Making a statement...

Perhaps we should give ratings with more words more credit...

Ok here it goes (correct me if I'm wrong concerning the weights)...

AGALLOCH "Pale Folklore" reviews (I took a simple example)

Collaborators Reviews (weight = 3)
5* (1)
3* (1)

Guests Reviews (weight = 2)
5* (1)

Ratings Without Reviews (weight = 1)
5* (3)
4* (1)
2* (1)

Total = (5+3)*3 + 5*2 + (3*5+4+2)*1 = 55
Weighted votes = 2*3 + 1*2 + 5*1 = 13

Average rating = 55/13 = 4.23
Rating from PA = 4.33

Note that I calculated the same way the average for "The Mantle" and in that case it's the same as the one given by PA (4.39)... so where's the flaw?

So you're saying that I could review EVERYTHING ELSE with one star in an attempt to get Under Wraps to the number one slot, eh? Hmm...

Easy Livin wrote: Ratings without reviews are a perennial issue. However, M@x is adamant that they must continue to be allowed, so that the site is accessible to all. He did however agree to the compromise arrangement where the value of such ratings is less than those of ratings with reviews. This lead to a slight increase in reviews which said nothing ("this albums brilliant, is that 50 words yet?"), but Guigo and I are watching for those too.   Perhaps we be able to get M@x to devalue further the influence of ratings without reviews in the future.

Atkingani wrote:   The algorhythm difference among the Top 10 is very close and a half dozen of wannabe manipulators may do the damage, unless we notice it.   Being it so close you have a hard job guys, I respect that a lot.   I believe that these "attacks" come from website fanboyish clubs, be them from Genesis, Yes, Floyd, Tull, etc. They (the attackers) may simply combine and do their raids in a certain day or a couple of days. Some of them, knowing PA rules, write some lines hoping their reviews may count as "valids" and have a greater weight. Sad enough!   A paramilitar fanclub organization creating raids to manipulate information.   Holy sh!t, that's pretty scary.  This guys need to get a life, no wonder why people consider Prog fans nerds.   Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 21 2006 at 13:34

Atkingani wrote: You're right, Iván...   Due to the amount of reviews and lack of time, Bob and I go generally to the top of the Chart where the attempts of manipulation occur all the time. I can assure you (and others that come here) that the manipulation trend at the the top of the Chart (involving those acronyms you mentioned ) is an everyday issue. I really wonder if the quantity of energy those manipulators waste should be better used!

Easy Livin wrote: I had a look Ivan, there's nothing to indicate something suspicious going on. Each of the people (and there were a number of them) who gave 1 star has a decent spread of ratings for different albums. There is nothing to indicate any link between the people.   Knowing you and Guigo  I have no doubt of this Bob, the ratings with reviews are no big issue IMHO, we have created a natural radar due to our works here as adms and in my case as a team member to smell from a mile when something is not 100% correct .   I know you check this out constantly in the case of every band and due to your experience you would discovered a manipulation as we talked some time ago in a determined case you and/or Guigo asked for my opinion.   But that's not the problem, my point is mainly about rating without reviews as a principle, there will be honest persons (The vast majority) but there is also people who rate almost anything they find without having listened the album just for the fun of ratings.   I would even admit ratings without reviews but not count them at all, maybe a parallel indication of this average not counted officially in the top 100 (Even if a top 50 is almost in the same level of a top 10).   If the ratings have reviews, I have absolutely no problem, as you well say it's an opinion and if supported with a review it's easier to notice that.   I should say that I simply don't have time to investigate every instance where someone thinks a band or album has been unfairly treated. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.   I honestly don't believe people would want to manipúlate The Beatles, almost everybody likes them and/or respects them and they are not in the top of our charts, normally the problem is between the usual suspecs CTTE, SEBTP, DSOTM and TAAB (Hate those acronyms, but save time ).   Iván

Easy Livin wrote: I have checked out the Beatles and Landberk.   There is no evidence of manipulation for either, the ratings appear to be genuine. They are not necessarily by the same person in each case. I won't take action simply because someone disagrees with someone else's opinion.   The case highlighted previously, which extended well beyond just the two bands mentioned, was a clear case of systematic abuse.

All of my ratings have reviews, and albeit some of the reviews arent good in my opinion, but they are there nonetheless.

I plan to continue it that way, as I somewhat enjoy writing reviews(otherwise I wouldn't do it) and hope that I can somehow help someone out.

    I do believe that you shouldn't be able to rate without a review. This is mainly because, if you are able to rate it, you should be able to review it. The reviews are what are supposed to be used to get an idea about an album. Without that, it's really of no use.

I was objective when I reviewed the Beatles catalogue. I didn't rate any of the early ones over three stars (and it almost killed me ). I took it from a prog collection viewpoint. If it was just straight reviewing, nothing would get under four stars from me (excluding compilations, and live releases).

I don't like Dream Theater, but I doubt I would give anything I have heard less than two ( and I would have to think it was really bad to rate it that low).

Just the same, I would be writing a review to tell the reader what I thought about it.


    

Edited by bhikkhu - October 20 2006 at 23:37