Up rating.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Quote :

Ratings given 41449 100.0% - -
"exceptional" Ratings given 552 1.3% 1 552
"very helpful" Ratings given 27093 65.4% 1 27093
"helpful" Ratings given 8572 20.7% 1 8572
"somewhat helpful" Ratings given 4624 11.2% 1 4624
"not helpful" Ratings given 486 1.2% 1 486
"off topic" Ratings given 122 0.3%

I have thought about this one as well time and time again Helen since seeing so much criticism from people about VH ratings. Then I thought surely the percentages will depend upon whom you rate, and the quality of the ratings. I saw someone the other day with 23 per cent exceptionals, but explained that the amount they give has relevance to the importance of their ratings, and that if I give an E rather than them, it actually means a great deal more since my percentage is very much lower than theirs, unless of course, their reads are only of 23 per cent exceptional reviews, which I would find hard to believe.

well I also think it stablises with time. And time spent on site is also a factor.

If people are selective about WHO they rate..then yes, it might be more artificially skewed. I am not selective about WHO I rate, (I do not read from alerts) and can rate effectively across a relatively broad spectrum of categories - but mine will also be skewed in that I might walk away and not rate if I find the review is too long winded and boring for my requirements.

I was quite partial to a spot of stats. One of my better subjects at school.

Mine is probably scewed by cot. I have over 300 members on alerts and read them first, though I try to give time to newer members as well.

One of the most useful of the Mathematics subjects. I did Pure Maths + Stats A Level (in 1986) and I think it was the Stats side that I got through on!!

at least I have used it since, and with regularity, unlike 3/4 of the pure stuff!

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Mine is probably scewed by cot. I have over 300 members on alerts and read them first, though I try to give time to newer members as well.

I've never got the Alert thing...

People get so hung up on " I am behind on my alerts" give me six weeks and I will catch up.

WHY? (Rhetorical question! ) There is no obligation to read them!

Sheesh, If I came home and found 50 ciao emails on top of all the other nonsense I would have to hibernate

but yes, if you read and rate your COT then it stands to reason they will write a higher standard of review and command a better rate than perhaps 100 random members.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Mine is probably scewed by cot. I have over 300 members on alerts and read them first, though I try to give time to newer members as well.

...although it could be argued that you'll end up reading all their stuff, even the ones that you've no interest in. Thus skewing your own stats into the bargain.

And, like Helen, I don't get the "alerts" thing though I do have a few people on them, I don't always read their stuff. Just the ones I'm interested in, and if I miss a few days, I miss a few days.

Probably am scewing them but its my choice and how I do things. Sometimes I have a week or so where I rate just new members and read alerts only on one day of the week to get a fair spread. My choice I guess and we all do things differently. I like to see how members in my cot progress with their writing, and some are amazing writers.

skew away..!

until someone gets access to all rates for all reviews we have no idea what the "norm" is

It seems to me that if you don't aceept that a rating can be 'harsh' then you can't really accuse someone of over-rating either... they are manifesations of the same thing if you accept it goes on.

I think the biggest problem with both over and under rating (call it that for the sake of argument) is that often people are not rating with the same guidelines in mind. Sure people's rate will and should to an extent vary BUT the variation should only come about from their interpretation of the guidelines and their expectations of the purpose of the site.

The reviews on Ciao and Dooyoo tend to be through custom mostly and they have developed over time) more detailed than some other review is on sites like Amazon, IMDB etc. so a review that one person might consider very good for one of those site might only be SH by most people's understanding of the Ciao standards. However there are other kinds of reviews in specialist magazines for instance that can be much more detailed than what you expect on Ciao...

Now taking an extreme example if someone on Ciao is rating with the same expectations as those of someone reading a specialist magazine then I think they are not rating to the benefit of the site AND the same is true for someone rating with the criteria for say a brief newpaper review.

This doesn't mean that all the reivews should be rated the same some variability should be seen but sometimes I think the rating can be unjustified within the premise of a review sites like Ciao.

The problem of the VH rating is in part explained with the increase in the quality of most of the review over time. At the beginning of Ciao most VH rated reviews if not all would be considered as only SH or H at best by most of today's raters but over time the bar has been raised and now the standard of most of the review has gone up considerably and more VH are deserved.

This would be my experience anyway...

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Do you know what is good for the site? Honest rating. Not unfair negative rating and not unfair positive rating. Just rating.

Honest ratings can also be unfair ratings if people disregard an objective criteria and rate purely based on their opinions. This can be true for over-rating as well as under-rating. The difference is, people will get upset and angry with unfair under-rating. That's just the way it is. Surely you realise that.

Well, the implication is always there (unless specified) that members rate within the rules. Honest rating is done within the rules and is an accurate reflection of how useful the member found the review. That's honest rating.

Mauri wrote:

It seems to me that if you don't aceept that a rating can be 'harsh' then you can't really accuse someone of over-rating either... they are manifesations of the same thing if you accept it goes on.

True, but I don't believe that's been the case here. If anything, it's the reverse that's true. You certainly can't complain about harsh and/or 'abusive' negative rating if you're prepared to deliberately over-rate (whether maliciously or not). My mind still boggles at malicious over-rating, though.

