View Full Version : What good is a rating without a vote count?

29th Jun 2002, 03:39
I noticed one of the topics had a rating. So I decided to vote (negatively so I could see if the rating changed). Okay, so I see a thread as a 4-of-5 star rating. What value is it if it doesn't say how many voted to achieve that average rating? One person voting and giving it a 5-star rating is a worthless rating. 10 voters and it starts to have some meaning. 100 and it's a good indicator.

According to the forum FAQ:
<blockquote>Once enough votes have been cast for the thread rating, you may see a set of stars appear with the title of the thread in the thread listings.</blockquote>
So how many votes are "enough votes"?

29th Jun 2002, 03:46
If you go to the topics page & hold your mouse cursor over the stars, a tooltip will pop up telling you the exact rating & how many votes have been cast. I don't know how many votes you need to have the result posted though. Maybe it's in the terms of usage which, God help me, I haven't read yet.

Munin the Raven
29th Jun 2002, 03:51
I agree that the ratings are next to worthless without a count of how many users rated it. My best guess is that it's some mystical number like the big "one-O", better known as "10". It could even be as low as five.

EDIT: Thanks Chow Yun Fat.;)

29th Jun 2002, 03:53
Ooooh, you said the "G" word. Whatdya trying to do? Get the iron claw to close my thread? :D

Thanks for the tip. I haven't tried hovering my mouse cursor over every spot on the page to see if something happens to pop up. Too many folks get enamored with web page trickery.

29th Jun 2002, 03:54
The "ah-Ha" thread, which is the one I presume Vanguard is talking about, has had five votes. This apparently includes his post since the rating has gone down from 4.3 or something to 3.

29th Jun 2002, 03:59
Apparently it doesn't take but 3 votes OR LESS to get a rating. I submitted a vote in the other thread (which lowered it from 4.5 to 4 stars). There has been at least one additional vote since then (since it is down to 3 stars). The star rating was there before I voted, so it appeared when there were only 3 votes or less. That's way too low to start showing a "rating". Should start at 10 votes, or at least at 5 votes.

29th Jun 2002, 04:04
You're probably right, Vanguard. But most threads wouldn't get 10 votes so there would be few that would appear as rated. So which would be better--a handful of rated posts with statistically defensible ratings or numerous rated posts which everyone can compare & complain about? I'd rather see the latter although requiring 5 votes isn't that unreasonable.

29th Jun 2002, 05:25
Actually, unless the thread was for reference then the rating is worthless. You are rating the thread based on what it currently contains when you read it, not what it contains after you read it, but the rating still stands for all content, present AND future. You see that it contains lots of helpful info and give it a high rating, but later it devolves into hair pulling and name calling. You wanted to 5-star rate that? But it's not like you can specify up to which post your rating applies. If it was for reference, it should've been something put into the archive forum, anyway. I think the rating feature is stupid - and I myself will even give this thread a "worst" vote because I feel it is a worthless value. <i>(Oops, can't vote more than once. Don't know what I voted when I tried to test it.)</i>

29th Jun 2002, 06:15
Well Vanguard,

I gave this thread a *best* rating for the illogical reason of agreeing with you that the rating system is Stooooopid!

This may be the last thread I ever vote on. It just seems like the rating system could cause some hurt feelings along the way. :( There is enough compition going on in the world without having it to go on here too.

And who knows who will just bop in from some other forum just to rate a thread to possibly just to cause havoc or throw the stats off.


29th Jun 2002, 06:20
I'd rather have the rating column removed to regain the screen space for better use - like reducing the number of threads where its topic line has to wrap, especially now that a down-arrow button is getting prefixed to the topic.


Hey, moderators, it looks like rating is a feature than can be turned on or off. True?

29th Jun 2002, 06:25
Internet Explorer gives you the tool tip thing, but Netscape 6 (Gecko) does not. Not only is the coding "trick" but it is Microsoft centric, which I don't like.:(

I also have noticed that the Edit window is much larger and nicer in IE than in Netscape.

OK, signing off here and going back to Netscape, until I can't stand it any longer.

29th Jun 2002, 19:58
And I don't like that the thread's topic line gets appended onto the navigation path shown ONLY at the top of the thread. Instead of getting something like:

Eidos Forums > The Games > Thief Series > Thief Community Chat (The Crippled Burrick Inn)
Topic: What good is a rating without a vote count?

You get:

Eidos Forums > The Games > Thief Series > Thief Community Chat (The Crippled Burrick Inn) > What good is a rating without a vote count?

It just makes it harder to see the topic line. AND this is NOT also shown at the bottom of the thread. So you if want to use it to navigate back up to the forum or bounce to a parent level, you have to scroll back to the top of the thread to use it. I don't know if threads will get paged here like they did in the old forum, but even when paged the window could be quite long and having to scroll back up to use the navigation link list is a nuisance. When I get done reading a thread, I'll be at its bottom post. Having the navigation link list right there at the bottom would be a very convenient location.