Chip,
Your idea about a one-time reminder to leave a rating, could be interesting. Especially so, if GW would provide an object in the Toolkit, where you as a developer simply could have an instruction like:
   RateApp( StarCount)
Where StarCount, is a number from 1 to 5 - or whatever. Then, you could design the actual interface to your liking, and from that, have the app "perform" the rating, according to the choice of the user. As it stands right now, if my knowledge is not totally off-side, you would need far more coding than just another entry in the ini file. Nonetheless, it still does not take care of all the issues with the rating system.

Aaron, thanks for your effort to rectify, since a user from now on can remove his comments. Will this encourage more ratings? Time will show. :)

If I was to base my next point on the experience from sites like EBay, I would say we could make even another improvement. EBay, does not allow a user simply to rate a product or seller. No rating will be accepted, unless you also enter a comment. At least, the more serious raters will then include some useful stuff in the comment line. Yet, it has its pitfalls. Look at EBay, and see how many people simply just fill the comment field with gobble, like non-textual characters, or an A followed by a ton of plusses or minuses. Oh, Well, back to start - as then comments are still useless. Smile. But my guess is, we will never rid ourselves of the non-serious raters. Still, we may make it easier for the more serious ones, to give good and meaningful feedback. To what extent a rating and commenting system is the better choice, I don't know, but at least there is my idea for improvement.

Another question I have for GW in this regard, is if a user can rate more than once, on each release. Great enough, he can rate version 1, 1.1, and 1.2. But if he so desire, can one and same IP address leave ten ratings on one and same release of the app? If so, there you have a serious glitch, which needs attention. Otherwise, you soon enough could have someone down-rating one app, a hundred times, meaning that the app will never get a realistic rating.

Again back to the example of EBay. Not because I find their ratings to be all that perfect, but at least, they have many years of experience, and their system samplifies my points to a certain extent. In the old days, EBay had a rating system, for all-over experience. As I showed in my previous posting (quoted below), such a rating will never be much helpful, since there is too many parameters that would determine the basis for the individual user's feelings as to what is a fair rating. Should it be quality, stability, or how well the app handled the issued task?

In later years, EBay changed their system, and now you have to rate different parts of your buying experience with the seller in question. Let's take that to App Central for a moment. If we had a similar practice, where the user will have to rate the different qualities of an app, we may end up with a far more meaningful rating. Not perfect, but somehow more useful. Ratings could be based on a series of questions - or parameters - that the user would have to rate individually. Parameters like:
   How stabil do you find the app?
   How well did it handle the task or software it was designed for?
   How well did you find the support offered?
   How complicated do you find the app in operation?
and so forth. The actual parameters, could be something we as developers could discuss, and find which ones we feel could be useful for our further development, and which could make some sense for potential users.

Finally, I have a suggestion to at least tighten one other hole in the system. As it stands, the rating can be done directly on the website. That means, a user can rate things that he may not even have tried - unless I have overlooked something. How about moving the rating to a service, provided more directly from the user system. That is, only apps that actually have been installed, and maybe run for a given amount of times, could be rated. GW, why not have some kind of an Installed Apps.ini file, in the User Profile Folder. The ini file, could have one entry for each app the user ever installs. Even if he removes the app from the computer, this ini file will still hold the entry, proving that he had the app installed at some point, and thereby permitting him to rate the app. We could even let each app ever installed on the computer, have its own section in this ini file. The section then could hold several keys, and more could be added later on, should we find there would be the need for such.

OK, so what keys should the section hold? Well, here is one sample of such a section, and we could discuss the final design of the idea.

[GWToolKit]
InstallDate=2014-02-19
LastRatedVersion=8.5.9
MinimumRunsBeforeAllowRating=3
RatingLeft=2014-02-19
BlahBlahBlah... :)

OK, the section tells what app has been installed, what date it was installed and we could have added on a key for when it would happen to be uninstalled. It further holds the version number, and we could have discussed whether that should be the actual and current version, or if that should be the last rated version. We further see a key saying Minimum Runs Before Allowing Rating, which the app developer could set from within his app code. If I design an app that is only performing a simple task, like popping up a commercial every time the computer starts, I may find it OK to receive ratings, once the user have tried it 3 times. Or, the key could be meaning for 3 days. On the other hand, if my app is of the more complex kind, like the apps available for Office, Itunes or the Extended Dictionary, these apps may need a bit more user experience before a fair rating could be given. So, the app developer could have his code set this ini key to 10 or more. Not until the user have tried the app this many times, he would be allowed to rate the app.

