NEW RATING ALGO. AND EDIT RATINGS/REVIEWS OPEN TO

StyLaZyn wrote: LiquidEternity wrote: You know what I've discovered that I do recently? I don't look so much at the overall rating, I don't look so much at the reviews, necessarily... I look at the number of reviews per album. If a band has a few albums out and most of them have hardly any response from contributors but one has a large number, I conclude that that one is the place to look. Just thought I'd throw that out. For the criteria of 5 indicating that it is a must have album, yet only 5 reviews, I see a disconnect. If an album is really that good and has a 4 plus rating, surely more would comment.

But there are lots of bands with few ratings that are still great. Take for example Pat Metheny. He doesn't have an album with more than 18 ratings, yet I know he is a fellow worth looking into. So when I look through his discography to see where to start, I don't look for what's rated really high--I look for albums with the largest number of ratings: the albums that have made the biggest splash, either way, in the prog world here. I mean, if such an album is rated really low, I can assume that it's well known for how bad it is. But I when looking into new music, I will check out an album with twenty ratings and a 3.5 long before I check out an album with four ratings and a 4.8. Make sense? The number of reviews also factors into it, too. But I'm not talking about quality here, just about what albums catch my eye when I check out a new act on this site.

For example, to start on Magma, I looked for the album that hit the most places, not the fan favorites (and that one I checked out is, of course, MDK, with a whole lot more reviews than the other ones). I feel like I'm blabbering on and on, sorry. I think it's just silly to assume that "if an album is really that good . . . surely more would comment." There are lots of fantastic albums out there that fewer than five people have reviewed. They're just not the place to start, at least not necessarily.

kenethlevine wrote: I like the idea of everyone being able to edit their reviews, and no review ratings all weighting at 1.  But I think bumping up members to 5 gives too much weight to anyone who feels like constructing a review of sufficient wordiness to tout their heroes and/or diss their detractors.  The latter seems to be happening a lot lately in the guise of substantive reviews.  By the time someone has become a reviewer/collaborator/etc, I trust their reviews a lot more than twice as much as a newbie.   But I appreciate that many insightful people might want to stay as members at large rather than become reviewers in name, so another idea might be to reward VIP members more than regular members.  ie-  VIP members reviews weight 6, other members 3

^that seems fair enough for me, thanks for re-considering!

I think it should be 3.45 rounds to 3.5 rounds to 4. Every thing lower than a X.45 should be bumped down to X. They way it is now, it's essentially ranges. 1 is poor, 1-2 is Collectors/Fans, 2-3 is Good, 3-4 is excellent, 4-5 is masterpiece. Wouldn't be a bad idea except the inability to give a 0 makes a poor rating of an album nearly impossible unless it gets straight 1's. Alos, it kinda shafts the previous reviews that were scored based on the previous system. If we are going to stick with the ranges idea, you should probably lop 0.5 stars off every previous review to make it fair.


Edited by Deathrabbit - May 05 2009 at 19:06

Deathrabbit wrote: Don't listen to Lucent; this is a great improvement.

Seconded!

Although certain aspects of this change are not shared by me, being able to correct the review is quite good.

How to view the reviews of one genre (in member review list), especially for one like me who do not plan the reviews.

Edited by Mandrakeroot - May 05 2009 at 05:00

^hey! Being a Prog Reviewer you could have edited them too...

I guess I hadn't been watching since it started to correct itself.

The new rating system is an improvement. Too bad "Anabelas" by Bubu went from #66 to # 155 , such a masterpiece.

Good grief, light speed.


I'm not sure I like the idea of lots of "masterpieces". I think we should be more select. If an album has a rating of 4.49 it is still closer to a "4" than it is to a "5 star" rating.


Also, I'm still not sure we need Proto & Prog-Related in the Top 100 Prog album list...IMHO..