Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456> |
| Author | ||||
Finnforest 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Offline Points: 16913 |
 Posted: January 05 2009 at 14:53 |
|||
|
Mark, forgive the "whiner" comments, apologies for that.
It's just that we go through some of these same issues over and over again. Folks who have contributed little or nothing to the site come by and tell Collabs, who have worked unbelievably hard over many long hours, that what we are doing is wrong and worth little. Ya know, that is what the real "insult" here is, my friend. Give the site a little credit please for the good it does rather than harping about your perceived injustices. And that's just what they are, perceived by you. There is nothing wrong with the way Max has set up his site for the majority of users who frequent the place and LOVE it.
I'll extract myself at this point and let the calmer heads take it from here.
 Cheers! |
||||
 |
||||
|
Windhawk
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 28 2006 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 11401 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 15:54 |
|||
|
Hmmm, this is a topic that really haven't engaged me previously - I couldn't care less for how my ratings are weighted or not. Never thought about it before I became a collab, never thought about it after either.
The weighted system sees to it that releases with few ratings will be skewed in favor of the collabs. And if I understand the system correctly; only if they write a review. And if I have understood that one correctly, I don't see much of a problem. |
||||
|
Websites I work with:
http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
||||
|
||||
|
popeyethecat
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: March 04 2008 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 190 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 16:22 |
|||
|
Sorry if I'm not contributing much to the debate here but despite not being a Collaborator I personally think that the weighting is a good idea! I would not like the idea of my votes having the same bearing as those of someone far more experienced when it comes to evaluating and rating music. As long as people are picked properly I think it's a great idea
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 35804 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 17:58 |
|||
|
Weightings have particular value due to the potential for abuse, I think -- particularly when it comes to devaluing ratings without reviews. And we once had a senior member who rated a huge number of albums in a short time based on fuzzy memory. When one writes a review, I think it would be normal to put more effort into thinking about the rating.
One idea might be -- only if M@X was interested of course and I see no reason why he would be would be -- to offer preferences for the way we want to see the ratings: a) the way it is now b) collab and non-collab reviewers given equal weight with ratings without reviews having the same low-weight c) all ratings given equal weight -- with or without reviews. However, I suspect that that would lead to more people trying to bump up and down albums with ratings only. Incidentally, as an almost non-reviewer I don't think I should have greater weight, but then I am conservative with ratings and I would rather not rate/ review albums already reviewed if I were to do them. Really, what I want is the ability to review without rating at all since I have some qualms with rating albums. Truth be told, I rarely read reviews at this site, but the average rating of artists' albums often has got me into looking at album reviews (if there are reviews -- I tend to research quite obscure albums). Where I do find ratings most useful with or without reviews is for checking out an individual's reviews list. There are some prolific raters, who share very similar tastes to my own, whose lists I've found very useful as a reference/ guide. |
||||
|
||||
|
Angelo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: May 07 2006 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 13244 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 18:01 |
|||
If there was a system to guarantee accurat and honest ratings on a site with as many visitors and raters as this one, you might have had a point here. As pointed out earlier, but sadly misinterpreted in this thread: the written reviews explain the rating given - and reviews written by those who have proven insight rather than literary skills are weighted more, because they become the collaborators. We even used to have a collaborator who spent years writing reviews in his native language, pull them through babelfish or google translator and then post the automatic english translation. We only removed the ones that were completely 'lost in translation' and those he happily rewrote. The guy had virtually NO English writing skills, but his little finger knows more about prog than you and I together. Thus - in the end, the weighting serves two purposes: minimze the effect of lazy voting, and honour what prog fans apparently need: a knowledgeable explanation of a rating, while still allowing disagreement amongst reviewers. After all - it's the end result we are talking about. Then again, the point is moot I guess - this discussion has occured many times, and so far we only ended up running in circles like in this one. EDIT: final note - if you read the descriptions of the star system we have, only the whole stars have a real meaning. Each and every example Ive seen in this thread rounds to the same star regardless of the approach taken, so in the end - if M@X had decided not to show the decimals, we never would've had this discussion. Edited by Angelo - January 05 2009 at 18:04 |
||||
|
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
||||
|
||||
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 18:35 |
|||
|
Damn, I went and reviewed all those Ange & Klaatu albums before I became a collab !
