Feature:90152 Change voting scale from 1-10 to 0-10

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feature:90152 Change voting scale from 1-10 to 0-10 OPEN The current voting scale goes from 1 to 10 with "5 - Slightly below average" and "6 - Slightly above average". Although this is mathematically correct, most people are accustomed to 5 being defined as average. It also seems wrong to force people to choose between "Slightly below average" and "Slightly above average" when they may feel that a work is just plain average. I suggest an improved voting scale from 0 to 10 with "4 - Slightly below average", "5 - Average", "6 - Slightly above average", and the rest of the descriptions shifted accordingly. This scale would be both mathematically correct and would fit the common interpretation of 5 being average. If the scale is fixed soon, there shouldn't be much impact because there aren't many votes in the database yet. Ltleelim 16:27, 31 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I can see your point. I've never actually rated any book here as I don't like the voting system anyway: if all you get back is "the average score", I'm not participating. Amazon seem to have improved in that you can see how many votes scored at each level, so the wildly varying haters and lovers of a title don't get averaged out as "this is average". Of course, Amazon still FORCE you to give a score before you can add a review, even if all you wanted to say was "I haven't read it yet, but beware that this is a short version of another pub you have listed". :-/ BLongley 21:36, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)
You can see more than the average score at ISFDB. ISFDB tells you how many people voted, how many rated it 1, how many rated it 2, etc. This is similar to IMDb, except that IMDb asks about your age, sex, etc and can do demographic breakdowns. Ltleelim 19:12, 3 Sep 2007 (CDT)
I'm also aware that people don't have the same idea of 1-10 or even 0-10 as you and I have. Apparently my CEO rates a 7 or less as to "how active we are in promoting the company" as NEGATIVE, 8 as OK, only a 9 or 10 will do as positive. As far as I'm concerned, 10 would mean I'd have quit my current role and started selling our services to random strangers full-time, 9 would be talking to everyone I know about the wonderful service we offer, 8 would be talking only to people I know who actually WANT a mobile phone, etc. I'd give them a 7 as I do think they're actually better value than most, if you need a mobile phone, but that goes down to a 6 when the price-plans change next month. BLongley 21:36, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Anyway, I'm waffling again. I don't think your "seems wrong to force people to choose" argument is valid as nobody has to vote, and as you can see, most people DON'T. I don't actually see a 5 on a 0-10 scale as useful to me. I've seen a forced 1-4 scale used just to make sure that there was no dithering about "average". But the only useful scores (IMO) are ones where you can see WHO voted, and what sort of things that voter has voted on in the past. BLongley 21:36, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)
That is a non sequitur. If I want to vote (and I have started to) and I think a work is average, then forcing me to choose between "Slightly below average" and "Slightly above average" is not right. Telling me not to vote seems rather unfriendly. Ltleelim 19:12, 3 Sep 2007 (CDT)
My apologies if you think I'm being unfriendly. I'm just pointing out that "Not voting" is a valid option if you disagree with the voting system. (Which would lead to a fine in Australia, apparently.) Trying to change the voting system is fine by me (although that could get me shot in other countries, apparently), but is perfectly welcome here, and may lead somewhere if you can get some activity. Sorry if my delay in recording the request, or expressing my own opinions, made you think I'm trying to suppress your viewpoint - I'm not. Voting on the quality of books as it stands here just isn't something I like at the moment, your suggestion won't change my mind, and yes, I should probably have helped you record the request BEFORE I ranted about why I personally don't rate voting ISFDB/IMDB style. Sorry about that. Please DO continue to challenge any perceived policy here - I do - it may not make me popular, but I'm not here to be popular. BLongley 18:50, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Still, it's a valid feature request I guess, I'll go find the past discussions and post the summary in the right place tomorrow if someone else doesn't beat me to it. BLongley 21:36, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)
IIRC, Al was simply trying to emulate what the IMDB folks had done, but didn't have enough time to code more than a rudimentary algorithm. One of these days, perhaps... Ahasuerus 21:58, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)
[...] I've added your request now. BLongley 13:47, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)
As to where it should be discussed: well, it's probably best NOT to do so on the Feature Request page, it'd get messy. Each request gets its own talk page. Not everyone uses them though. One set of comments about voting is in the archive of the community portal for instance. I see that the Voting feature itself seemed to just appear without being requested, on 23 Dec 2006. I guess Al requested it of himself? BLongley 13:47, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for adding the feature request. I will move this discussion to the suggested talk page shortly. Ltleelim 12:33, 7 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Oh, no need to move all this waffle there: I have NO preference between 1-10 and 0-10, as I won't be using either, so my input is irrelevant (and probably distracting). Feel free to start with a clean slate. BLongley 13:11, 7 Sep 2007 (CDT)
I've trimmed and moved the discussion here, just in case someone finds it relevant. Ltleelim 13:25, 26 Sep 2007 (CDT)
  • I think that 0-10 would be a slight improvement over 1-10, but this wouldn't make a huge difference to me. I have started voting for things, but I don't think such ratings are likely to be a major part of the ISFDB's value. A recommendation system, like the one used by the Library of Alexandria (or, to some extent Amazon) might be helpful, but done well that would be a LOT of work, and it is rather aside from the main point of the ISFDB -- and done poorly is worse than useless. -DES Talk 12:29, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)