Ratings for Reviews - A Cure for Abuse?

Progger wrote: Hurray, Does this mean that the top ten will no longer be clogged up with *** star Genesis albums!!!

I will do this on my website ... M@x will decide what happens in the archives.

Ok guys, here's what I will do:

For each album each user will be able to rate the "controversiality" of an album (as a percentage).

From that the system can calculate the average controversiality of each album. From the ratings the system also knows the average general rating for the album, and the average user rating for the album (the average compiled from the ratings of the user for the tracks of the album).

Now the system can determine the "karma" of each user review on the basis of this user's deviation from the average rating combined with the average controversiality of the album:

deviation = abs(avg_general - avg_user)

karma = 5 - abs (deviation / max(0.2, avg_controversiality_pct)*14)

The deviation ranges from 0 to 14. A high deviation will decrease the karma value, but a high controversiality percentage will lower that effect.  For the maximum deviation of 14 (avg: 15 points, user rating: 1 point) the karma will range from 0 (20% controversiality and below) to 4 (100% controversiality). For the minimum deviation (0) the karma is 5.

If we do this for every album review, we can compute the user karma as the average of all the reviews of the user.

So now we have a karma number from 0 to 5 for each user. We can now use that number as a weight for each track rating of the user. But is it fair to apply karma to each track rating?  

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

s1ipp3ry wrote: its time to shake the Tree  !   lets see what happens

Yes it's always time to shake trees, but this must be done by gardeners with desire to keep this tree alive.

I'm sure that a well known Genesis hate who has denounced corruption without a single argument will take the time to throw down every review that gives Genesis albums more than one star.

I know a couple of ELP bashers and a lot of Prog Metal haters, this guys will attacjk everything they don't like.

Honestly I wouldn't dare to consider bad any review about a Yes, ELP or King Crimson (Despite I don't like any King Crimson album except ITCOTCK and Red) album (Well except for 5 stars reviews for In the Hot Seat or Brain Salad Perjury aka Re-Works).

Some of us love this place, I love Genesis much more han any other band, but I rated a lot of albums higher and made more comlimentary reviews about albums by other bands than for example SEBTP or The Lamb.

You know why? Because I love Prog' and I love this site. If i get angry when somebody adds a non Prog band or says that Close to Edge is crap is because I want to keep the genre and Prog Archives alive. I'm sure most of the members will do it, but there are fanboys, flamers and trolls (Not few).

The faboys will do anything to take their favorite band to N° 1, the flamers will start problem ecverywhere and the trolls will use the new system to destroy Prog Archives.

I believe that at least 20 or 30 guys have been kicked out since I'm here, I'm sure this guys will manage to ruin the place, they will not only rate every reviewer low, but will use 5 or 6 nicks to do it over and over.

So lets shake the tree, but trying not to take the roots from the floor because the tree will fall.

Iván

BTW: Before I came here I made three reviews in Amazon about albums which I felt were horrendous, one of them was ABACAB, the other was Genesis (Shapes) and can't remember the third. In the first two cases I reccomended the people not to waste their money in those aberrations.

The three reviews were deleted, so I can't trust that place.

 

Edited by ivan_2068

ivan_2068 wrote: It works in A,azon because AMAZON edits the reviews and manipulate the ratings of te reviewers, they supress what they want and add what they believe, because their business ois selling albums.

Good point. There are tons of loopholes with this system as far as I see. A major flaw is the fact that some users will chose to rate ALL the reviews while other will chose not to. One user can single handedly sink an album because he gave 75 reviews bad ratings.




Edited by Hierophant

s1ipp3ry wrote:  many people who love or hate a band will vote 1 star or 5 stars for the album (half the time not even hearing or knowing it) just because they hate or love that band,  thats the trouble Ivan  so there needs to be a way the people can police the peoples reviews otherwise the system will (and has in some ways) turned into a joke

Three questions:

1. How do you think Progger would rate the reviews about Genesis albums with high number of stars when he has publicly said ad nauseam that all Genesis allbums suck and those who rate them high are corrupt bast*rds????????
2. How do you hink that Gentletull will qualify the reviews about albums as Crest of the Knave or Dot Com that give two stars (Which is the macimum they deserve in my honest and humble opinion????
3. How do you believe all the trolls kicked out will qualify all the reviews??????

Starting from thois point we know the system wouldn't work.

It works in A,azon because AMAZON edits the reviews and manipulate the ratings of te reviewers, they supress what they want and add what they believe, because their business ois selling albums.

That's why no person with a minimum of musical knowledge cares for Amazon reviews.

