Lets rate instead of vote.
I do not know whether this point is already been taken into consideration and rejected. If yes, I myself invite the agents.
Otherwise I think this is a good option to give a chance to rate a post out of 10.The admins may make an algorithm to convert the grades into appropriate rank out of 100. And let both these ratings and rank together be shown for every indivine entry. Lets see it as "Bloggers who rated it 10 out of 10, 9 out of 10, 8 out of 10 etc"..... for every post added to indivine.
There could be fun if we introduce this system. Because if some one posts an entry and gets a rating two or three out of ten, by a few fellow bloggers, he himself may say "Please do not promote my post by rating it".
And if it so happens, we can inturn introduce another feature "do you want others to promote this post"? while adding a post to indivine.
The same idea was given by me on this thread.
http://www.indiblogger.in/forum/topic.php?id=13489
Anyways not locking this thread as twice I have drawn flak for using lock as a work around for merge threads functionality and have no clue what is the admin's stand on such use.
I seen this thread myself TF. I checked it before starting this. The headding of that thread is improving voting procedure. That of this thread it rating instead of voting. So I think they are different threads.
I request you to re write what you have written in the other thread.
See - that is the problem. The old discussions are lost. Anyway I will again post my idea and the objections people raised here to promote a constructive discusiion.
Ideal system would be where it is visible who voted but not what ratings they gave. Ratings to start becoming visible only after 5 people have voted for you so that you do not know who gave what rating.
C. Sureshfrom Bangalore4 months agoWe are now talking of a system where (a) People vote on a scale (1-10; 5 star, whatever!). (b) As and when someone votes, u get to know that they voted but not what rating they gave you (c) Average rating gets displayed after 5 people have voted and updated average rating is shown from there on. (d) Posts get listed on the basis of rating and not on number of people who voted. I hope I have got what you had in mind TF.
If votes become visible, we are right back at not knowing whether they were genuine :) So, I will again harp about time lag :) The moment we depart from hidden votes, we fall back into the morass of mindless promotion and the need for some measure to mitigate/curtail it. I'd hate to get a low rating from someone who did not bother to read my post more than I hate a vote which came my way without reading :)
DSfrom Mumbai4 months ago Rating's can be dangerous too, people can give low rating so that their post gets bumped up. That is if who gave what rating is hidden. Time lag seems to be the best option to me at present.
That's right. Voting must be secret. I agree.
Then this system seems to be good. Why can't it be applied?
I do not think people will rate low to ditch a post. Because you don't know who rated you well and is it him you are rating low.
And if you rate someone who has never rated you, and you give him 1 out of 10, still it counts. It must count. It must contribute towards the ultimate rank of the post. Out of 100. The system should be such that the rank never reaches 100 but approximates it.
I think you are suggesting a kind of complex rating algorithm taking into account both number of votes and the average rating. Thats an idea. Maybe Indi team can think on those lines.
Another comment posted by me on that thread:
One of the sites I was a member of had a story writing contest. They gave readers options to rate from 1 to 10. And the ratings given by readers was hidden, only aggregate ratings was considered. A short list of 15 was created based on the ratings and then judges judged from these 15 to select the top 3. Due to limited entries to go through judges gave comments for all entries. And any post getting ratings from less than 5 readers was not considered to avoid an entry winning just because of 1 or 2 friends giving top ratings.
The algorithm is simple TF.
As for an example,
Let every 10 out of 10 ratings be counted as 1 until the rank reaches 50( that means 50 people must rate 10 out of 10 to get rank 50) and from 50 to 80 let it count as .5, and from 80 to 90, .25, etc.... Similar for other ratings also.
If the ranks so obtained are low, then we can give a credit 2 for 10 out of 10 until the rank reaches 50. And so on.
Sign in to reply to this thread
