Absolutely. The trick is in presenting a user interface such that its easily understandable and usable, even though the underlying process is complex.
In general, Amazon works pretty well. I am able to find stuff there and ascertin whether I want to buy it. There are a number of ways for me to analyze the item in order to make my purchase decision. There are also suggestions that help me compare things or determine if there might be another product I am interested in. Overall, it works fairly well and people seem to understand it. Using stars as ratings, or thumbs up/thumbs down, seems to be the general practice. There is also the implicit data gathered simply from user interaction and usage habits, i.e. what have you bought? what have you viewed? how long did you view something? etc... this data can be very useful. As to Randy's comment... user's do not vote so much with their mice as they do simply with their attention.... this attention may be provided explicitly in the form of feedback, ratings, reviews, tags, whatever, or implicitly simply through their interactions with the system. -Josh On 11/27/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > Hoboken, NJ > http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ > 201-656-3280 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joshua Kinberg > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > > > 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 Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpTY2A/lzNLAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