Why then, did we not just let the individual app hold this kind of keys in its own ini file? Well, because a user may experience that much trouble while the app is running, that he cannot perform the rating. And since the app related ini is not loaded, whenever the app is not running, this would block him from ever rating the app. So, to have a general "installation ini file", would leave the user the chance of rating, even if he has uninstalled the app. A key in each section could be updated, once he has rated the app, blocking him from leaving any further rating on that version of the app.

GW would now provide a way for rating apps, outside the website, removing the ability to rate from the website itself. Rating could be restricted to only work from within the individual app itself, along with things like AppGet. At least, this would make sure of somehow more proper rating. It may block certain non-serious activity on the App Central.

Still, as a developer, I would greatly have appreciated a way to see which version of the app, did receive the actual rating. This way, if I look on the history of the app, I could see that version 1 got a 3-star, version 1.1 had 4-stars, but then version 1.2 received a 1-star. If the ratings could not be left without the ensurance that the app actually had been downloaded and installed, and tested a given amount of times, the ratings could be considered somehow useful, and I could see that there may be something in my latest version that need more attention.

Well, these were some thoughts for improvement. To what extent the rating system is of any use for me as a developer, or if it is playing any role in a user's deciding if he needs the app, I am not really sure. But if we want to continue the rating system, it surely need some higher quality. As it stands for today, I have a feeling that it doesnt really make much of a difference. I do pay more attention to the amount of downloads, and the feedback I get from users directly or through the mailinglists, than I ever bother about the rating. Specially so, long as my apps only have received ratings from one or two users. With something like 1000 downloads, and only 2 users rating it, it really doesn't matter for me, what the rating is. And GW, here is another thing that could be improved. When a user browse for an app, using things like AppGet, he should be informed not only of the rating. This is unfair, since there may be many an app that never received a rating, or where the rating is that old, it does mean nothing. Let him have the info, both as to what rating the app has received, and the amount of downloads it's got. This will mean more to the user, should he ever bother about those numbers. I just wonder, if most users don't bother at all. My guess is, you have an issue, you ask the community for a solution and are told of an app, and you go get it. In that case, you don't bother about any of the ratings or download numbers.

Guess the whole discussion cooks down to this:
What, or who - exactly - do we want the rating system to serve?
And based on that, how can it best be improved to reflect what we want, or serve the group it was intended for?


----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip Orange" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Meaningless app ratings


I think David makes a lot of good points here; coming down to my own point,
which is, we all are probably rating different things in our own minds when
we look at rating.

I had one of my own apps receive a down rating from a user who got an error,
because word had an error on his pc, and it caused an error on my app.  He
couldn't reproduce it, but he wrote me that he down rated the app.

I've been asking GW for over a year now to allow us to remove comments,
because a comment I once made for a previous version of an app, no longer
applies to the current version.  They haven't done anything about it, so I
just added a comment which says my previous comment doesn't apply; awkward I
know, but it points out the short-comings of ratings, comments, and
categories.

To give GW credit, I did write yesterday to mention I thought the I-Tunes
app didn't belong in the "general" category, but in the  "program
enhancements" category instead.  I received an immediate reply that it had
been moved.

So, David's right: ratings without comments are meaningless, and comments
without indicating version numbers are misleading (at least, when mentioning
issues or problems).

If you want to encourage users to use the ratings and comments features,
here's an idea: keep track in the .ini file of how many times they have run your app, and once it hits some number you believe should give them adequate
experience, pop up a one-time message box which encourages them to use
ratings and comments on App Central or appGet for this app.

