h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I would love to see a site where everyone could rate everything- from ideas to actions like blowing bubbles to homeschooling curricula or shoes. The site would not only include products, but anything you could think of to rate...
For example, someone uploads a picture or link and defines it as either
being safe for work or not safe for work along with a title and possibly a description and label it to fit into a category and other users rate it according to what they think about it.
Users could search according to subject or category or just have it all randomized. I'll admit, there are some things slightly similar to this... hotornot and amazon, but nothing yet that is all-inclusive as far as content goes...
please fill me in though if you can find something like this, as I am looking for my next great time-waster.
Response Planet
http://www.responseplanet.com/
Everything on the planet. From looking at the actual site, I think the owners are (a) dyslexic (b) at least slightly insane, but there's your general idea. [jutta, Jun 30 2009]
uRateIt
http://www.urateit.net/
Anything you want. [jutta, Jun 30 2009]
Rate it all
http://www.rateitall.com/
Anything. [jutta, Jun 30 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
not a bad first post... could use some paragraph breaks... but the idea basically describes the Internet... [ ] |
|
| |
I invented the internet! Whoo! |
|
| |
yeah, I really wouldn't be too proud of that one... |
|
| |
As regards paragraph breaks, I second the motion. All in favor say aye. |
|
| |
Okay, okay, I'll break up some paragraphs. |
|
| |
Behind the move to allow everyone to rate anything is the assumption that people have anything sensible to say or are in some way entitled to rate those things. A good example is the recent UK Government pronouncement that school children will be able to rate the performance of teachers and schools. Aside from the distortion of the ratings which will be caused by most schoolchildren being very silly ("0 stars: My teacher smells") it assumes that schoolchildren are in some sense the 'customers' of the education process when it could be argued more convincingly that their parents, or even society in general, is the customer. So, [-]. |
|
| |
jutta's links= a perfect 10. Or 3 out of 3. Or 100 %, or
an A+, or a (+), or an almost whole croissant, etc, etc,
etc. |
|
| |
(could also be seen as a [marked-for-deletion],
redundant tag. |
|
| |
hippo, it could be argued rather more convincingly that the parents are the owners of the business, for state education anyway.
And what's wrong with a rating of "0 stars: My teacher smells"? It's what my boss said about me on my last performance appraisal!
Only slightly more seriously, regardless of the scores & comments that they give, the quality of the reviews provided by the kids would provide quite a good meta view of the quality of the education that they had received wouldn't it? |
|
| |
Sorry, i know you only mentioned this in passing and it's OT, but i have to say that the whole concept of a homeschooling curriculum is at best a necessary evil if your jurisdiction insists on structured education, and that as a result, for most children the idea of a good homeschooling curriculum is an oxymoron, with exceptions maybe for kids on the autistic spectrum. Just my opinion. |
|
| |
Who's got the fking conch!!! Kill Piggy with it! |
|
| |
Theoretically school systems should be a pipeline where you pour children in one end at age 5 or so and a bit over a decade later young adults come pouring out the other end who are not only capable of scratching their butts synchronously with everybody else, but have been equipped with a toolset to enable them to add (or surgically subtract) to the society. |
|
| |
With that in mind I'll keep working on trying to fit the phrase "conch potato" into a grammatically correct, meaningful sentence. |
|
| |
When making conch chowder without enough conch, potato can be added to bulk it up |
|
| |
Bear in mind that in a rating system, you may want to build in a weighting system also. In other words, I may 100% agree with a particular reviewer (full, positive weighting) or 100% disagree (full, negative weighting) |
|
| |
With negatively weighted reviewers, I will see the opposite of their rating. They hate it? MUST be good! |
|
| |
//you seem not to realize that most kids don't even want to be there//
Not at all, 21Q. But don't you think that that is, in itself, an indictment of the education system? In my opinion education should be fun, not a chore. If, in this example, you restrict the reviews to just the opinions of the parents ("10/10, the school has turned my inquisitive and annoying child into a one dimensional, career- minded opportunist, just like I asked them to!") then you get a skewed version of whether people think that education is 'good' because you restrict the definition of 'good' to 'does it perform as advertised?' rather than viewing it in the context of the world in general. The kids' views are not unreasonable just because they differ from the adults' views.
To take another example, would you rate, say, Myxomatosis as good because it really kills rabbits well or would it be bad because of the uncontrolled effects that it has on wildlife in general? A farmer whose crops have all been eaten by cute bunnies might proffer a rather different review to that of a sandal-wearing tree-hugger like me (but without the sandals...or the tree-hugging).
All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that if you are going to have a web site that rates everything then, assuming that the intention is for those ratings to provide a basis for comparison with everything else that has been rated (if not then what is the point?), the ratings have to be made on a holistic basis and everyone's opinion has to be taken into account. <pauses for breath> |
|
| |
[-]: encourages groupthink |
|
| |
I think [Ian T...] had it right in his first anno. Rating raters will become the new rating system, and so it will turtle on down... |
|
| |
[DrBob] //If, in this example, you restrict the reviews to just the opinions of the parents ... then you get a skewed version// - that's why I suggested that the actual 'customer' of the education system is neither the pupils or the parents, but society as a whole, which has an interest in having happy, fulfilled people living in it. |
|
| |
Putting aside our differences about the use of the word 'customer', I whole-heartedly agree with the general thrust of your point. |
|
| |
I don't much like the word 'customer' in this context either, but you know what I mean... |
|
| |
I think I really like this Idea if it is 'COMPARE EVERYTHING' rather than just rate within categories. |
|
| |
That is, I'd really like to know if watching fireworks is better than, say, walking the dog. (Or, as Furby seems to suggest with this idea - would you prefer a world without blowing bubbles, or a world without shoes?) |
|
| |
Coffee, a lemon drink, hammock and the Sunday news is up there for 'best'. |
|
| |
....oh that, and/or a bun. :) [+] |
|
| |
Cultural differences apply in my experience.
US = if you don't rate 5/5 it means there was something you don't like and people get offended.
UK = (as per Ian) 3 is good/great/ok/whatever. 4 is 'wow'. 5 is never awarded but left as a theoretical possibility for use in case God returns in majesty and splendour. |
|
| |
Others ... who fits where? |
|
| |