RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,213
Posts: 5,437,518
Members: 24,952
Currently online: 500
Newest member: secondhandmeth

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 23 2014, 05:42 PM   #181
Defcon
Rear Admiral
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
View Defcon's Twitter Profile
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

@JWolf: I'm just using the system that has been used here for quite some time now, and for the purpose of what I want to try to achieve, filling up the ranking site, it has to be done that way. (What you propose would mean a lot of work not only for the poor soul who would have to repost the threads, but for the moderators, would flood the board with "old news" at the risk of drowning out current discussion and would have the heavy downside of losing many votes)

@Zarkon: Thank you for your comments.

BTW the review thread for The Belly of the Beast has been posted.
Defcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 06:26 PM   #182
Thrawn
Rear Admiral
 
Thrawn's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

JWolf wrote: View Post
I think all these polls should be tossed out and replaced with new ones. The problem is that we don't have enough options. We only have 5 options when really, we should have 10 options (i.e., 10 stars).

If I want to vote in between, I cannot. Not all these options fit. A middle option would fit better in a lot of cases. So instead of 5 stars, let's move to 10 stars. It's easy enough to create new polls with 10 stars instead of 5. Granted, it would mean starting over, but it would also mean a lot more accurate results.

What could be done is new threads created and then the moderators can merge the old thread in the new thread without the original first post and then delete the original threads. That would work very well and once done, we'd be all set.
If it's good enough for Amazon and Goodreads, it should be good enough for us. And the validity of several years of ratings to compare with is much more valuable than the added "accuracy" (which, if we're talking about opinions, is kind of a poor concept anyway; you're really talking about "granularity", which isn't the same thing).
__________________
The Almighty Star Trek Lit-Verse Reading Order Flowchart - be confused no longer about what to read next, or what to read first.
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 08:03 PM   #183
Csalem
Commodore
 
Csalem's Avatar
 
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

How about slotting in Ship of the Line at some point since it pops up in threads quite frequently. Might be good idea to have one thread dedicated to discussing and reviewing it?
__________________
Csalem
Csalem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23 2014, 10:45 PM   #184
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Thrawn wrote: View Post
JWolf wrote: View Post
I think all these polls should be tossed out and replaced with new ones. The problem is that we don't have enough options. We only have 5 options when really, we should have 10 options (i.e., 10 stars).

If I want to vote in between, I cannot. Not all these options fit. A middle option would fit better in a lot of cases. So instead of 5 stars, let's move to 10 stars. It's easy enough to create new polls with 10 stars instead of 5. Granted, it would mean starting over, but it would also mean a lot more accurate results.

What could be done is new threads created and then the moderators can merge the old thread in the new thread without the original first post and then delete the original threads. That would work very well and once done, we'd be all set.
If it's good enough for Amazon and Goodreads, it should be good enough for us. And the validity of several years of ratings to compare with is much more valuable than the added "accuracy" (which, if we're talking about opinions, is kind of a poor concept anyway; you're really talking about "granularity", which isn't the same thing).
I really don't see the need for more options either. Honestly, I think what we have now works fine. All adding more options would do is just make things more complex, without really giving anymore information that five options doesn't already give. I think it's pretty easy to figure out if people liked the book/comic/whatever based off of what we have now, and really, that's the purpose of reviews.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24 2014, 08:01 AM   #185
ronny
Fleet Captain
 
ronny's Avatar
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
View ronny's Twitter Profile
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

JWolf wrote: View Post
I think all these polls should be tossed out and replaced with new ones. The problem is that we don't have enough options. We only have 5 options when really, we should have 10 options (i.e., 10 stars).

If I want to vote in between, I cannot. Not all these options fit. A middle option would fit better in a lot of cases. So instead of 5 stars, let's move to 10 stars. It's easy enough to create new polls with 10 stars instead of 5. Granted, it would mean starting over, but it would also mean a lot more accurate results.

What could be done is new threads created and then the moderators can merge the old thread in the new thread without the original first post and then delete the original threads. That would work very well and once done, we'd be all set.
Why stop at 10? Let's go with 1000. Then we can see what people really think...

Seriously, I think Thrawn has the killer argument for leaving it as is, if it's good enough for Amazon and Goodreads there's no reason I've heard that 5 doesn't work. And no reason for Sho to do all the work involved in updating his scripts and no reason for the mods to spend time creating new polls and combining the old ones.

We're rating tie-in books, not putting a man on Mars. 5 stars seems to be doing the trick.
__________________
If you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas. - John Scalzi

My Star Trek reading progress.
ronny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 04:11 AM   #186
JWolf
Commodore
 
JWolf's Avatar
 
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Thrawn wrote: View Post
If it's good enough for Amazon and Goodreads, it should be good enough for us. And the validity of several years of ratings to compare with is much more valuable than the added "accuracy" (which, if we're talking about opinions, is kind of a poor concept anyway; you're really talking about "granularity", which isn't the same thing).
I've been reading on Goodreads that it's not good enough for a lot of people and I have to agree. For example, a 7-star rating is much more accurate then a 3- or 4-star rating.
__________________
Jon
JWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 04:29 AM   #187
Thrawn
Rear Admiral
 
Thrawn's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

More granular. Not more accurate. There is no independently measurable quantity being assessed.

