Ratings calculation |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
Rivertree
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17628 |
Topic: Ratings calculation Posted: July 10 2007 at 09:44 |
I'm wondering about the calculation result with only one rating. Here's an example where I wrote a review with 3 stars Forest The calculated result is 3.45 Is it a problem of the algorithm? I might remember that we have a different weighting for collabs and non collabs? Whats's wrong here? |
|
avestin
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 18 2005 Status: Offline Points: 12625 |
Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:31 |
Here's even a better example:
So, now the PA server has come to life and has started giving ratings of its own but for some reason doesn't count itself as part of the number of ratings...
Seriously though, there's a systemic (chaos) problem here...
|
|
Rivertree
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17628 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:36 |
WOW! It looks like the PA server has its own ratings for the music.
So this must be a breakthrough with the development of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Congratulations! It would be interesting to know who is feeding the server with the songs? BTW - The calculation is raising the results (dynamically??) - yesterday 3.45 - today 3.82 Edited by Rivertree - July 11 2007 at 04:52 |
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 02 2006 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 4202 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:41 |
The server has changed its mind. Now up to: 3.86 (Warning: only 0 ratings) (I'd give it a four myself. Great album) |
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member Italian Prog Specialist Joined: March 01 2006 Location: San Foca, Friûl Status: Offline Points: 5851 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 08:51 |
FRANCO MUSSIDA "Racconti Della Tenda Rossa" ratings distribution
3.55 / 5
(1 ratings) Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (0%) Strange case because the only review is the mine review that have 4.00 and not 3,55 valutation!!! |
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member Italian Prog Specialist Joined: March 01 2006 Location: San Foca, Friûl Status: Offline Points: 5851 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:19 |
APHRODITE'S CHILDThe Art Of Démis Roussos And Aphrodite's Child(Boxset/Compilation, 1993)3.45 / 5 (1 ratings) Another case of false rating!!! Because with one rating is impossible 3.45. Also because my rating is 3!!!
Edited by Mandrakeroot - July 11 2007 at 09:21 |
|
M@X
Forum & Site Admin Group Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster Joined: January 29 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 4028 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:40 |
Ok -- ill check it out
|
|
Prog On !
|
|
M@X
Forum & Site Admin Group Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster Joined: January 29 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 4028 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 11:11 |
Fixed
|
|
Prog On !
|
|
Chris H
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 08 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Status: Offline Points: 8191 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 11:14 |
THE BLACK NOODLE PROJECT "And Life Goes On" ratings distribution3.68 / 5
(2 ratings) Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (50%) Two collabs rated it 4 and 5 stars...
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 06 2006 Location: A² Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5109 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 12:17 |
There is still something going on. My lone 4-star review of Amos Key, "First Key," is calculated at 3.55.
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=10590 |
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member Italian Prog Specialist Joined: March 01 2006 Location: San Foca, Friûl Status: Offline Points: 5851 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 12:50 |
Originally posted by M@X
I may have fix this already ... Wich album ? ---------------------------------------------------- How already written from other, the album are much. They would have been lost it lose days to list the all. I am noting that they are all those with 1 rating. For the other I would not know to say. |
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 12:58 |
Could you say that again Mandie, I'm afraid I can't understand it. Sorry. |
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 06 2006 Location: A² Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5109 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:02 |
there is something wrong with the rating system. It's obvious when you look at some albums with only one rating. For example, I am the only one to rate Amos Key, and I gave it four stars. However, the rating is 3.55.
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member Italian Prog Specialist Joined: March 01 2006 Location: San Foca, Friûl Status: Offline Points: 5851 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:26 |
I saw that all of the album with 1 rating have this problem:
(example) 3,44/ 5 (1 rating) But this isn't possible. In fact If I appraised the album with 4 stars the middle vow wouldn't have to be 4/5? |
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:34 |
I think, and I'm speaking from shaky ground here, that the rating shown should not be seen as a straight average of the ratings posted.
It is a figure calculated by taking the rating or ratings of the album, running them through an algorithm which takes other factors into account, an coming up with a result. This result allows the album to find its relative position among all the others.
I know it looks strange that the figure shown for one album is not the same as the only rating for that album, but it reflects all the other constituent parts of the algorithm too.
|
|
Andrea Cortese
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 05 2005 Status: Offline Points: 4411 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:34 |
Prog reviewers has been fired!!!
The site does not need them anymore!
|
|
Andrea Cortese
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 05 2005 Status: Offline Points: 4411 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:40 |
I've seen that many albums of the ISP genre has been (mysteriously) downrated. Hybla Act 1 by Randone, for example, which was 4,30, now is languishing below the excellence status...
No, the rating is evolving...now at 4,03!
RANDONE "Hybla Act 1" ratings distribution4.03 / 5
(11 ratings) Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (73%) Edited by Andrea Cortese - July 11 2007 at 13:42 |
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 06 2006 Location: A² Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5109 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 13:44 |
Well then, that means that people have to start reviewing these lonely albums. Let's start a collaborator drive to get some solid ratings for our underprivileged obscurities. You know, something along the lines of, "For just a few few minutes a day, you could get little "Spark of Light" here the attention it deserves." Who's with me? |
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 14:17 |
HT wrote:
I believe it’s a common problem when you add too many variables to an algorithm, we had that same problem once in the office, one of the equations was giving flawed results. For example, if an extra factor is added to albums that have many reviews like + 14%, the system will automatically subtract the same percentage from albums that have a very short number of reviews to keep the equivalence. Take for instance X being the rating for Close to the Edge X = 4 14% the bonus for albums with more than 20 reviews The result will be 4.56 In this case being that there are too many reviews, we would never notice the difference, much less if there are other factors like giving more weight to Collaborators reviews that make it hard to discover. But the computer will automatically subtract that same percentage from albums that have very few reviews. like Y being a review of Amos Key The first Key. Y = 4 -14% will be subtracted from the review being that this album has less than 20 reviews. The new result will be: 3.44 If you add other distorting but necessary factors like less weight for ratings without reviews and extra value for Collaborators reviews, you may get a different final result in the average of only one review. Sounds illogical, but it’s absolutely normal, maybe adding a new variable that will exclude any case in which the reviews are less than two (<2)....Would make it easier to accept. Iván Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 11 2007 at 14:20 |
|
|
|
Rivertree
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions Joined: March 22 2006 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 17628 |
Posted: July 11 2007 at 15:05 |
CASSIBER "Beauty and the Beast" ratings distribution
3.50 / 5
(0 ratings) Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (0%) now actually we have a surprising 3.5 calculation for CASSIBER ... |
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |