How much more should collab/reviewer ratings count
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=44581
Printed Date: February 03 2025 at 06:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How much more should collab/reviewer ratings count
Posted By: Fight Club
Subject: How much more should collab/reviewer ratings count
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 23:49
|
I'm currently working on a new algorithm for determining the ratings,
and one of the factors is the weight of collab/prog reviewer ratings.
Our current system is set with collabs having a weight of 10, rating
with reviews 3, and non review ratings 1. I just wanted to get
everyone's opinion on what they think is right.
------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 23:56
|
what is fair in a utopian site is everyone having an equal
voice... what reality is though... is different.. we discussed
this in the collab area. People are picked for their knowledge of
prog.. and the work they do for the site. The unbalanced
weights reflect both of those.. that collabs 'generally' know the music
best... and most importantly... is one of the few tangible benefits to
volunteering for the site and working for it. To have a greater
'say' or weight.. than those that don't.
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 23:58
I completely agree with everything you said there. You feel a weight of 10 is fair though, not a bit radical? I'm not sure what my opinion is on this yet. -------------
|
micky wrote:Posted By: micky
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 00:00
maybe it is getting a bit late and the eyes are heavy.. I meant to vote
for the way it is.... It doesn't need to be more.. but shouldn't
be less. Must have just voted the collab 'weight' of
10  chalk me for a 3... if I read your options right.. that is the way it is now. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 00:01
|
Maybe: Collab: 6 or 7 Non-collab: 3 No review: 1 ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 20:08
|
First I need to know how much musical theory they know, if they understand every sound every note and every tempo I`m happy , otherwise its just artistic perception and thats not good enough to give 10 times the weight in my book |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 20:14
|
If they were experts in music theory they'd have to bash just about everything for some sort of violation or another; for example, most prog-metal albums contain parallel fifths (aka power chords) which music theory declares to be a no-no.
-------------   |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 20:25
that's assuming those who know music theory have no appreciation for the enjoyment of music, which is a stretch if you ask me... as to fifth intervals being a 'no-no' in music theory, that makes it sound as if a fifth doesn't (or shouldn't) exist as a two-tone interval, which clearly it does .. |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 20:27
|
Same as everyone, because there are lots of weak collabs/reviewers' reviews.
Why they should weight 10 times or more than others?
Only the fact that some review is written by collaborator/reviewer does not guarantee its quality.
Though I don't care much about ratings.
------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 23:18
|
Definitely more than the common man.
10 times might be a little extreme, but hey I have no complaints about how the ratings are divied up now so I'll vote for ten. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 04:25
To clarify, it's ratings with reviews which have a weight of 3.
 The present ratio based on written review vs. written review is therefore about 3.3.
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 04:28
A certain reviewer has irritated me a little on more than one occasion by treating an album nothing more than an academic exercise; sadly for him, rock bands (however loosely you define the term) tend not to release their CDs as answers to exam questions. i'm going to click "four" here ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 20:22
|
SAME. Because, in my opinion, many non-collabs write better, more informative, more fair reviews than many collabs. No, I am not talking about myself. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 20:25
|
Don't the collabs get a weight of 10 even if they don't write a review?
------------- |
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: December 21 2007 at 01:38
Good question... in my opinion, if they do they shouldn't... -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: December 22 2007 at 05:30
|
They do, but that is only because few if any do so. It's just a pragmatic move as it keeps the calculations simpler and quicker.
If any collabs started to post a lot of RwR, we'd revisit it.
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: December 22 2007 at 10:28
Agreed. I'm pleased to hear that a written review is worth more than just a rating with no review, though. I didn't know that was the case. |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: December 22 2007 at 15:44
No, they are picked for spending the most time with that section on the site. So if you spend a lot of time reviewing things, you get a lot of credit. But if you instead listen to hundreds of albums and become more knowledgeable, you just get snubbed. I'm not saying that collaborators aren't, I'm just saying that collaborators are just regular prog fans and that differentiating them from everyone else is just a cute way of balancing all of the retards who give only 5s and 1s. ------------- Hail Eris! 
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: December 22 2007 at 16:48
|
Not so. Some of our collaborators do not post many reviews at all. Becoming a collaborator simply recognises a sustained commitment to the site in a whole variety of ways.
It is of course open to all to step up and offer their help where they think there is something they could do.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: December 22 2007 at 18:51
|
In my opinion: Ratings without reviews: weight of 1 (if any). Rating without reviews of people who rated entire band's discography with five stars, or two band's discographies exclusively with five stars and one star: 0. (this could be done with artist's id tagging). Ratings with reviews: for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 50 albums: weight 5. for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 100 albums: weight 10. for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 150 albums: weight 15. for reviewers/collabs/members who rated up to 200 albums: weight 20. etc... regardless of member/reviewer status. Our most prolific members will get the "heaviest" rating weights. I disagree with many of Sean Trane's opinions, and I don't think his reviews are the best reviews around. But damn, if someone was busy enough to take time and rate 2000+ albums, he deserves it! This is not a warranty for a quality...but we're not talking about quality. The review would be short or long, good or bad, but it's obviously if someone reviewed 100,200, 300 albums, that person had a certain knowledge. And it deserves to be recognized. At the end of the day, this seems to be again more reviewer-friendly, so to say. But it's not about the elitism or patronizing: if you want your reviews to be appreciated more, start the damn writing. Simple as that. ------------- |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: December 23 2007 at 02:07
Do we need "rat races"?
I think when writing reviews people rather try to express themselves than win the title of the Most Prolific Reviewer.
Different weights are confusing and crazy.
If I see several reviews, each of them gives to some album from 1 to 5 stars, that's enough. I don't care if some of them have different weights. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |