^ and what is the point of that... so someone can give an album 4.5 stars instead of just deciding between 4 or 5. Give me a break
what's next... 4.25 stars for those can not decide between 4 and 4.5 hahahha. |
|||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Rubidium ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: March 23 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1158 |
![]() |
||
If the ratings don't mean anything, then why even bother having them? |
|||
![]() |
|||
KoS ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: May 17 2005 Location: Los Angeles Status: Offline Points: 16310 |
![]() |
||
Why do we need stars?
Can't it just be the number? Or how about the A,B,C and F system? No, thought not. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
Ivan_Melgar_M ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19557 |
![]() |
||
I believe ratings are secondary, but if a new scale that reflects in a more accurate way the position of the reviewer....Why can we be against it? And what about the ratings without reviews? In this case the rating is not important...IS EVERYTHING. About the old ratings, let them stay as they are, whoever can change them, will do it, the others will just have to let it be.
Iván
|
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
MikeEnRegalia ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21817 |
![]() |
||
I think that ratings are much more important than reviews ... but not here in the archives. The reasons are:
I wish that more people gave PF a try - in a way it is the exact opposite of the archives when it comes to the actual ratings. Maybe we could start some kind of collaboration ... people could rate their collection at PF and continue to submit reviews here. |
|||
![]() |
|||
Easy Livin ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
![]() |
||
Such an observation is misinformed, and frankly way out of line.
There are few webmasters of major sites such as this who take on board the members comments in the way M@x does. The changes he has made in the past may not have met with your personal approval, but that is a completely different point. Persistently attacking our webmaster is not a constructive way of instigating change.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
Vibrationbaby ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: February 13 2004 Status: Offline Points: 6898 |
![]() |
||
As Dirty Harry said " I hate the system myself but as long as it`s the only thing going I`ll stick with it " Personally I think the review should stand by itself with no rating. Magazines such asThe Wire which contain many reviews in each issue don`t have rating systems. I think that by the tone and content of a review yiou can pretty much tell what the reviewer thinks of the CD/DVD.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
The T ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
![]() |
||
That's your personal opinion Micky. From your perspective, reviews are everything and rating is sh*t. For my point of view, both are equally important (I have never submitted a rating without review by the way, to prove this assertion). To some people with more statistical minds, ratings may be more important. I don't think you or me or nobody holds the definitive answer... That's why we give opinions here.,..
![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
MikeEnRegalia ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21817 |
![]() |
||
^ I'm not only crazy about statistics. The problem is simply that most of us don't have the time to write reviews about all our favorite albums. IMO the perfect solution would be to first rate all the albums in your collection, and then to add reviews for the albums that you know best. First listen: just submit a rating, maybe a short comment. 10th-or-so listen: adjust the rating - we all know that some albums grow on us, some "shrink" - and then maybe write a lengthy review. The point is: Without the ratings people are always only going to know about a very small percentage of all the albums you listen to, and your opinion about them. If we all submitted more ratings, the obscure albums would be a lot less obscure. Maybe they would not have more reviews, but they would have a more solid base of ratings.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
The T ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
![]() |
||
^ I certainly agree... Even though I have to say, I quite love making averages and statistics of my cds...
![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1234> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |