|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Interesting points.... (Reply to this comment)
by stephenkay65
There're a couple major flaws in your proposal, the first two comments in this 'comment section' raise some of the significant issues.
Take a look at my Epinions 'general comments' review again. You hit on what's wrong, but the solution won't prevent the problem.
Keep that thinking hat on!
Steve :)
|
May 18 '02
5:44 pm PDT
|
|
great review (Reply to this comment)
by stockholder
1. The current rating should be replaced with a 1-10 rating system, and a structure established so that each member rating others would have to maintain a balance in their ratings. They would not be able to rate on a high average or low average. The system would not just discourage it, but prevent it. There are two ways of doing this, described below.
Great review and I like the above idea.
|
May 18 '02
2:51 pm PDT
|
|
I agree 100% (Reply to this comment)
by Parrothead2000
I agree 100% with your suggestion that review ratings be forced to follow a bell curve. Great idea.
|
May 07 '02
9:04 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Gandalf, I had a comment up but... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
Don't you just hate life getting in the way of epinions??!!
I'll set you to alert, if I didn't already...
sleeper54
|
Mar 07 '02
2:01 pm PST
|
|
Re: Gandalf, I had a comment up but... (Reply to this comment)
by gandalf2001
Thanks for the encouragement.
The reason for the lack of writing is a new job in January, taking up a lot of time. I have a number of reviews in draft that I need to find time to finish.
|
Mar 07 '02
7:04 am PST
|
|
Gandalf, I had a comment up but... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
...I deleted it. I am thinking of re-writing it as a think-piece essay to serve, perhaps, as a corollary to your piece.
If your essay can make me think this hard, you can know it was very well done indeed!!
I am frustrated by seeing nothing but this essay published by you since early December of last year. I hope you are still planning on writing here!
sleeper54 - 'out and about commentating'
|
Mar 06 '02
10:41 pm PST
|
|
~ (Reply to this comment)
by Sordid-1
This was a very interesting read, friend, and you have made some astute observations. I think even a casual observer would be able to detect the ratings inflation you pointed out, and I believe many of the reasons you provided are valid assessments - perhaps key among them being that Epinions set up a system that rewards quantity over quality.
I particularly appreciate that rather than just pointing out deficiencies you also offered solutions. Unfortunately, I don't think your solutions would provide equity to the system. Many of the long time members have become familiar with the writing chops of the others here and make it a special point to only read quality. By applying a Bell curve to a sample group that is already in the top 10% would needlessly "punish" some high-caliber reviews. That would only work well if everyone read randomly.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Sordid-1
|
Feb 08 '02
10:05 am PST
|
|
I agree with you, but then again, I don't (Reply to this comment)
by gracef
I agree that members don't often rate on quality. I've seen it time and time again and have been bashed for it more times than I can count. Almost every last one of my reviews bears the battle scar of some bozo who couldn't stand the fact that their 100 word mental burp was rated less than VH. And it's pretty common to see someone who gives a deserved low rating to some high-power member being referred to as an "abuser".
The solution, I think, is for Epinions to make it more profitable to rate with care and scrutiny. Right now, it's more profitable to "be nice". Until that changes, ratings will be inflated regardless of rating scale you use.
Now for the big-time disagreement. I once belonged to epinionaddicts. Though I'm no longer a member there (for my own reasons), I would have to say that the board is not about "market me, market me". The board started out being primarily about Epinions, but as some of the more enthusiastic EA members grew disenchanted with Epinions, the owner expanded the scope to give people more of a reason to stick around. Yes, there are some people who use it as a marketing tool, but to dismiss the whole board as nothing but marketing is a gross generalization.
Second, it would be foolish for Epinions to limit the number of types of ratings that a person can give in a day or to automatically adjust ratings of articles they've never seen. I have had cases where I might find an entire category filled with off-topic reviews. Are you going to limit my ability to give them the suggested Epinions rating? I have also had times where the Just In really does have some good offering from newbies. Are you going to tell me that the VH that I give them should be adjusted, thus slamming them into some sub-par rating simply because they happened to file their review at the same time as other good writers?
No, barring people actually caring what inflated ratings are doing to Epinions, the best solution is for Epinions to make it less profitable to inflate ratings. Introduce a human element into Editor selection so that those who give inflated ratings can't get the title. Make rating one aspect of Top Reviewer selection, so that the person who gives inflated ratings can't have his or her work elevated above others. Make writing quality an element in Top Reviewer selection. Make it so that it's not enough to pound out 10 reviews a month. Require for 5 GOOD reviews instead! I'm sure more can be done, but that's a start.
|
Feb 07 '02
5:06 am PST
|
|
Interesting points.... (Reply to this comment)
by pearl-drum-man
You bring up several good points, there are certainly alot of "rubber-stampers" out there. However your 100 point proposal has a couple flaws. Meaning, I read several reviews a day that are really VH and deserve to be rated highly. Under your system I would be discouraged from rating them so (to conserve points). Also, if I were running low on points,I would then be encouraged to rate some reviews LOWER than they deserve to be in order to build up my bank. In the end, you have the same problems. People would be more concerned about their point balance than rating reviews honestly. Interesting theory though......
best o' luck,
pearl-drum-man
|
Feb 06 '02
4:00 pm PST
|
|
BTDT (Reply to this comment)
by niradw
A while back, Epinions did something like this. If your ratings were "too high", then your ratings became anonymous.
The problem with this mechanism, and with the mechanisms that you propose, is that some people read only the better reviews, while others read every review that comes in. Someone who reads the top 3 reviews on a given product might very well rate them all Very Helpful. Someone who reads everything is likely to give out a number of lower ratings. Why should the first member's ratings be artificially skewed to match the pattern of the second member's ratings?
And I don't think using a 1-10 scale (or otherwise increasing the granularity of the rating system) is going to help. Some writers still won't be satisfied with anything but the highest rating.
|
Feb 06 '02
3:34 pm PST
|
|
|
|
