Talk:1098: Star Ratings - Revision history

162.158.175.82 at 07:25, 8 July 2023

2023-07-08T07:25:20Z

Mumiemonstret at 13:17, 16 December 2014

2014-12-16T13:17:19Z

199.27.128.144 at 07:54, 10 January 2014

2014-01-10T07:54:34Z

108.162.238.117 at 06:29, 6 November 2013

2013-11-06T06:29:28Z

27.253.79.231 at 08:30, 22 September 2013

2013-09-22T08:30:19Z

178.42.120.14 at 20:43, 31 July 2013

2013-07-31T20:43:13Z

75.103.23.206 at 22:58, 26 December 2012

2012-12-26T22:58:08Z

Arifsaha at 20:25, 20 November 2012

2012-11-20T20:25:22Z

89.174.214.74 at 14:50, 20 September 2012

2012-09-20T14:50:29Z

84.154.135.194: formatting test

2012-08-29T22:10:22Z

formatting test

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:25, 8 July 2023
Line 29:		Line 29:

	The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117\|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)		The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117\|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	Why are people talking in bullet points? Should I fix that? I think the person at the beginning was making a list, and other people used that format for comments. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.82\|162.158.175.82]] 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 16 December 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	*I have a different interpretation of the title text: <br/>the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? <br/>[[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231\|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)		*I have a different interpretation of the title text: <br/>the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? <br/>[[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231\|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	*Most graves I have seen are rated with one star. And a cross. [[User:Mumiemonstret\|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret\|talk]]) 13:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

	The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117\|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)		The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117\|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *It seems likely that any product with a 1-start rating only has one (or a small number of) reviews as well.  Usually a product has ''some'' redeeming value that someone will find useful.
 **Usually the developer or at least a friend will provide a positive rating and review, though the issue of self rating isn't specifically addressed by this comic. Still, if 3 users give it a 1-star review, but the developer has access to at least 2 accounts that can give a 5-star rating, you still result in 13/25 rating, or two-and-a-half stars, which is why that star rating would be "crap".--[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 *** Agreed.  If there's only one review, it most likely comes from the supplier / author / producer, and in that case it's going to be a five star rating.  From that perspective, the only way to get a bad _average_ review is if there are many bad reviews.  As an example, consider a product with five reviews: 5, 2, 2, 1, 3.  The average is 2.6, and depending on the implementation this might be shown as "two and half stars" or "three stars".  If you take out the 5, you get an average of 2.  Consider the case of two reviews, 5 and 1.  The 5 is from the author and the 1 is from a real user.  Average is 3.  Considering the other cases (5 and 2, 5 and 3, 5 and 4) the averges are 3.5, 4, 4.5.  As you can see, anything below 3.5 is crap (the 1 and 2 from real users) and 4 and 4.5 are indeed ok (3 and 4 from the real user).  As the number of "real" reviews increases, the average will tend towards the actual average perception from users (law of large numbers), and there is ''no way'' to get a 5 on average because of the fact that when dealing with subjective evaluation, ''someone'' is going to think the product is crap, therefore a five star rating is the product of a single review from the author.  [[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:29, 6 November 2013
Line 24:		Line 24:

	*I have a different interpretation of the title text: <br/>the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? <br/>[[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231\|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)		*I have a different interpretation of the title text: <br/>the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? <br/>[[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231\|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117\|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 22 September 2013
Line 22:		Line 22:

	*I find that, for most popular works on most popular sites (i.e., Amazon) at least, two star reviews (the least common rating) are actually rather entertaining; the reasoning being, in theory at least, that they by definition avoid hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.120.14\|178.42.120.14]] 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)		*I find that, for most popular works on most popular sites (i.e., Amazon) at least, two star reviews (the least common rating) are actually rather entertaining; the reasoning being, in theory at least, that they by definition avoid hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.120.14\|178.42.120.14]] 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	*I have a different interpretation of the title text: <br/>the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? <br/>[[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231\|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 31 July 2013
Line 21:		Line 21:
	**In many places, star ratings of a hotel are not a measure of the quality of the hotel, but of the types of services it provides (do they have private bathrooms, a pool, a concierge, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206\|75.103.23.206]] 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)		**In many places, star ratings of a hotel are not a measure of the quality of the hotel, but of the types of services it provides (do they have private bathrooms, a pool, a concierge, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206\|75.103.23.206]] 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

−	~~test of the 4 tilde demanded here~~... [[Special:Contributions/84.~~154~~.~~135~~.~~194~~\|84.~~154~~.~~135~~.~~194~~]] 22:10, ~~29 August 2012~~ (UTC)	+	*I find that, for most popular works on most popular sites (i.e., Amazon) at least, two star reviews (the least common rating) are actually rather entertaining; the reasoning being, in theory at least, that they by definition avoid hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.120.14\|178.42.120.14]] 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 26 December 2012
Line 19:		Line 19:

