great in theory perhaps, but what about practice?
take amazon for example:
the products are rated
the reviewers are rated
the ratings are rated!
the shippers are rated
did i leave anything out =)
i have a degree in mathematics, but i still don't want to have to solve
multi-variable word problems every time I buy something
or worse, every time I want to watch a videoblog
sometimes this is what turns "one-click" solutions into multi-page
interviews asking you if you were satisfied with the customer
satisfaction survey.
perhaps this is all a holy grail and that it will always be necessary
for individuals to sift the wheat from the chaff
perhaps that is actually part of the process of videoblogging that
steve garfield has put forth: watch, learn, create, teach
Randolfe Wicker wrote:
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.
>
> ________________________________
>
--
My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
http://www.corante.com/events/feedfest/
aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype: msandy
spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
