|
Very good point, Josh. People are said to
"vote with their feet". Would we say that viewers on the Internet vote
with their "mice" :)
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:12
PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit
can not be spoken for
Its also the fact that you can rate the reviewer and let
other users
know that you found the review helpful or not. This type of
feedback
promotes trust in the system. People who are considered good
reviewers
rise to the top of the reviews.
-Josh
On
11/27/05, Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> It is not the actual "star rating" that is revealing on
Amazon. It is the
> text accompanying the rating. Someone
might give a book a "one-star" rating
> and in writing about the book
say something like "exposes like this one on
> the high rate of theft in
Columbia do a disservice to the country."
>
> So, if you are
planning to take a trip to Columbia, you would take that
> "One-star"
rating as a good reason to buy the book so as to be aware of the
>
dangers lurking for tourists.
>
>
> Randolfe (Randy)
Wicker
>
> Videographer, Writer, Activist
> Advisor: The
Immortality Institute
> Hoboken, NJ
> http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
>
201-656-3280
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: Frank Carver
> To:
[email protected]
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005
8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken
for
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:04:28 AM, Randolfe Wicker
wrote:
> > Sorry to say that I disagree with you. Star ratings
are actually
> > very important and should be allowed. That is
especially true when
> > the star ratings are accompanied by text
critiques.
> > I trust the judgment of many over the opinions of the
"anointed few".
>
> To me the point is more fundamental. A "star
system" or any other form
> of single rating is at best _evaluative_
without being _informative_.
> In most cases it's ao much worse as to be
effectively useless of even
> deceptive.
>
> The problem is
fundamentally this: the author of the rating has to
> choose one single
"axis" on which to rate a piece. But this axis is
> probably not the one
that any given reader wants to know. Worst of
> all, most reviewers
don't even make clear _what_ axis they assumed was
> most
significant.
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 8:09:32 AM, Eric Rice
wrote:
> > For example, what does Peter think is cool? I want to
know. I want
> > to look at his personal list of favorites, see how
he ranks them. If
> > I'm giving trust to Peter as a filter, then his
rankings really
> > really matter. To *me*.
>
> So we
have Eric looking for ratings on "coolness". (whatever that
>
means).
>
> Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:16:11 AM, Randolfe Wicker
wrote:
> > I have been talking about the need for people to direct us
to really
> > important vlogs. Let me take a stab at doing this here.
I hope you
> > will indulge me and look at these two
links.
>
> Randolfe implies some sort of rating on "importance".
(whatever that
> means).
>
> In the past I've read messages
on this list that seemed to prefer
> rating on "quality", "brevity",
"most personal", "most professional",
> "best editing", "most local",
"most entertaining" and as many other
> hard-to-define things as you can
think of.
>
> Take a look at the "star" ratings on Amazon (for
example) and see if
> you can guess what aspect the authors of the
ratings were considering.
>
> Now look at how the ratings
polarize. "Good" ratings vie with each
> other to get better. Bad ones
get worse. Few are left in the middle.
>
> It's a natural process.
Nobody has seen or read everything. So when
> you encounter something
you like, you give it a good rating. Then, a
> bit later, you encounter
something you like a bit better, or your
> opinions change, so you give
another item a higher rating. Then guess
> what, a bit later you find
something you like even more. So you have
> to give that an even better
rating.
>
> Soon, you find yourself giving everything you like top
marks. And the
> same effect happens at the bottom end of the scale.
There's always
> something you will dislike more. But fewer of these
ratings get
> published, for fear of hurting people's
feelings.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of
reviews. The more
> description and evaluation and the broader the range
of reviewers and
> opinions the better, especially when they is
qualified
>
> ("I thought the camera work was very professional,
but I found myself
> skipping quickly through what seemed a dull
message. If you are
> looking for a short, punchy and exciting piece,
look elsewhere")
>
> But I feel quite strongly that attempting to
assign a single universal
> number to anything is deluding both yourself
and potential readers.
> Let them read the review and make their own
mind up which aspects are
> important to them. Don't con them into
thinking that you both
> understand what they want to know, and can
grade it on their own
> scale.
>
> In short. I'm with Peter.
Bring on the reviews, but leave the
> fools-gold of ratings at
home.
>
> --
> Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk
>
>
>
>
________________________________
> YAHOO! GROUPS
LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "videoblogging" on the
web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of
Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
________________________________
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
