Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 5 stars
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed5 stars
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 38085 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2008 at 17:36
Collab/ non-collab/ ratings w/out reviews is but one part of the overall calculation, I believe.

Anyway, this is the most recent topic I can find on this topic http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51634

Not sure when M@X last made changes to the algorithms.


Edited by Logan - November 28 2008 at 17:38
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2008 at 18:32
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Collab/ non-collab/ ratings w/out reviews is but one part of the overall calculation, I believe.

Anyway, this is the most recent topic I can find on this topic http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51634

Not sure when M@X last made changes to the algorithms.
I *think* the AVG = (R*N+r*n)/(N+n) formula is only used to calculate chart position, the rating displayed on the album page is the average rating for that album ('r' in the formula).
 
I've manually recalculated several album ratings using the method shown in my earlier post and it always gives the "correct" answer.
 
I think the explanation given by M@X in the last post of the thread you linked is what that happened here:
Originally posted by M@X M@X wrote:

The problem (i hope not too global) is related to a problem in older calculation of the avg. rating of the specified album in the past, data corruption. So the last review/rating posted made it recalculate correctly the new avg. rating and now giving the correct value.
 
Roni's rating of the album (27/11/08) forced a recalculation of the average from when it was previously calculated (after Hugues' review 27/4/07)
What?
Back to Top
crimson87 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2008 at 22:19
Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

Originally posted by crimson87 crimson87 wrote:

I think that a special 6 stars rating should be given , let's suppose you could only give it to one album. For example in my case "Brain Salad Surgery" would get it.


LOL
 
I was being serious about that one!! Cry
Back to Top
Queen By-Tor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2008 at 22:25
Originally posted by crimson87 crimson87 wrote:

Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

Originally posted by crimson87 crimson87 wrote:

I think that a special 6 stars rating should be given , let's suppose you could only give it to one album. For example in my case "Brain Salad Surgery" would get it.


LOL
 
I was being serious about that one!! Cry


Oh. Sorry, I don't like the idea. Wink

I always hate the idea of giving something 6 out of 5 or 11 out of 10 because it defeats the purpose of the rating system. The website eliminated the use of 'zero star' reviews so I don't think the other extreme should be available, even if for one use. For me it just makes people look like big, incredible fanboys and I almost lost faith in our own Mr. Orb when he published his review of Larks Tongues in Aspic saying it deserved 6.

If you're going to give something a 6 and 5 means perfect then you should do a once over of your own evaluation system.
Back to Top
Tapfret View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8631 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2008 at 12:13
When it gets right down to it, unless the reviewed album is relatively obscure with very few reviews/ratings or has some element of production that can be universally considered to be poor, the rating portion of it reflects as much on the reviewer as it does the album.  I am not sure how many reviewers realize that there are many lurkers out there who look at an album on PA they may know they like and move on to new albums based on the review lists of PA reviewers who rated that album favorably.  I am sure that was at least part of the intention of the reviewing/rating system, particularly in the case of Specialist collaborators. So in that regard I have absolutely no problem with 5 star reviews given in a relatively liberal manner. I certainly find it easier to follow a particular reviewers trends when they have stronger polarization to their ratings than somebody who's list is riddled with 3's.  Yeah, one should take the time to actually read the reviews, but a reviewers ratings are an effective initial pointer to the albums they find remarkable so others have an easier time finding reviewers with similar tastes. It would be a daunting task to read all of the 3 star reviews of some of the longer winded reviewers to find out exactly whether it fits the readers tastes.

Bandcamp
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.