Ratings for Reviews - A Cure for Abuse?

I think that they ONLY effective way to handle the abuse of a rating system is to add a "review rating" feature. I will do that on my website - each user will be able to rate reviews, and the system will compile a "karma" value for each user. Users with "bad karma" will have an reduced effect on the overall average, users with "good karma" will have an increased effect on the overall average.

This essentially means that individual persons which try to abuse the system by submitting irrational ratings can be punished by the community. In theory, provided that the better part of the community is not abusive, the abusers will receive plenty of bad votes - even from other abusers.

That's a great idea

How hard would it be to work out an algorithm for that?

Edited by The Miracle

Yea this could work...that would be great

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

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

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.

 

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 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

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

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