Iván

I don't agree, this last days have shown us that this is impossible, do you imagine Bivine Comedy.....GentIe Giant or any of the other trolls rating the reviews?????

It would be a mess.

BTW: I don't believe anybody is entitled to rate a review, it's a personal work, some of us put heart and soul on it, as I said before stealing time from our job and family, just to see a bunch of rolls (THAT WILL APPEAR) daring to rate us.

All the people that hate Genesis, will vote against reviews of this bands with high ratings, the same will happen with Yes, King Crimson, ELP, etc.

Imagine what will happen with reviews from bands like ELO, STYX, ASIA, this would turn into a joke.

Iván

Hierophant wrote: I don't agree with you on this. People are no doubt going to rate reviews not in line with their own opinions "bad karma" and reviews most like theirs "good karma". For example if an album has 50 five star reviews and 3 zero star reviews - the overwhelming majority of 5 star voters are going to vote the zero star reviews with "bad karma" and their influence will be greatly reduced which just isn't fair. It winds up having nothing to do with whether their reviews were helpful or not and pivots more on "i just don't agree with this guy" or "this guy sounds stupid". In effect this is "mob rule" to the second power. I think reviews in question should be debated in the forums and the admins left with the decision to delete them or not based on the debates. Ratings should not be "rated". One person's opinion is just as important as the next person's regardless of how stupid it sounds to the rest of us. This system may be useful for "ordering" reviews - as in which reviews are seen first by users but other than that I don't think the majority opinion should wind up determining your own individual opinion. I hope I'm understanding you here?

 

I agree with you here.  Does it really matter where your favorite prog album lies on a list or in someone else's opinion?  My two favs are Jethro Tull and ELP. JT has already been discounted and is no longer counted in among the top 'five.' ELP has often taken a licking in the mainstream of rock scholarship. They are slowly being written out of progressive rock relevance, since at one time they were as popular as the Stones and The Who.  Recently, somebody wrote a review of Sgt. Peppers and trashed it.  You know, I am not really sure how this album does hold up. It has several really mediocre songs. It is interesting to hear how other people hear this music.

I think it is extremely bad idea, as it would lead PA members towards rating and reviewing each other's opinions, instead of albums. Stupid enough.

 

And, just imagine following:  you keep coming across 5 stars reviews of Heaven's Cry, Kamelot, Tool, Evergrey, Devin Townsend, Shadow Gallery, Symphony X, Opeth "Still life", DT "Train of thought", Gathering, Adagio "Underworld", Porcupine tree "Deadwing". All above five stars ratings are given by the same person A.

Imagine also that you know all the albums reviewed, and in your own opinion the best from above -"Underground" by Adagio deserves 3,5 stras as the best, and all others are way below 3.

One may call this situation "abuse of rating system", one also can call it "lobbying of metal".   

I think that if you were in this situation you would give person A an extremely "bad karma", so would I, but, wait a minute, the person A is no one else but famous ratingfreak - Mr. MikeEnRegalia. Oh no, we sould not give him that, as he might get very upset and distracted from his important job of inventing names for sub-sub-sub-genres and puting labels on every song of every album of every artist in prog and non prog and whatever 

Frankly, I would rather abstain from giving ''bad karma'' to all those poor b*****ds who are unlucky enough to have their tastes different to mines.

 

And do not take above as offense - you asked for opinions - here's mine.

 

I don't agree with you on this. People are no doubt going to rate reviews not in line with their own opinions "bad karma" and reviews most like theirs "good karma". For example if an album has 50 five star reviews and 3 zero star reviews - the overwhelming majority of 5 star voters are going to vote the zero star reviews with "bad karma" and their influence will be greatly reduced which just isn't fair. It winds up having nothing to do with whether their reviews were helpful or not and pivots more on "i just don't agree with this guy" or "this guy sounds stupid". In effect this is "mob rule" to the second power. I think reviews in question should be debated in the forums and the admins left with the decision to delete them or not based on the debates. Ratings should not be "rated". One person's opinion is just as important as the next person's regardless of how stupid it sounds to the rest of us.

This system may be useful for "ordering" reviews - as in which reviews are seen first by users but other than that I don't think the majority opinion should wind up determining your own individual opinion.


I hope I'm understanding you here?








Edited by Hierophant

The Miracle wrote: That's a great idea How hard would it be to work out an algorithm for that?

I will do it on my website - I don't know how difficult it would be to implement it here. There are two different strategies:

1. The rating for a review affects that review only
2. The rating for a review affects all ratings/reviews by that user

On my website I will use the second approach ...

Edited by MikeEnRegalia