What the hell difference does it make if something averages 3.2 on a scale of 5 compared to 4.5 on a scale of 7?

Besides, oddly enough, I'm a teacher and I've done some research on survey and assessment design. At least for the average high school and college students, more granularity does not result in any higher statistical correlations based on preferences; the official recommendation of the design document I read literally was that, when surveying people about likes and dislikes, a scale of 1-5 be used, as anything more was overly complex and produced no more useful data.

Which is probably why the biggest and most competitive sales companies in the world, which rely on user reviews to sell things, do exactly that.

So perhaps you are so granular that you have precisely plotted your opinions to the nearest seventh, but the vast majority of humanity doesn't give a shit, and that's been statistically proven.
__________________
The Almighty Star Trek Lit-Verse Reading Order Flowchart - be confused no longer about what to read next, or what to read first.
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 05:56 AM   #188
JeBuS
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Thrawn wrote: View Post
the vast majority of humanity doesn't give a shit, and that's been statistically proven.
I hate posting with a simple "This!" but really, what else is there to say? Your post had everything necessary, and this line is an excellent summation.
JeBuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 02:28 PM   #189
Stevil2001
Rear Admiral
 
Stevil2001's Avatar
 
Location: 2010
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Yeah, my university recently went from a 10-point student eval system to a 5-point one, for reasons like what Thrawn mentioned.
__________________
"I don't like adventure. I'm a stay-at-home-and-read kind of guy."
Science's Less Accurate Grandmother
Stevil2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 03:56 PM   #190
JWolf
Commodore
 
JWolf's Avatar
 
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Thrawn wrote: View Post
More granular. Not more accurate. There is no independently measurable quantity being assessed.

What the hell difference does it make if something averages 3.2 on a scale of 5 compared to 4.5 on a scale of 7?
It's not about the average. It's about a more accurate rating system. As I said before, rating something 7 of 10 is more accurate then rating something 4 of 5.
__________________
Jon
JWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 04:02 PM   #191
zarkon
Captain
 
zarkon's Avatar
 
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

JWolf wrote: View Post
It's not about the average. It's about a more accurate rating system. As I said before, rating something 7 of 10 is more accurate then rating something 4 of 5.
Well, it seems from this and previous threads that you're the only one who favours /10, everyone else either prefers /5 or doesn't care enough either way to bother posting

probably time to stop tilting at windmills dude
__________________
In defeat, malice. In victory, revenge.
zarkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27 2014, 04:30 PM   #192
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

JWolf wrote: View Post
It's not about the average. It's about a more accurate rating system. As I said before, rating something 7 of 10 is more accurate then rating something 4 of 5.
As you've been told, that's a misuse of the word "accurate." You're making the common mistake of confusing accuracy with precision. Accuracy is about whether you have the right answer, while precision is about how narrow the margin of error is. For instance, if you say that the value of pi is somewhere between 3 and 4, that's accurate but not at all precise. But if you say that the value of pi is 3.9658751356884309, then that's extremely precise but not at all accurate. Increasing precision does not necessarily increase accuracy.

Indeed, too much emphasis on precision can work against accuracy. For instance, the common belief that normal human body temperature is precisely 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is quite wrong. In fact, it varies from person to person and fluctuates over the course of the day. What medical science actually determined was that human body temperature has an average value of approximately 37 degrees Celsius. And then, when that was converted into Fahrenheit, someone made the mistake of taking that accurate but approximate figure as a precise one -- as exactly 37 C, which converts to exactly 98.6 F. It would be more accurate to say that body temperature is about 99 F, give or take, but the presence of the decimal point created a false perception that it was a precise and unchanging figure, rather than something that naturally varies. Thus, too much precision created a belief that was inaccurate.

In this case, we're talking about personal opinions. It's problematical to talk about "accuracy" for something like that, because there is no objective "right" answer for matters of taste. Heck, I've often read a book a second time and found I liked it substantially better or worse than when I read it the first time. Even a single individual's tastes are variable enough that a broad and imprecise set of ratings is more likely to be accurate -- i.e. to encompass the right answer -- than a more granular rating that may include your reaction on one reading but exclude it on another. So your belief that more precision equals more accuracy is pretty much backward. Part of being accurate is acknowledging the margin for error.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 01:46 AM   #193
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Honestly, I think even only two options, I liked it/I didn't like, would work. IMO when comes to stuff like this that's really all you need to know. Everything more than that is simply degrees of like or dislike.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 05:31 AM   #194
Defcon
Rear Admiral
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
View Defcon's Twitter Profile
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

I have a question:

I have noticed that the Classic Review threads get the vast majority of their votes and comments in the fist few days of being posted, with very few votes (if any) or discussions coming in later. Do you think I could/should tighten the posting speed a bit from one every two weeks to one every week?
Defcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2014, 05:41 AM   #195
zarkon
Captain
 
zarkon's Avatar
 
Re: Tabulated review threads sorted by average score

Once a week sounds fine to me.
__________________
In defeat, malice. In victory, revenge.
zarkon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.