Re: [videoblogging] Re: Spirit can not be spoken for

Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:12:00 -0800

True, Markus.

Do systems like what amazon use have value? yes.  how much value? i have no clue... I rarely pay attention to it when making purchases.  I read a few reviews from both ends of the positive meter.. and move on.

gotta find a balance and not hyper-geek it all... or at least if you do, the user is not bombarded with it and instead would need to drill into adding more 'fedback'  less is more and all that.  i beleive in providing several filter mechanisms, but there is a limit to peoples willingness to participate in this stuff, i think.

sull


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 -----
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





--
sull
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The hybrid or the meeting of two media is a moment of truth and revelation from which new form is born"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://vlogdir.com - The Videoblog Directory
http://videobloggers.org - Free Videoblog Hosting / Vlogosphere Aggregator
http://interdigitate.com - on again off again personal vlog
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to