This is a good point... these systems must grow. None of this stuff matters much if you don't have a community of active users. Otherwise its like an empty Forum, which is sort of sad.
-Josh On 11/27/05, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ----- > > From: Joshua Kinberg > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > 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: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > 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 . > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > -- > 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 > > > 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 --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/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/