Hth,

Chip


-----Original Message-----
From: David [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Meaningless app ratings

Have to admit, I have never rated anything on App Central. No, it has got
nothing to do with the quality of the apps. I am using many an app, and some

of them have become no less than essential for my computer activity. As
such, I guess, I should have been generous with both the fours and fives. :)

Yet, I agree, the concept of rating is more of a curosity, than a real help.

The low number of raters, is one thing. Even if one or two persons leave a
rating on my app, it does not really tell much about the app. As one pointed

out, what is the great thing for me, may not be just as great for you. And,
if an app happens to perform just what I expected, should that mean a
five-star, even if the app actually is performing a poor or rather
meaningless activity? If an app pops up some kind of jokey message every
time I turn on the computer, or whenever the Notepad is opened - does that
qualify for five ratings, simply just because that app never fails to
perform its simplistic activity faultlessly? Should my rating reflect the
usability, the stability, the complexity, or simply just my personal feeling

and opinion about the actual project?

It was likened with things like EBay, from one of the users here. Well, one
thing that makes EBay ratings slightly more usable, is the fact that you
cannot rate a seller or product, until you actually have bought the offered product. Well, don't know if that ever could be implemented in a functional
way on App Central, specially with free apps. People may download the app,
run it once, experience some unexpected behavior, and leave you the worst
rating. Next user will see the low rating, and forget about your project.
Although I haven't tried, I wonder if App Central even lets me rate an app,
that I do not even have installed on my computer. If my suspecion is
correct, it actually could open for users simply to low-rate any project
they just happened to disagree in. I don't like the whole idea of a jaws-key

app, I don't install it, but just low-rate it to discourage anyone from
trying it. Hmm, then what benefit or real meaning would the rating have?

First speaking of ratings on App Central, you guys have already mentioned
that a rating with no comment is rather useless. Tell you what! A rating
that has been commented, is no more use, long as the comment is not valid.
One of my apps, received a mid-class rate, and a comment about some lacking
of functionality. My next update fixed the commented issue, but since I
cannot delete the comment, nor affect the rating, the commented rating
sticks. Fact is, that many a user may skip the app, if they read this
comment, since it somehow makes a bad story of my project. The comment was
usable and correct enough when it was left, and maybe we could name the
rating proper based on that. But since the app has had two updates after
that, the issue commented on been fixed long time ago, the whole comment and

rating only serves to confuse and discourage potential users. Even I go to
App Central and leave a comment, telling that the previous comment is no
longer valid, what do I get from that? When you open the website of the app,

the oldest comment will be shown first, and once people have read that, they

may conclude the app has a serious lack, and leave the stuff alone. Comments

should at least, be displayed newest first.

Now, all of that said, even if apps got a thousands of ratings, this would
tell little and nothing as to whether the app will fix what I am hoping for.

We have - for instance - two different apps for add/Removing software on
your computer. There is two different apps for having an hourly read-out of the current time automated. There is two different apps - InstallPackage and

AppGet - to retrieve apps from app central. And, there is even two different

apps dealing with Notepad. OK, any of these apps receive ten thousand three
hundred and fiftyseven ratings. What good does it tell me? That a bunch of
people had some fun in throwing stars... :) It does tell me nothing as to
whether any of these apps are going to help me with my actual problem. And
there may be reasons why one app will be better equipped to carry out my
stuff, than the other. Yet, the other app, may have been a better go, for
misses Carlson. She rated that app five stars, but the app that really would

have solved my problem, was downloaded by mister Clinton, and he simply did
not like the whole idea - and rated it one star. If I was to go by the app
with the highest rating in this scenario, it would have resulted in me
installing an app, that only partially did what I wanted - and maybe lead to

me not leaving good ratings. Shows us some of the weaknesses in a
rating-system, on material that really is all that individual in its
structure and functionality as is the case with tiny pieces of software.

Another weakness is, if an app happens to be very popular for a period of
time. Say an app has been developed to fix a certain issue in the screen
reader performance. The app really is good, well-constructed and smoothly
functioning on a daily basis. Everyone rates it four and five stars, leaving

the project several hundred scores. After a while, GW changes some stuff in their core, or the third-party software the app was designed for does. Now,
downloading and running this app will mess up the screen reader, causing
loads of frustrations. Yet, the app had received loads of good ratings, so
new users discern it must be the real good go, ending up with big
frustrations.