Mauri wrote:

I think the biggest problem with both over and under rating (call it that for the sake of argument) is that often people are not rating with the same guidelines in mind. Sure people's rate will and should to an extent vary BUT the variation should only come about from their interpretation of the guidelines and their expectations of the purpose of the site.

But that can provide a HUGE variation in rates, assuming members have the balls to rate as they see fit (with the T&Cs… blah, blah, blah). You have members that rate based on some sort of mythical consumer figure, other members rate on a personal basis, some members require concise reviews, others require everything but the kitchen sink, etc. These are all done within the T&Cs, dependant on your interpretation of them and the site purpose.

The issue isn't how people rate, but more how people react to be rated. That's the issue and it's strange that the majority of people who post work on a peer review site can't actually take the criticism that invites, even if it's only a link.

Mauri wrote:

This doesn't mean that all the reivews should be rated the same some variability should be seen but sometimes I think the rating can be unjustified within the premise of a review sites like Ciao.

I'm not sure I'm getting you here, Mauri. What about an example?

Mauri wrote:

The problem of the VH rating is in part explained with the increase in the quality of most of the review over time. At the beginning of Ciao most VH rated reviews if not all would be considered as only SH or H at best by most of today's raters but over time the bar has been raised and now the standard of most of the review has gone up considerably and more VH are deserved.

This would be my experience anyway...

I kinda disagree here. I think the standard of review writing topped out quite a few years ago. Yes, standards DID improve, but they haven't continued to do so. It's hit a plateau and has been there since about 2003, possibly earlier.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

Well, the implication is always there (unless specified) that members rate within the rules. Honest rating is done within the rules and is an accurate reflection of how useful the member found the review. That's honest rating.

I've seen a few SH rates out there that clearly don't comply with the rules. Whether they were based on an honest misrepresentation of the guidelines or whether they were done maliciously, who knows? In either case, they are unfair.

In your opinion, that is.

If you truly believe that the rates are unfair, then report them to Ciao, but be prepared to provide evidence.

Personally, I think it's almost impossible to be able to say for certain that an SH rate is given outside of the rules.

Actually I would say the same. Reporting ratings that are inappropriate on the high side as well as the low side gives ciao a chance to give you their feedback on what they consider acceptable behaviour.

But apart from the really obvious ones - VH on NH reviews etc. it's as difficult, if not more so, to spot malicious generous rates as it is to post malicious lower rates.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

In your opinion, that is.

If you truly believe that the rates are unfair, then report them to Ciao, but be prepared to provide evidence.

Personally, I think it's almost impossible to be able to say for certain that an SH rate is given outside of the rules.

And the same can be said for VH? So where does that leave the idea of over-rating?

I think many of these problems would be solved if people to some extent were prepared to explain their rating when they were very different from the average.

I think someone made a good point on another forum about their decision to maybe rate down a hotel review that did not contain any info about facilites etc. for pets... This IMHO would be a reasonable approach to take BUT since most people would not be interested in pet 'access' and maybe not even thought about it would be confusing for the writer of the review to find that while the vast majority of rates where VH that one person had rated SH or maybe even H so an explanation of the rate might be in order and helpful to other readers...

Mauri wrote:

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

In your opinion, that is.

If you truly believe that the rates are unfair, then report them to Ciao, but be prepared to provide evidence.

Personally, I think it's almost impossible to be able to say for certain that an SH rate is given outside of the rules.

And the same can be said for VH? So where does that leave the idea of over-rating?

I'm not sure I get your point here.

[quote]

Quote :

But apart from the really obvious ones - VH on NH reviews etc. it's as difficult, if not more so, to spot malicious generous rates as it is to post malicious lower rates.
_________________

I don't think its as hard as you think it is. I suppose it depends how much time you spend on the site. Spotting someone who rates exceptional without the time to have even read the review is extremely simple.

You have a review with 100 VHs on it.

As we've pretty much agreed that there should be a wider range of rates on reviews, it stands to reason that not all of these VHs are given out honestly and there must be at least a few Hs and SHs in there.

Which ones have over-rated and which ones think that the review is genuinely VH?

That's the over-rating you can't spot and that's the over-rating that happens every single day on Ciao.

If the quality of the review within ciao's guidelines is SH then all of em !

Now you're being obtuse.

Ciao's Favourite Member wrote:

You have a review with 100 VHs on it.

As we've pretty much agreed that there should be a wider range of rates on reviews, it stands to reason that not all of these VHs are given out honestly and there must be at least a few Hs and SHs in there.

Which ones have over-rated and which ones think that the review is genuinely VH?

That's the over-rating you can't spot and that's the over-rating that happens every single day on Ciao.

Not sure about this...I think if you had a larger sample yes that would be true but not with 100 you could quite easily have 100 'like minded' people who all found the review VH. To get a fairer distibution you might have to get many more reads...

I honestly believe that if Ciao and sites like ciao were to outline the guidelines of use to new members at new member stage by a simple explanatory email, a lot of this petty stuff could really be overcome.