Why wasn't I told my opinion didn't matter ? Oh well, back to the world juniors hockey final game ... |
||||
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||||
|
||||
|
kenethlevine
Special Collaborator
Prog-Folk Team Joined: December 06 2006 Location: New England Status: Offline Points: 8951 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 20:49 |
|||
|
I guess the argument being advanced here could be applied much more effectively against music critics for newspapers, books or websites where only a small number of people get to assess the value of a recording, and indeed influence its success. At least here we provide a broad range of reviewers, and visitors can find their favourites - those they trust or whose taste more closely matches their own - and apply their own personal weighting system. So, while I do understand the argument for equal weighting, and ultimately believe that the current weighting system is more sensible, I think that individual reviews provide value to the visitor, who need not care whether a particular review was done by a site reviewer or a newbie.
|
||||
|
||||
|
RaúlGuate
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2006 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 146 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 21:46 |
|||
|
I'm giving my opinion from the perspective of a non-collab:
I don't if the problem can be fixed with the mathematics of the ratings, but I felt that my reviews became trivial when the layout was changed. I think what UncleSpooky's point comes from the greater context of the discontent of being a non-collab. I tend to lurk around the forums a lot and I've seen that the site indeed isn't at all a democracy, but has the structure of a business (because it is actually a business). Max & ProgLucky are the owners. They are the ones that do the most work (because they have invested their money and are expecting revenue). Admins are like "big managers". The "middle managers" are the collabs and reviewers. Because their work is free, their retribution (salary) is in the weighings. The discontent in the non-collabs lies in the gap of "unretributed" work that one has to do to become a collaborator. Some non-collabs do some work, but it isn't enough to get retribution... Guess we should form a union   Seriously, though, I think everything is ok as long as everyone is having fun in this process. We shouldn't take it too seriusly. But personally I'd like to be the breach between collabs and non-collabs gradually diminished. (By bringing the old layout, so I can resume the reviewing!  ) |
||||
|
||||
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: December 24 2007 Location: Ukraine Status: Offline Points: 25210 |
Posted: January 05 2009 at 23:08 |
|||
Not wanting to sound like an ass, but compared to some of the other forum boards/sites I go, which have the various levels/positions of people, PA isn't anywhere near as democratic as some of the other sites I've seen to be entirely honest. I'm not saying this as an attack on PA, it's just how I feel. Personally, when I was just a senior member, I was fine with that because you realize there are people in place because they know how to get the sh*t done. And now, I'm a collab, which as the last post in this thread before be pointed out, is somewhere in between a normal member and the webmasters, and I'm happy with where I am, because I understand the stuff I need to do, know what I have to do in my given role and let others who know better and have greater expertise in their area do their stuff without people really getting in their way. You know, it would be cool and all to own this site, be the webmaster and stuff, but geez, I wouldn't have a clue what to do anyway, that's why we have M@X and Proglucky. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
cobb2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 25 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 415 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 01:39 |
|||
I frequent the forum (don't take any notice of the low post rating, I am hopeless at remembering passwords). To tell the truth I don't even go to the archives sections. Ever since I have been here there has always been bias involved in the rating system, under different guises and this has always turned me off delving further. After 40 years of listening to prog I am quite capable of recognising what I like when I hear it, without needing a rating (flawed) rating system to point me in the right direction. What I do need is a site that has easily accessible new release info and this site doesn't. So for this I use another. But I do love the forum...
|
||||
|
||||
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006 Status: Offline Points: 4625 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 02:13 |
|||
|
I personally think the weighting system should just be less drastic, but I've already mentioned this before and been shot down. What I think could be done is only ranked members can vote on albums newer than 6 months old. Most of the reactionary bs is at release time, right? Then after 6 months, open it to everyone, you could still have a 2:1 ratio IMO and be fairly democratic, but the aforementioned 3.33:1 is waaaay too much.I however, like the less waiting of ratings w/o reviews. If someone writes a few paragraphs about an album, you know they have to give at least 1/2 of a crap. Above all tho, even if I'm not listened to, I encourage the owners of this site to experiment and monkey with things. Btw, Beardfish owns.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Uncle Spooky
Forum Groupie 
Joined: July 31 2007 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 02:50 |
|||
Define "low". As I showed with the Beardfish album, with 43 votes, there's a large skew caused by weighting towards collabs. It's even worse with albums with low votes that contain collab reviews. And as I've already said it's possible to automatically monitor voting patterns for sabotage and flag up suspect entries. Sabotage voters can be transparently blocked, or percentages of votes can be dropped for all entries to account for sabotage and so on. It doesn't take 24/7 effort once implemented. Skewing for the in-crowd is parochial and disingenuous. And if non-collab ratings are distrusted so much, why allow them? It seems to me you should only allow ratings with reviews, that way you get to decide who is worthy? Mark |
||||
|
||||
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: May 02 2008 Location: Going Bananas Status: Offline Points: 24295 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 02:51 |
|||
|
The weighting system is not that bad. I only hope that it can deal with sometimes badly written templates, which become quite annoying after seeing nine similar "reviews" on the front page.