	*I think this comic illustrates a more general rating bias. Consider hotel star ratings - almost every one boasts four or five. Sometimes you can see three. I was recently shocked to see a hotel displaying two stars next to its name! (No, I haven't stayed there, I was just driving by.) One-star hotel, anyone? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74\|89.174.214.74]] 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)		*I think this comic illustrates a more general rating bias. Consider hotel star ratings - almost every one boasts four or five. Sometimes you can see three. I was recently shocked to see a hotel displaying two stars next to its name! (No, I haven't stayed there, I was just driving by.) One-star hotel, anyone? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74\|89.174.214.74]] 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
		+	**In many places, star ratings of a hotel are not a measure of the quality of the hotel, but of the types of services it provides (do they have private bathrooms, a pool, a concierge, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206\|75.103.23.206]] 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

	test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194\|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)		test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194\|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *** Agreed.  If there's only one review, it most likely comes from the supplier / author / producer, and in that case it's going to be a five star rating.  From that perspective, the only way to get a bad _average_ review is if there are many bad reviews.  As an example, consider a product with five reviews: 5, 2, 2, 1, 3.  The average is 2.6, and depending on the implementation this might be shown as "two and half stars" or "three stars".  If you take out the 5, you get an average of 2.  Consider the case of two reviews, 5 and 1.  The 5 is from the author and the 1 is from a real user.  Average is 3.  Considering the other cases (5 and 2, 5 and 3, 5 and 4) the averges are 3.5, 4, 4.5.  As you can see, anything below 3.5 is crap (the 1 and 2 from real users) and 4 and 4.5 are indeed ok (3 and 4 from the real user).  As the number of "real" reviews increases, the average will tend towards the actual average perception from users (law of large numbers), and there is ''no way'' to get a 5 on average because of the fact that when dealing with subjective evaluation, ''someone'' is going to think the product is crap, therefore a five star rating is the product of a single review from the author.  [[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
-*I think there might be a little too much analysis for this, given the title text. When shopping online, especially for random items like computer parts, media, and whatnot, people tend to peruse through items fairly quickly and/or fairly critically. A 5 star rating seems a little too perfect for the real world, hence the notion that there's only one review; a cynic might say that its from the author himself or some astroturfer (and they're probably right). The rest of the rating scale, however, is an observation of buyer behavior. Getting ''only'' four out of five stars is considered the lowest a potential buyer will risk before buying/downloading/ordering whatever it is. Everything else is very unceremoniously considered "crap," with the reasoning that there's some sort of defect or angry reviewer. Any further inquiry isn't necessary since there's a lot of other alternative products or manufacturers on the market. Hence, "crap, move on to the next item" mentality." The title text alludes to this with its strange gravestones. I take it as symbolizing all the products and sellers and manufacturers and establishments that got below that 4-star threshold, doomed to death by obscurity as buyers simply skip over the item in question, having called quickly decided it was "crap." Whether they actually are that bad is beyond that line of thinking. Whether it might be someone just hating on it and everyone else being scared off is similarly beyond it. As mentioned above, Corporate considers anything that isn't great to be worthless; it's because online consumers tend to think the exact same thing. And I guess to top it off, the mention about going to Yelp to give it a one-star review due to his unease and then feeling compulsed not to would basically be some sort supernatural power from the cemetery making sure that 1.) the cemetery's rating doesn't go down, and 2.) the author doesn't make that whole rating cemetery thing even more meta. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
+*I think there might be a little too much analysis for this, given the title text. When shopping online, especially for random items like computer parts, media, and whatnot, people tend to peruse through items fairly quickly and/or fairly critically. A 5 star rating seems a little too perfect for the real world, hence the notion that there's only one review; a cynic might say that its from the author himself or some astroturfer (and they're probably right). <br style="margin-bottom:6pt;" />The rest of the rating scale, however, is an observation of buyer behavior. Getting ''only'' four out of five stars is considered the lowest a potential buyer will risk before buying/downloading/ordering whatever it is. Everything else is very unceremoniously considered "crap," with the reasoning that there's some sort of defect or angry reviewer. Any further inquiry isn't necessary since there's a lot of other alternative products or manufacturers on the market. Hence, "crap, move on to the next item" mentality." <br style="margin-bottom:6pt;" />The title text alludes to this with its strange gravestones. I take it as symbolizing all the products and sellers and manufacturers and establishments that got below that 4-star threshold, doomed to death by obscurity as buyers simply skip over the item in question, having called quickly decided it was "crap." Whether they actually are that bad is beyond that line of thinking. Whether it might be someone just hating on it and everyone else being scared off is similarly beyond it. As mentioned above, Corporate considers anything that isn't great to be worthless; it's because online consumers tend to think the exact same thing. <br style="margin-bottom:6pt;" />And I guess to top it off, the mention about going to Yelp to give it a one-star review due to his unease and then feeling compulsed not to would basically be some sort supernatural power from the cemetery making sure that 1.) the cemetery's rating doesn't go down, and 2.) the author doesn't make that whole rating cemetery thing even more meta. <br style="margin-bottom:6pt;" /> [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 ** Wow do I wish I could have used paragraphs there. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 *The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 20 September 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:

	*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw\|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw\|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)		*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw\|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw\|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	*I think this comic illustrates a more general rating bias. Consider hotel star ratings - almost every one boasts four or five. Sometimes you can see three. I was recently shocked to see a hotel displaying two stars next to its name! (No, I haven't stayed there, I was just driving by.) One-star hotel, anyone? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74\|89.174.214.74]] 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

	test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194\|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)		test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194\|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 29 August 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:

	*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw\|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw\|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)		*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw\|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw\|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194\|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)