Rating system bbcode

[Jordus]

I added a rating bbcode that can be used within a post. It should come in handy for the go book review section for anyone who would like to place their rating of that book within their post. This way a user can have a rating associated with their name since the poll does not display who voted for what. This option may be useful in other settings too... The rating system is a 5 out of 5 system.. example:
My Rating:

My Rating:

My Rating:

My Rating:

My Rating:

to use this:

Code: Select all

[rating]number[/rating]

the number has to be a number from 1 to 5; whole number only.

[RobertJasiek]

IMO, a 1 to 5 "star" ranking system has these disadvantages:

1) 1 as the minimum can be confused with expressing something positive.

2) There is no balance between positive and negative numbers.

3) The mean 3 is a positive number while it would better be 0 as a neutral number.

The following ranking system would suit better:

-- | - | o | + | ++

(I use this system in my book reviews.)

Alternatively as numbers:

-2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2

[kirkmc]

Why am I not surprised...?

[Jordus]

IMO, a 1 to 5 "star" ranking system has these disadvantages:

1) 1 as the minimum can be confused with expressing something positive.

AFAIK, it is common knowledge that in a standard 1-5 ranking system that 1 is referred to as bad and 5 as good. We can thank amazon.com for that one...

2) There is no balance between positive and negative numbers.

3) The mean 3 is a positive number while it would better be 0 as a neutral number.

The following ranking system would suit better:

-- | - | o | + | ++

(I use this system in my book reviews.)

Alternatively as numbers:

-2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2

The 1 to 5 system is just 5 digits. I would think common knowledge and practice indicates replacing those digits with 5 symbols does not in effect really change the meaning of the vote. 1 is poor, 2 is inadequate, 3 is satisfactory/neutral/null, 4 is good/adequate, and 5 is excellent. Changing the symbols representing this shouldn't have an effect.

[RobertJasiek]

AFAIK, it is common knowledge that in a standard 1-5 ranking system that 1 is referred to as bad and 5 as good. We can thank amazon.com for that one...

That Google, Ebay, Amazon etc. use a doubtful system does not mean it must be copied. It is also common knowledge that issuing numbers smaller than 5 is almost considered an insult. Such a system is meant to provoke its users to give higher rankings than they should if judging objectively.

Changing the symbols representing this shouldn't have an effect.

It should not but it does. E.g., German media like to ask people for ranking of politicians or parties on a +5 to -5 scale. There one does not see excessive top rankings, except that the same media then forget about neutrality and prefer to publish only the top 5 or 10 ranking politicians' values.

[topazg]

It should not but it does. E.g., German media like to ask people for ranking of politicians or parties on a +5 to -5 scale. There one does not see excessive top rankings, except that the same media then forget about neutrality and prefer to publish only the top 5 or 10 ranking politicians' values.

That German politicians use a doubtful system does not mean it must be copied. It is also common knowledge that issuing numbers smaller than 0 is considered an insult. Such a system is meant to provoke its users into giving better scores than they should if judging objectively.

[kirkmc]

It should not but it does. E.g., German media like to ask people for ranking of politicians or parties on a +5 to -5 scale. There one does not see excessive top rankings, except that the same media then forget about neutrality and prefer to publish only the top 5 or 10 ranking politicians' values.

That German politicians use a doubtful system does not mean it must be copied. It is also common knowledge that issuing numbers smaller than 0 is considered an insult. Such a system is meant to provoke its users into giving better scores than they should if judging objectively.

To be fair to Robert, while he thinks his system is better, I am inclined to think that this type of thing is cultural. If you're familiar with a given system, you're more likely to think that it fits the way you want to rate things. I agree with topazg that negatives are weighted with more than just ratings, but saying that a five-digit scale is a "doubtful system" is just Robert thinking that only his ideas are correct. Five-star systems have been used in the US for ages, well before Amazon started using them. While they certainly are a reflection of a US-based cultural construct, they seem to have been adopted in many other countries.

[topazg]

I apologise for not perhaps being clear. I agree with you completely Kirk. I actually intended to almost carbon copy his quote but back the other way, as a way of indicating exactly that cultural divide. Person A prefers system A. Person B prefers system B. That does mean system A is better or worse than B, but it normally feels like it is to person A for all sorts of subjective reasons that feel objective to them.

6 of one, half a dozen of another

[Harleqin]

The question is: what should the number represent? How should a "no vote" be interpreted?

Why is there no "0 stars"? Why am I forced to give a star to something I find completely worthless?

If the number is just a label for a bucket, then it should not be represented by a number of stars, but by a single symbol.

[kirkmc]

The question is: what should the number represent? How should a "no vote" be interpreted?

Why is there no "0 stars"? Why am I forced to give a star to something I find completely worthless?

If the number is just a label for a bucket, then it should not be represented by a number of stars, but by a single symbol.

Perhaps there should be a 0 rating as well...

I don't know what you mean by a "no vote;" this isn't for voting on anything, but rather for people reviewing books to give an overview of their reviews.

[Li Kao]

In my head I map a vote to a value between 0 and 1 anyways. So there is not much difference between roberts +2 to -2 and 1 to 5.
The main issue that annoys me with 5 star ratings without 0 is, that I instinctively map n stars to n/5 instead of (n-1)/4.

[RobertJasiek]

That German politicians use

You misunderstood. It is not the politicians that use - but the media and opinion collecting statistical research institutes use such a system.

Five-star systems have been used in the US for ages

I see. They are not that common here. E.g., simple school marking systems count from 6 to 1 (best).

Having been used for ages does not make it better though: Unlike the Romans, we have such a nice system of natural numbers with a zero as its neutral element!

[hyperpape]

That German politicians use

You misunderstood. It is not the politicians that use - but the media and opinion collecting statistical research institutes use such a system.

Are you sure this is an important correction?

[RobertJasiek]

Yes because a) WRT ranking systems, statistical research institutes have a better sense than politicians and b) false information should never stand.

[hyperpape]

b) false information should never stand.

From the horse's mouth...

If you have any other important goals in life, this is probably false--you will sometimes have to prioritize.

Even if your goal is always speaking the truth and getting other people to believe the truth, and this goal trumps all others, it is still false. Sometimes, you can be promote the truth by leaving aside some minor point in favor of spending your time on more important issues. Correcting Topazg will not make him more likely to accept your side of the overall argument.

This is the kind of thing that makes sense only if your sole priority is correcting people.