Up rating.

Mauri wrote:

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...

On one or two reviews, I will admit that this can happen, but on the large amount of reviews on the site that are rated in this way, across a wide variety opf topics, you really do have to wonder.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

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.

I think this would certainly help....

I'm maybe a few pages behind the action on this one but wanted to have a little input on the stats debate (I did mechanics in my maths A-level so no fancy greek letters from me on this debate).

An even distribution of rates would assume an average cross section of the public reading a set of reviews written by another average cross section. Surely we'd agree that's not the case.

The readers are people who on the whole like to read reviews more than the averages person (the non-members have a different profile but only the members can rate so I think this is true).

The writers who write poor reviews don't tend to stick around for very long - thus the writership is skewed towards people who write better than the overall average. (Those that don't either don't write to start with or get disheartened and give up quickly).

On that basis, I think a normal distribution would be exceptionally 'un-normal' (says she, at risk of starting another bleedin' debate about what's 'normal').

I follow the 'life's too short to read rubbish reviews' policy and select out the ones I expect to be rubbish (it's easy to tell from the first few lines you can see without opening the review). Or if I'm in an evil bitchy mood I may actively search for the ones written entirely in capitals with no evidence of getting the point of what a review is about and hand out a few less flattering rates.

But fortunately, I'm Miss Polyanna Positive more often than I'm Grumpy Grouch-lady and don't go looking for those.

So to get to the point, our reading and writing behaviour isn't controlled to be entirely randomised so why should we expect such predictable behaviour?

Mauri wrote:

Thingywhatsit wrote:

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.

I think this would certainly help....

This information already exists so its not as if Ciao would have to write anything new except change 'less helpful' to 'somewhat helpful' and insert it in the e-mail.

I have always said that new members should get an introduction email explaining use of the site, not just in ratings, but what is expected in a review, telling new members about guestbooks even as many do not discover them for ages and explaining perhaps about the cot and the availability of filling out your profile and ebay links.

It's a bit of an aside but I quite like the system of 'mentoring' over on Trivago - a new member is assigned a more experienced person to keep them on the straight and narrow and help them out if they need it.

Personally, although it is enjoyable at the beginning, it's irritating after a while because its almost like you can't do anything without feeling criticised. I agree that showing good example is always good, though I am not sure how a site like ciao would choose mentors without showing some kind of bias towards certain members, which would cause even more jealousy than already exists on the site.

Assign someone an optional mentor for a month then wave bye bye. It would be like spreading the load for the current new member lady.

I can see what you mean, but I still cannot see a system like that working on a site like ciao. At one time, we used to have adoptions, which were nothing to do with giving advice or anything like that, but a member suggested that instead of just pairing up anyone, we pair up an experienced member with an inexperienced member, so we tried that for a while, and what it lead to was no better. I think Fiona does a fantastic job as new member guide, and applaud her for it, and think that instead of getting mentors, if experienced members were more helpful just as part of their ciao experience, it could work to the benefit of the site as a whole.

Sorry, but I can't have that. There are some members out there, experienced ones, that I wouldn't trust with a ball of cotton wool never mind anything else in this world.

They have to be Ciao-sanctioned (a la Dooyoo Guides) or nothing at all.

Can't have what ? I was suggesting that members in general on the site are more useful towards new members. Whats wrong with that ?

It's your mantra, I know.

Having any kind of unofficial movement will always cause problems, especially on a site like Ciao where there are plenty of mentalists.

I wasn't talking about any kind of movement. I was talking about experienced members passing on experience to newer members, by rating correctly, perhaps explaining the rating, maybe even pointing them to the areas of the site where they can find answers to their questions. It has nothing to do with mentalists or mantras. It's just called being decent to people and I really do not see any harm in it.

The problem with that Rachel is that a HUGE load of who you deam to be experienced, are the worst offenders.

Yeh probably, but does it hurt to believe that its easy to send members to the appropriate information on the site ? How hard is it to find things once a member points it out to people ?

Thingywhatsit wrote:

Yeh probably, but does it hurt to believe that its easy to send members to the appropriate information on the site ? How hard is it to find things once a member points it out to people ?

Absolutely. But if it isn't sanctioned by ciao, then it could turn into a huge mess of who's advice is actually correct.

How can you be incorrect sending someone to the members page to read about writing reviews or rating or use of COT. It's all written there for members to see although most new members are not even aware of it.

I agree with Drew. I think that half the troubles on Ciao are/were caused by people creating blacklists and such under the guise of helping newbies etc. These people, because they were forcing themselves onto new members were influencing them in all kinds of ways.

Personally, I tend to view those people with suspicion on Ciao.

Quote :

I agree with Drew. I think that half the troubles on Ciao are/were caused by people creating blacklists and such under the guide of helping newbies etc. These people, because they were forcing themselves onto new members were influencing them in all kinds of ways.

I have no idea what you are talking about and am probably better off that way.

Thingywhatsit wrote:

How can you be incorrect sending someone to the members page to read about writing reviews or rating or use of COT. It's all written there for members to see although most new members are not even aware of it.

Not as such if that is all that is done, although from using the site in the past I think it is fair to say that it is a popularity contest most of the time on there.

My fear would be that this end up with EVERYONE jumping on a new members guest book and saying the same thing.

And for me, I would usually go looking for the FAQ section if I didn't know what to do.

koshkha wrote:

I'm maybe a few pages behind the action on this one but wanted to have a little input on the stats debate (I did mechanics in my maths A-level so no fancy greek letters from me on this debate).

An even distribution of rates would assume an average cross section of the public reading a set of reviews written by another average cross section. Surely we'd agree that's not the case.

The readers are people who on the whole like to read reviews more than the averages person (the non-members have a different profile but only the members can rate so I think this is true).

The writers who write poor reviews don't tend to stick around for very long - thus the writership is skewed towards people who write better than the overall average. (Those that don't either don't write to start with or get disheartened and give up quickly).

On that basis, I think a normal distribution would be exceptionally 'un-normal' (says she, at risk of starting another bleedin' debate about what's 'normal').

I follow the 'life's too short to read rubbish reviews' policy and select out the ones I expect to be rubbish (it's easy to tell from the first few lines you can see without opening the review). Or if I'm in an evil bitchy mood I may actively search for the ones written entirely in capitals with no evidence of getting the point of what a review is about and hand out a few less flattering rates.

But fortunately, I'm Miss Polyanna Positive more often than I'm Grumpy Grouch-lady and don't go looking for those.

So to get to the point, our reading and writing behaviour isn't controlled to be entirely randomised so why should we expect such predictable behaviour?

That's what I was trying to say but you did it so much better

We are not your average bunch and a relatevely small sample so the rate distribution would not be expected to be your classic distribution curve....

No, but there's enough diversity in members that there should be some distribution, more than there currently is.

Plus you have to compensate for the people who are on Ciao purely because of the community or because they're housebound and just want someone to talk to etc.

An even distribution of rates wouldnt be a Bell Curve though, it would be a line....

I would expect a bell curve of some description...based on thevery facts Koshka says..after all there are two tails (NH and E, and then a build up towards the other three...(probably skewed to VH for many reasons already discussed..) It is very much a normal distribution.