Rating System concern - Suggestions - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Pavement415 wrote:

Agreed. Don't they do something like that already? Not as accurate as normalization, though I thought I read a formula somewhere here that said they take our average(?) and grade on a small curve. Whatever it is, it's definitely not working

We currently do a bayesian average at each item's level - meaning each album has an arbitrary amount of invisible ratings equal to the site's average. This dissuades albums with only one 100 rating from being at the top.

What I propose is normalization at the user level - your visible ratings stay the same, but the real value the site assumes considers that user's average rating and rating variability as well. In such a way, we can have someone who gives 10/100 to everything and one who gives 100/100 to everything - both would be taken as "average" for each user and taken as a higher or lower value respectively. So people who very sporadically give 100s would have their 100s be more valuable than a 100 by someone who rates everything a 95.

Also this system would allow for arbitrary site-wide averages - say, 70 - and then we could know anything over this is above average. At the moment I don't really pay attention to average ratings much, as they're mostly 77s and that tells me nothing without an arbitrary anchor against which to value them.

pa
as it happens

Gender: Male
Age: 43
Location: Italia

dividesbyzero wrote:

or we could just ban platus and get it over with

I'm late with this post but yeah I've noticed the same thing and that's a pity.
If I don't like an album I prefer to not rate it at all actually, my lowest rating is 50/100 I think.

koner1
Biggest Jilm

Gender: Male
Age: 26
Location: Massachusetts

i think 100s should have the weight they always have. but i like what you suggested about the ratings like 10's and stuff like that.. people who rate things like that in bulk are obviously just trying to bring the ratings down (there are plenty of users that do this - just take a look at some of them). are they rating them 5/100 or 10/100 because they simply hate the song? maybe, but most of the tracks that people are doing this on are very high in rating, in like the 90s, which hints at the intentions of these users.

for instance Today by Smashing Pumpkins... 10 people rated it 5/100. it's currently 90/100 but it could very well be 91 or 92 without those ratings. and it's always the same people that are doing it.

i don't know if people who rate songs 100/100 consistently without hesitation (me for example, if i enjoy a song on the first listen, it's getting a 100 from me, no questions asked) should be taken into consideration any less than they are as the rating system stands now.

i've been annoyed at these people for quiet some time now myself and i'm glad it's been addressed.

undefined

pa wrote:

I'm late with this post but yeah I've noticed the same thing and that's a pity.
If I don't like an album I prefer to not rate it at all actually, my lowest rating is 50/100 I think.

sorry that comment was more in jest to get at Defago than anything. I don't think misusing the rating system is a good idea but I think banning those who might not understand the dos and do nots of the system is a worse one. I'm actually in *gulp* support of Defago's solution

Last edited by undefined on 03/03/2015 20:46; edited 1 time in total

pa
as it happens

Gender: Male
Age: 43
Location: Italia

dividesbyzero wrote:

sorry that comment was more in jest to get at Defago than. I don't think misusing the rating system is a good idea but I think banning those who might not understand the dos and do nots of the system is a worse one. I'm actually in *gulp* support of Defago's solution

neither do I, but that's a pity DBZ and I think that would be great to find a solution for this problem.

undefined

pa wrote:

neither do I, but that's a pity DBZ and I think that would be great to find a solution for this problem.

agreed, and I hate to admit it but Defago's makes good sense

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

dividesbyzero wrote:

agreed, and I hate to admit it but Defago's makes good sense

As per our agreement, in return for your support I shall incorporate one (1) division by zero in the algorithm.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

I've said it before...the solution is to not award users points for ratings. Everything listed in this thread happens...and there are a lot of people who do things like rate and album an 85, and rate every track on that album an 85...and they do it a lot. Ratings are the fastest and easiest way to dishonestly amass site points. If it were up to me, I'd make them count for zero user points and see how quickly the shenanigans dissipate.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

Romanelli wrote:

I've said it before...the solution is to not award users points for ratings. Everything listed in this thread happens...and there are a lot of people who do things like rate and album an 85, and rate every track on that album an 85...and they do it a lot. Ratings are the fastest and easiest way to dishonestly amass site points. If it were up to me, I'd make them count for zero user points and see how quickly the shenanigans dissipate.

The same applies to comments and forum posts, though. If we go down this way, its logical conclusion would be to only give points through chart-making. And then people would make huge useless charts to get points (these at least don't actively disrupt the site's functioning, though.) I don't think we should kick the board because of a few cheaters - the points are there to encourage participation, and they mostly do except for a few bad apples who bypass their intended objective for personal gain.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

Defago wrote:

The same applies to comments and forum posts, though. If we go down this way, its logical conclusion would be to only give points through chart-making. And then people would make huge useless charts to get points (these at least don't actively disrupt the site's functioning, though.) I don't think we should kick the board because of a few cheaters - the points are there to encourage participation, and they mostly do except for a few bad apples who bypass their intended objective for personal gain.

More bad apples than you may think. And unlike forum posts, comments, data moderation, etc...ratings take one small action with no words necessary...you can rate one 20 track album and all of it's songs in a matter of seconds without having to type in a single word or make any kind of thought other than click...click...click...instant 10.5 user points.

Click...click...click...

Plus, it's harder to see what the intent of someone is who just rates. Are they being honest, or mining points? You can see intent with comments and forum posts. But with ratings?

Click...click...click...
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...