What then could we do about the rating system? OK, one easy answer would be:
Simply Remove The Whole Thing!
Still, maybe there is good reasons for having a rating capability in the
system. It just need a far more intermediate function. First of all, ratings

should be locked to a given version of the app. Just because version 1 works

well and performs perfectly, that doesn't say anything as to the
functionality of version 2 or 3. Hence a rating that tells something about
one version, should not be taken into consideration in the next version of
the app. Or, if we really want it advanced, you should at least see a rating

list like this:
   Version 1: 4Stars,
   Version 1.1: 3Stars,
   Version 1.2: 3Stars,
   All Over Rating: 3.3Stars.
This is being done on certain websites. Useful enough for some funny
statistics, but whether it will increase the download rate of the app, I
don't know. :)

Secondly, we may want to do a similar thing to the comments, and even give
the app developer a chance of rectify comments that are no longer valid.
And, at least, give any person the chance of removing his comments, when he
realizes his comment is not any longer valid. Furthermore, any comments
should be listed with the newest one first, to give the most updated facts
the highest priority.

If we really want the rating system, and we want it to mean anything, I also

believe we may want to present the ratings more directly to potential users.

Many users now aday, will be using things like AppGet. When you scroll down
the tree of available apps, you are not informed of any ratings. You will
have to tab around on the screen, for each app individually, to know
anything about the rating of the app. There should have been a setting in
the View menu of the AppGet, determining if the user wants the rating of the

apps displayed. Then, with this setting turned on, he would see a list like
this:
   Hourly Chime, 3Stars;
   InstallPackage, 5Stars;
   Extended Dictionary, 1Star;
   Time N Date, 0Stars.
Turning off the rating-display, the tree would read only the app names -
like it does already. Now, the user could browse the available apps, and
know the ratings in a quicker way. Again, if the feature would affect
anything on the amount of downloads, I am not really sure.

Give my three-year-old grand-child a toy car, and he will rate it fifty-nine

stars - since it will give him hours of fun. Give the same toy car to his
sister, she will rate it ninety-two stars because she loves the color. Give
me the toy car, and I may rate it 2 stars, since it solved my problem of
what to give as a gift for my grand-children next Sunday. Well, you see how
little it all would tell about the actual shape, functionality and
durability of the toy. And, it never could reflect much about how hard the
developer and manufacturer had worked on getting the thing as good as
possible. As a result, the whole rating could at best be amusing; at the
worse end, be misleading and unfair.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Pietruk" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Meaningless app ratings


Rod

While the rating concept is theoretically good, in practice, it often
proves meaningless.
For one thing, the process is easily riggable; for another, a rating is
only valuable, particcularly when few votes are cast, if we know something
about who cast the vote.
For one person, an ap may be valuable; for another is ok.  To me, as an
example, a "5" is only warranted is something is truly outstanding; a good
ap should probably get a 4.
That illustrates the whole problem with the system as about the only
vbalue most of these rating approaches have is to provide ego rubs for the ap creators if they draw high numbers which you can help insure by telling
folks you trust or your "friends" to vote for it.
And, you would have never complained if the single vote was a 5 (or
perhaps even a 4) as that is what you wanted to see.
I am not an ap creator -- I couldn't create one if my life depended on it
-- but if I drew low numbers -- especially from a good number of people --

I'd try to figure out where the complaint lies.
What might seem flawless and perfect to you or me might not be that for
someone else.

Some rating systems -- such as Amazon, Newegg and bay -- seem to function
better given larger user bases and what is at stake.
The way I look at a free ap is I get what I pay for it.  Hopefully, it
will do for me what I hope it can do; but, on the other hand,
the developer probably, in most instances, created it for what they wanted
to do and if it benefits me, so be it.
And, oh yes, an ap or programm fails for me not because there is something
wrong with it but the problem is on my end.





I will not trust in riches but in him who richly provides.
Andy Stanley, pastor, from his new book "How to Be Rich:  It' Not
What You Have. It's What You Do With What You Have."






Reply via email to