Inappropriate Ratings

It's worth noting that Anglagard has no label, their latest is an independent release.

The only way a coordinated effort would work is if they hired a publicist or promotions company which in turn hired spammers to carry out specific promotional tasks. But that is expensive for a result as benign as an average rating on one single website...

Big labels do this sort of thing all the time, they buy Youtube views and "likes"....but those are actually very expensive tactics for such questionable results.

Also, the prog world is relatively small - if word ever got out that they resorted to such tactics, it would be a catastrophe for them.

Take a look at their one-star ratings - they come from people who also joined the site just to give a 5-star to some other release on the Top List. So, I think this phenomenon just happens to be a very popular way to abuse this site's ratings system.

Of course, each page view generates ad revenue, so there may be zero incentive to limit this from happening.

I know it's none of my business and my sincere apologies for sticking my nose, won't do it again but but but I tend to speak up in other people's defense if I think it's not fair, this said I have no idea how to solve it either because I know P.A. currently have their hands tight plus deleted too many fake ratings to  I just felt compelled to come to jplanet's defense because I too see the same as him. Awwww not fair to either bands and P.A. Admins bah  

Edited by Kati - February 11 2013 at 19:41

I think I have said everything most honestly what came to my mind and have nothing further to add while knowing I did not contribute to anything either

pianoman wrote: Though, like Dean has said in so many words before, in the grand scheme of life, it's not really anything to get upset about.

Of course, but that's a pretty high bar to set for wanting to improve something. I don't think something has to be upsetting to want to improve it - if it's obvious that a ratings system is prone to abuse as it stands, then suggestions can and should be made to make it work better. Otherwise, in the grand scheme of things, does progressive rock matter? The Earth and cosmos will continue without a blink if it dispappeared forever, but I think this site is a nice place that is maybe worth perfecting. Otherwise, why have topics dedicated to improving it if nothing will ever change? Then at least take down this part of the forum so there are no illusions of welcoming input...

Also, I create websites for a living, so I spend dozens of hours every week discussing how to make websites work better, so I just consider this discussion more of an extension of my job, rather than a reaction to something upsetting...

As a web programmer, I would make these comments:

- Amazon does not have problems like this with reviews and ratings, because people have to write their thoughts, and those comments are moderated so people can't leave irrelevant spam. PA already moderates reviews, so that is not a problem.

- To solve the problem of non-English speakers feeling left out, let them rate or write something in their own language that appears only on their own profile page, and doesn't contribute to the reviews ratings. They can feel free to share it with whoemever they please, and anyone reading a collaborator's profile can find it.

With the above solutions, you continue to get all the traffic and sense of participation form non-English speakers, all site visitors have more incentive to contribute valuable content, and they will still have a simple way of rating releases honestly for the sole purpose of showing their own tastes. Ratings spam gone forever, quality of site increases, very simple.

Thank you for that data analysis, Dean, that is fantastic!

Yes, with that information, I would have to agree that the data is not sufficiently corrupted to warrant any measures against it. As a programmer, I can never disagree with things like logic and proof!

Two more graphs - I posted this first one in the CZ two years ago and shows the ratings with time for four albums, one (the blue line) is from 1973 and three more that have been released since the PA was created. Since the older album is less likely to have been subjected to deliberate manipulation we can regard that as the control reference point.

A: These are the first few ratings of the album - generally these start at "5" since the first review/rating of any album is by a fan who thinks it is the bees-knees of all albums and will rate it high.

 

B: Shows the next 10-15 ratings where we see the largest "correction" of those initial high ratings, during this time the variations in average score will be erratic and unpredictable because the sample sizes are small and any rating that differs from the average significantly will have a large effect on the average. This is why albums with rating-counts below the site average are not included in the Top-100 calculations.

 

C: During this period (the next 30 or so ratings) the average starts to normalise towards its true value as more collaborators take notice of the album and the album has had time to "sink-in" with the listeners.

 

D: Can be regarded as the final "true value" of the album's rating - the sample population size is now large enough (>50) to normalise out small numbers of rogue ratings-without-review.

Kati wrote: P,S.Has  anyone brought crumpets? Shall I make some tea? hugs

This is all just once again more evidence supporting my theory that popularity is a disease. And I am going to again throw in my plug for ending quick ratings, a check code for album ratings and a waiting period for any rating at all.  

Edited by Tapfret - February 19 2013 at 11:42

Argonaught wrote: Kati wrote: P,S.Has  anyone brought crumpets? Shall I make some tea? hugs as in "thinking man's crumpets"?

Ha ha "Bakewell" I get it.  a well baked crumpet.