Edited by someone_else - January 06 2009 at 03:37 |
||||
|
||||
|
Uncle Spooky
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 31 2007 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 02:53 |
|||
To a certain extent, but as my Beardfish experiment showed the weighting is skewing the ratings. How many genuinely better albums are being lost in the mix because weightings are artificially elevating lesser albums? Or even pushing good albums down should a collab take a dislike to it? I really don't see how a site that claims to care about Prog can sanction such moves? Mark |
||||
|
||||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65258 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 03:00 |
|||
|
who the bloody hell cares about "ratings".. I mean c'mon, the important things are the information via review, samples and links to other sources, and an excellent forum for communication
|
||||
|
||||
|
Uncle Spooky
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 31 2007 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 03:05 |
|||
No problem.
Again, I understand. I've done my time on the front line and appreciate how stressful it can be and how easy it is to feel under appreciated, etc but the truth is if the site wasn't so important I wouldn't be here putting my case.
Heh, and now you're being insulting again  That anybody cares enough to stand up in front of you guys and risk the flak should be taken as a compliment... Look, I am being totally reasonable in my arguments. I've not presented anything in a whiny, aggressive, lame manner. Just reasoned observation. I appreciate that this has possibly been discussed before, but that shouldn't stop people speaking their mind in a reasonable way when something is perceived as wrong. USA invades IRAQ? It's happening as planned, why should anybody stand up and speak out against it? Women don't get to vote? Whatever? etc. OK, these are slightly different extremes, but the principle remains. If a reasonable answer is given then people shut up and go away, but so far the only honest answer I've seen is that the system is designed to give collaborators weighting. The inference being that non-collabs are at best mistrusted, at worst seen as saboteurs with hidden agendas. I find this unacceptable and have presented an argument for why. Discussion is nothing to be feared unless the answers are painful to give... Mark |
||||
|
||||
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 03:45 |
|||
|
This debate has probably gone about as far as it can go without simply becoming a yes it is/no it isn't exchange. Unless there are any further points which have not yet been made, it is probably time to agree to differ and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Uncle Spooky
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 31 2007 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 03:48 |
|||
Well, I have already highlighted IMDb as a model? They use no weighting (or didn't when I was in charge).
Well, here you are talking about two different things? Ratings and reviews are separate entities with different information to convey...
Indeed.
But of course decimals must be used if charts are to be meaningful. And ratings have to be accurate if charts are to be meaningful... Mark |
||||
|
||||
|
Uncle Spooky
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 31 2007 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 03:55 |
|||
Fair enough. I'd like to thank everybody for their input and insights and for taking the time to discuss this issue. My suggestions: Drop Weighting, or at least significantly lower the weightings to remove the gross skewing that is currently occurring. Implement vote stuffing code to weed out sabotage. Smothering votes with weighting doesn't actually solve the problem. It needs to be tackled properly. Failing that, some possible options: Do as IMDb does and display the basic averages, non-weighted ratings, non-collab ratings etc. There's nothing to be scared of here and the more ways you can present information the more interesting it is and the more valuable the site becomes. Offer a filter on the chart pages to remove weighting from the result sets. Again, the more ways people can sift information, the more interesting the site becomes. Embrace the userbase! Don't become so insular that all non-collabs are viewed with suspicion. That will lead to PA's downfall. Keep on Proggin'! Regards, Mark Edited by Uncle Spooky - January 06 2009 at 03:57 |
||||
|
||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 06 2009 at 04:19 |
|||
|
I found this on the IMDB page:
"IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it. The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average." I wonder what they are doing. As far as I'm concerned, it's censorship - for example, they might remove votes which differ a lot from the established average, or lessen the weight of people who constantly submit ratings which differ from consensus. If there was a method to reliably detect abuse, they would *not* need to keep it secret. BTW: I like IMDB and will continue to use it - my point is that whenever a website which accepts ratings does something to prevent abuse, it will also offend some members. It's a compromise between having a totally fair and democratic system with abusive ratings in it which distort the averages, and having a totally isolated system where only known members are allowed to contribute. Maybe for the archives it would suffice for M@x to also show the unweighted averages, and be a little more transparent about the algorithms used. |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456> |
| 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 |
Ratings: Weighting is harming Prog Archives
Topic Options
Uncle Spooky wrote: