When you are presenting data, please include a measure of variability and a distribution of scores. The 3.5/5 rating could mean a bunch of 2s and a bunch of 5s and you might have a bimodal distribution which might have some design implications. I see so many reports where there is no indication of variability or the actual shape of the curve formed by the individual ratings.
A mean without a measure of variability is pretty weak in my view since you don't know what the shape of the distribution is. Chauncey On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Chad Mortensen<[email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone have past experience with whether displaying a users > rating (average rating 3.5/5) vs. a users recommendation (65% > recommend this) performed better than the other on a commerce site. > Specifically a travel site but any commerce experience would probably > still be relevant. > > Thanks > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
