h a l f b a k e r yBaker Street Irregulars
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Currently product services and people are rated with
absolute numbers. For example, you will give your new
fridge a rating between 0 to 5 on number of different
criteria.
While this feels good, it's problematic because even
though
you'd like to make yourself believe that a fridge whose
door fell off two days after purchase deserves an
absolute
0 on all counts, it is not actually true. Yes it feels good
to give it 0 as a "punishment" but objectively you have to
admit that it's just not true. Maybe the fridge looks
gorgeous. Maybe the fridge was really cheap. Maybe the
person who dealt with your complaint was really friendly
and helpful despite the horrible situation.
To fix this, I propose zero sum rating. You are given 100
points split among different attributes. For the fridge
example, my rating would look something like this:
- Compressor Durability 10
- Structural Durability 0
- Price 40
- Value 0
- Appearance 20
- Service 30
Added together from thousands of reviews the
percentages
could be calculated to give overall score. Patterns that
confirm your experience or negate it will emerge. If you
are looking for a great looking fridge that is cheap, and
are willing to roll the dice then this fridge is for you
(let's
say this is an upgrade prior to selling your property)
This system would also eliminate the common problem
of
people being shy to give bad rating, people defaulting
for
3/5 just because they don't really care one way or
another,
or others being overly punitive because they are on some
kind of a power trip.
[link]
|
| |
I should add that there should always be a category of "je
ne se qua" (unexplainable x factor). It will encourage the
makers of the survey to come up with the factor that does
describe the category. Or else, just leave it unexplained.
Some people
may actually be attracted to a fridge with a certain je ne se
qua. |
|
| |
//a fridge with a certain je ne se qua.// |
|
| |
Would that be one of those hybrid Latin/French
fridges? |
|
| |
Utility - 5
Durability - 30
Safety - 5
Appearance - 30
Enjoyability - 30
|
|
| |
Yes and I can flavor your croissant with some juice squeezed from the fishbone. |
|
| |
NO! Fish or cut bait, I say! Yin and Yang. Good and Evil. Make your stand! All of this deep thought on making decisions is passe, I tell you. These days people go with the gut and the gut has 2 words: HUNGRY and GONNAPUKE. |
|
| |
Oh, unless you are European. Then this makes sense. |
|
| |
A power supply that fails deserves a zero. A power supply that sets fire to the kitchen, somewhat less than that. |
|
| |
//A power supply that sets fire to the kitchen, somewhat less
than that. |
|
| |
What if you are trying to find a power supply that starts a
fire? (for experimental reasons of course)
You may even wish to compare which power supplies are
better at starting fires before placing your purchase. |
|
| |
// What if you are trying to find a power supply that starts a fire? // |
|
| |
Whatever other sort could you possibly want ? |
|
| |
So if a product has mulitple positive attributes, that will lower the score of each attribute. "I'm sorry but there are only 2 points left for your excellent service" |
|
| |
But overall, I like the idea! 2 points (and a croissant)! |
|
| |
Heya [tumblewit]. Looks like you have been here
since 2012 - 'bout time to give in and post an idea. |
|
| |
But I agree with your point. |
|
| |
A zero-sum scoring system is really just dumb,
because everything will get 100 points. Some things
are simply better than others - why should everything
get the same score? |
|
| |
Interesting. While you named it a "zero sum" system, I think the more important feature of this system is that you're not rating individual aspects of the product absolutely, but pairs of aspects, relatively. In other words, this is sort of a rational rating system, in that you're providing a set of ratios (price-to-value, durability-to-service, et cetera) when you assign your rating points. |
|
| |
All that said, I don't think that the public should be rating refrigerators or other large appliances with abstract point systems. Someone who has only owned and operated three different refrigerators in his life probably doesn't have the experience to provide a review beyond, "It worked," or "It broke," and how it broke if it did fail. Rather, the public's role in product review should be limited to providing primary data so that the product-review website can interpret that data and form a meaningful score by which consumers can query the product database. |
|
| |
If it really is exactly 100 points per product, I agree with Max in that it's not going to work as a comparison review.
However, it might be useful to the manufacturer; it would tell them what needed improving the most. |
|
| |
// “Reviews” by the general public are usually diary entries, or more often, complaints // |
|
| |
Don't judge reviews just by the ones you get, [IT] - they may not be representative... |
|
| |
// even though you'd like to make yourself believe that a fridge whose door fell off two days after purchase deserves an absolute 0 on all counts, it is not actually true. |
|
| |
It doesn't matter how good the price or service is, when the fridge door is lying on the floor. You're right, it probably is not actually true on *all* counts, but I only care about one count in this scenario. |
|
| |