On Dec 14, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Jim Drew wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Jeffrey D. Gimzek > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> I am working on a rating site now and let me tell you this is a tough >> nut to crack ! >> >> 1 - 5 stars are ubiquitous for a reason. > > The only reason 1-5 stars is ubiquitous is because it's ubiquitous. > > Anyone remember when hotels and such only went to 4 stars? And now > I've seen ones touted as "7 stars". Sounds like "starflation" to me: > when "everyone" is a 4-star, you have to go to a 5-star system just to > differentiate yourself from the crowd. But why is everyone a 4-star? > Answer: not because they are all top of the line, but because no one > wants to be below the top. (And doubly so when Motel 6 and its peers > show up as 2-star, leaving the question of what fleabag is only a 1- > star? Eew? > > > The problem of a 1-5 star system is that there is typically no > definition of what the various ratings mean. Is 3-star "average"? > (What is "average"?) Is 1-star "avoid even if they pay you to stay > there and it's the middle of a blizzard and there is no other place at > all within 100 miles"? Does no stars mean "hasn't been rated" or > "less than 1 star"; does it mean both? > > A number of systems have gone to a 7-star system: 5 stars, no stars, > and "don't like". (Adobe Bridge, Rhapsody, ma ny others.) Even then, > it may do a good job of capturing levels of dislike which may be > valuable in some settings -- movies, for example. For that, an 8-star > system is probably better: -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 (and unrated). Then you > could decide that (picking two movies I saw from the Rotten Tomatoes > "worst" list from last year) than while DaVinci Code and Eragon were > both "bad", that Eragon was a -2 (Tivo it and maybe remember to watch > it later, or not) but DaVinci was only a -1 (might be worth Netflixing > some day), while Dreamgirls was a +2 (might be worth buying a copy for > your personal library). (Such a positive/negative balance also makes > rolling up group averages more accurate.)
OK, but is that instantly understandable ? that is the deal with the stars - ubiquitous = understandable many many people dont really understand negative numbers to see an example of a rating that is almost totally useless, see jobvent.com what's a 1303? what's a - 43? i dont know. i have to figure it out, and by then i dont care. jd - - Jeffrey D. Gimzek | Senior User Experience Designer http://www.glassdoor.com ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
