How do you get 56% from 10 ratings on three stars?  I guess 5.6 people voted three star .  My math makes this one a 3.6 average rating assuming 2 + 2 + 6 = 10 = 36/50 = 72% of 5 star = 3.6 Stars

They all seem to be wrong unless some other logic that is not known is used.

I'm sure somebody will post the actual details here soon.

Ah so you are confirming a complete lack of transparency??  or voting irregularites... like let me see Women votes don't count as much! LOL

are there reviews, they are counted separately. 

Only one which rated at 3 star which would still not explain the math.  The first posted question has no reviews.

You realize what you are saying right... Say a reviewer gets a privileged weight of = say equivalent of 10 raters and a couple of sheep reviewers follow his suit.  Then that album is destined into the trash can as it will never get out of a bad rating, regardless of what others might think.

Why not just say Reviewer rating = x.xx

Non-Reviewer rating = y.yy

And let the readers enjoy seeing the comparison?

Nick

I don't know the exact details of the algorithm, but this question has been asked and explained before. No doubt someone in the know will explain it all.

But its a toughie in perhaps a case where review rating starts at 2 from what you posted, it would take what 40 or more normal ratings of 4+ to bring that album back up to becoming somewhere between 3 and 4 because of its weighting of 20 times normal 2 rating? From 1 bad review start.  or vice versa.

Sticking up for the poor artist...regards :)

^ As per the site guidelines:

The weighted three star review from Special Collaborator (Bob McBeath/Easy Livin) is worth 20 unweighted reviews.

I don't know what those rating only reviews are as they are not published on the review page but I do know they must add to 31 i.e. weighted 60 + unweighted 31 divided by 29 reviews = 3.1379 (rounded up to 3.14)

The 9 rating only reviews @ 5 stars would result in an average score of 3.62
The 9 rating only reviews @ 4 stars would result in an average score of 3.31
The 9 rating only reviews @ 3 stars would result in an average score of 3.00

The 9 rating only reviews @ 2 stars would result in an average score of 2.69

The 9 rating only reviews @ 1 stars would result in an average score of 2.38

It should be borne in mind that the ability to rate without a written review was originally only intended to allow non-english speakers to contribute to the site. PA's raison d'etre is after all, published opinion so it strikes me as perfectly acceptable to weight demonstrable expertise in favour of written reviews rather than have the site function as a sports ladder. The best way to support the artist is to submit a favourable review encouraging visitors to give the album(s) a listen.

^ Nicely put, all I would change is "It should be borne in mind.."  to  "Bear in mind.." .

Oh yes, the obsessive geekery is out in full tonight, my friend.

The math is simple 1 rated review of 2 Stars is valued at 40 out of 100.  You would need the next 40 ratings to be 40 consecutive 5 Stars = 200 which now makes it a total of 240 points out a maximum of 300 that can be achieved after 41 ratings to make that particular artist's album a 4.00 star.  And that is the power of the 1 reviewer!

Is that extra power really needed when the credit is the review itself posted on a page?

Not everyone feels they have the talent to write a good literate review that others might appreciate, and I highly respect the ones that are able to do this. But that does not diminish the listening ability of the ones that feel they can't contribute towards a review (be it language or writing skills), yet are willing to join the Forum and to participate in a way that they can.

^ I've never actually had sufficient cause to calculate this before so I hope my arithmetic is correct:

If 31 is the total of ratings only reviews (of which there are 9)
then 1 x 3 star weighted written review from S/C gives an average score 3.14
just one additional 5 star weighted written review from S/C or P/R would give an average score of 3.9
just two additional 5 star weighted written reviews from non S/C or non P/R would also give an average score of 3.9

S/C is Special Collaborator

P/R is Prog Reviewer

If you can participate in the forums then you are more than capable of submitting a 100 word written review. As long as it's not slanderous or libelous and approaches coherence (no-one is looking for highbrow literature), then I like to think we have a very relaxed and inclusive attitude to reviews submitted to PA.

^ have to concur. What about a musical intelligence test before you can 'vote?'

I'm getting really tired of those sports ladder plankton dialing in hundreds of 1 and 5 star rating only reviews but who continue to lecture the real collaborators about how much they contribute to the site and how unfair PA's system is maaan. (rant over)

Sorry but I don't think I have ever in any posts I have made lectured belittled reviewers or collaborators. That practice is actually throughout forum posts in reverse as in your comments shows above.  And your sports ladder comment seems weird as what you are saying is that other people who rate don't know anything about the album that they may own and your comments are gospel and as a result YOU MUST CONTROL the ladder.

Would it not be better if you just simply do this.

Reviewer rating: x.xx

Non Reviewer rating:  y.yy

The weighting system has been explained to you in detail as has PA's preference for written reviews over rating only reviews. I do acknowledge that you don't agree with this policy which is of course entirely your prerogative.

I take the view that a rating only review does not contribute in any substantive way to the site's stated aim:

"to be the most complete and powerful progressive rock resource". That's just my opinion, not 'gospel' and I have no interest whatsoever in ratings or controlling any ladders. I do however like to share knowledge, insight and articulated opinion about why folks like/dislike the music included on PA. I don't get that from a rating only review which is precisely the point the Dark Elf expressed earlier in the thread.

Would it not be better if you actually did something about this e.g. contact the site owner or lobby the Admins to implement the changes you wish to see?