Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Report bugs here
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ratings calculation
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRatings calculation
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
progressive View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 366 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2007 at 06:48
It makes my life a lot more difficult!!

Though, i love and hate everything at the same time...

http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=13410 there's 3,77 for example, with two 5-stars.

Maybe we should vote about it. Why are rating averages changed??

► rateyourmusic.com/~Fastro 2672 ratings ▲ last.fm/user/Fastro 5556 artists ▲ www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=4933 266◄
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2007 at 06:53
^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?

The weighted average simply means that new albums start with the combined average of all the albums in the database and then slowly work their way up.

I like it, but I agree that on the website there should be an explanation of how the algorithm works, so that people don't think that it's simply broken.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
progressive View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 366 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2007 at 07:40
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?


Yes, and no. It isn't listed above them, at least if there's tow ways to list them and users could choice the way. And the previous system worked well.

And there's always top 100 (or 500) lists. There are lists for genres also. Why not for artists? It is only calculating, not taking too much resources.

It is very odd that you must look into each album's ratings trying to calculate yourself the absolute  average.  And who says reviewers' ratings are better? Or that the album is better when there's more ratings. I think proggers are quite intelligent people and because there's so few ratings in many albums, we should take them seriously and not "banning" non-reviewers or single voices.

And whatabout situation when there's album with three 4-star votes, one with two five-star votes? And Im still not sure if it is a weighting factor whether you are reviewer or not.... obscure. Very obscure things.

Can't go on like this.

Dying.

► rateyourmusic.com/~Fastro 2672 ratings ▲ last.fm/user/Fastro 5556 artists ▲ www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=4933 266◄
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2007 at 09:36
Originally posted by progressive progressive wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?


Yes, and no. It isn't listed above them, at least if there's tow ways to list them and users could choice the way. And the previous system worked well.

And there's always top 100 (or 500) lists. There are lists for genres also. Why not for artists? It is only calculating, not taking too much resources.

It's actually next to impossible to compare two artists numerically based on album ratings. If you happen to have an easy formula for this then by all means tell me - I'd be happy to implement it on my website!

It is very odd that you must look into each album's ratings trying to calculate yourself the absolute  average.

I agree - the absolute average should be shown on the album page.

And who says reviewers' ratings are better? Or that the album is better when there's more ratings. I think proggers are quite intelligent people and because there's so few ratings in many albums, we should take them seriously and not "banning" non-reviewers or single voices.

It's not a question of being "better", but of being more reliable. And the more ratings, the more different voices the average is based on which again makes it more reliable. Of course there can always be abuse, that goes without saying.

And whatabout situation when there's album with three 4-star votes, one with two five-star votes? And Im still not sure if it is a weighting factor whether you are reviewer or not.... obscure. Very obscure things.

Can't go on like this.

Dying.

And on your tombstone it would say "why o why wasn't the PA top 100 ranking better explained to me". LOL Come on, get a life!
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
XPEHOPE3KA View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: July 13 2007
Location: R
Status: Offline
Points: 29 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2007 at 11:08

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ So you think that with two 5 star ratings the album should have a "score" of 5.0 and be listed above long standing albums with 4.x averages?

That's the key point! Leave the algorithm for ratings as it was (it took into account who gave the review and how "long" it was).
But when you need to list the albums anywhere... It is this place where to use an algorithm which takes the number of reviews into account as well.

So the ratings would remain in a state people got used to already (when a collab rate 5, and a noncollab rate 4 the average used to be equal to 4.60 or near - I guess, it was Ok for most visitors), and least reviewed albums won't pop up on tops of rating-lists or something.

What's done now is going to make most popular albums even more popular and the least popular albums would receive even less attention. Visitors will just look at the rating (which is now modified by a number-of-ratings-dependent algorithm, but how a visitor would now THAT??) and see it is 3.89 or so - would they be willing to get it?? It doesn't attract even to read the reviews!

Hope, you got my point of view: the current algorithm scheme is not that evident to an average visitor (it just isn't natural) and surely would make some potentially good albums unattractive.

Edited by XPEHOPE3KA - July 15 2007 at 11:09
Back to Top
Wutu Banale View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 11 2006
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 104 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2007 at 15:33
This new system isn't good at all. The average for the albums are all screwed up and all. And the new thingy made TaaB go number 1. A spot it doesn't deserve Tongue
Käsittämättömän käsittämätöntä
Suurta ja arvostettavaa.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.230 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.