some explanations for negative ratings
-
There used to be a good rule on the codeproject that when someone gives an article rating less than 4 some verbal explanation is necessary. Why am I getting ones and twos without any explanation? How can I improve my article without knowing what the person was upset about? In particular I talk about a recent 2 I got for Software Design Principles and Patterns in Pictures[^]. BTW the rating is clearly outside of the variance interval, yet it influenced the article's average (also something new). Thanks
Nick Polyak
-
There used to be a good rule on the codeproject that when someone gives an article rating less than 4 some verbal explanation is necessary. Why am I getting ones and twos without any explanation? How can I improve my article without knowing what the person was upset about? In particular I talk about a recent 2 I got for Software Design Principles and Patterns in Pictures[^]. BTW the rating is clearly outside of the variance interval, yet it influenced the article's average (also something new). Thanks
Nick Polyak
I can understand your Frustration. On the other side what will it help you if a (mandatory) comment for a low vote will be "asdflkjh"? What I hink to see is, that the "2" comes from a higher rep mem. Maybe one should force mandatory comment for them ;)
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
-
I can understand your Frustration. On the other side what will it help you if a (mandatory) comment for a low vote will be "asdflkjh"? What I hink to see is, that the "2" comes from a higher rep mem. Maybe one should force mandatory comment for them ;)
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
Hey If someone puts "asdflkjh" as an explanation at least everyone would see that he is either a spammer or a malicious joker. After several "asdflkjh" such account can be forbidden. Based on the negative score for the '2' the guy who gave it to me had a Golden level!. People with golden level should be a bit more responsible. Thanks
Nick Polyak
-
Hey If someone puts "asdflkjh" as an explanation at least everyone would see that he is either a spammer or a malicious joker. After several "asdflkjh" such account can be forbidden. Based on the negative score for the '2' the guy who gave it to me had a Golden level!. People with golden level should be a bit more responsible. Thanks
Nick Polyak
Quote:
After several "asdflkjh" such account can be forbidden
That makes sense.
Quote:
People with golden level should be a bit more responsible
Yep, that's why they should be forced to give a comment, because their votes Count more. Anyway a difficult matter, and more or less it works at the Moment not that bad. [Edit] For me it would also be ok, that one can see who voted how. But I see also the fights starting then with this Information... [/Edit]
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
-
Quote:
After several "asdflkjh" such account can be forbidden
That makes sense.
Quote:
People with golden level should be a bit more responsible
Yep, that's why they should be forced to give a comment, because their votes Count more. Anyway a difficult matter, and more or less it works at the Moment not that bad. [Edit] For me it would also be ok, that one can see who voted how. But I see also the fights starting then with this Information... [/Edit]
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
The only value of a down vote is that it shows that something is wrong with the article to both the author and the readers. Without an explanation it is absolutely pointless.
Nick Polyak
-
There used to be a good rule on the codeproject that when someone gives an article rating less than 4 some verbal explanation is necessary. Why am I getting ones and twos without any explanation? How can I improve my article without knowing what the person was upset about? In particular I talk about a recent 2 I got for Software Design Principles and Patterns in Pictures[^]. BTW the rating is clearly outside of the variance interval, yet it influenced the article's average (also something new). Thanks
Nick Polyak
-
You have 14 x 5, 1 x 4 and 1 x 2, so most people think it's a good article. The 4 vote is most likely by someone who still thought it was a good article. The 2 you can ignore, either a mistake, or someone whose opinion is not worth worrying about.
that's true, but still some explanation would be good. Also, until yesterday - such outlier vote would not be part of the average, while today it is part of it. Something changed in the algorithm.
Nick Polyak
-
that's true, but still some explanation would be good. Also, until yesterday - such outlier vote would not be part of the average, while today it is part of it. Something changed in the algorithm.
Nick Polyak
-
Forget about it, it is just something that happens on the internet. Not everyone who comes here is serious about software development.
I am a little concerned because of two things 1. The guy who gave me a bad rating - has golden account 2. My previous article which recently won the competition for February Software Project Development and Decision Making[^] also got two bad grades: 1 and 2 apparently from two guys with golden accounts. So it seems to me a bit of a persecution - may I say so:)
Nick Polyak
-
I am a little concerned because of two things 1. The guy who gave me a bad rating - has golden account 2. My previous article which recently won the competition for February Software Project Development and Decision Making[^] also got two bad grades: 1 and 2 apparently from two guys with golden accounts. So it seems to me a bit of a persecution - may I say so:)
Nick Polyak
Nick Polyak wrote:
So it seems to me a bit of a persecution
Only if you wish to interpret it that way. Not everyone has to like your article. Some that don't vote that way others simply pass it by. Richard MacCutchan's comment hits the nail. The Internet is imperfect and the best way of dealing with that is to develop a thick skin.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
There used to be a good rule on the codeproject that when someone gives an article rating less than 4 some verbal explanation is necessary. Why am I getting ones and twos without any explanation? How can I improve my article without knowing what the person was upset about? In particular I talk about a recent 2 I got for Software Design Principles and Patterns in Pictures[^]. BTW the rating is clearly outside of the variance interval, yet it influenced the article's average (also something new). Thanks
Nick Polyak
I see no 2 votes on your article. We do cache ratings for a short time so it may have been this. The algorithm hasn't changed in a long time.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I see no 2 votes on your article. We do cache ratings for a short time so it may have been this. The algorithm hasn't changed in a long time.
cheers Chris Maunder
somehow it disappeared after this discussion.
Nick Polyak
-
Nick Polyak wrote:
So it seems to me a bit of a persecution
Only if you wish to interpret it that way. Not everyone has to like your article. Some that don't vote that way others simply pass it by. Richard MacCutchan's comment hits the nail. The Internet is imperfect and the best way of dealing with that is to develop a thick skin.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
Hey, I am not too upset about it. Just wish to have an explanation that's it. My point is that the only benefit from negative ratings is when they are accompanied by an explanation.
Nick Polyak
-
I am a little concerned because of two things 1. The guy who gave me a bad rating - has golden account 2. My previous article which recently won the competition for February Software Project Development and Decision Making[^] also got two bad grades: 1 and 2 apparently from two guys with golden accounts. So it seems to me a bit of a persecution - may I say so:)
Nick Polyak
I looked over the votes on this one and they are from different people who aren't (from what I can see) on any vendettas. For what it's worth here's a write up of my thinking on the matter[^].
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I see no 2 votes on your article. We do cache ratings for a short time so it may have been this. The algorithm hasn't changed in a long time.
cheers Chris Maunder
Speaking of the algorithm. Take a look at Software Project Development and Decision Making[^]. Several days ago the two negative votes were considered outliers and not counted for the calculation of the average. Today - the are.
Nick Polyak
-
I looked over the votes on this one and they are from different people who aren't (from what I can see) on any vendettas. For what it's worth here's a write up of my thinking on the matter[^].
cheers Chris Maunder
cool that's all I wanted to know concerning the people who gave me low votes. Concerning the process - I do believe that while an article can be good in one way - it can be bad in 1000s of different ways and once someone gives a low mark - some explanation would be extremely beneficial. Perhaps it is possible to allow people to explain their bad marks anonymously or under a different alias?
Nick Polyak
-
I see no 2 votes on your article. We do cache ratings for a short time so it may have been this. The algorithm hasn't changed in a long time.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
There used to be a good rule on the codeproject that when someone gives an article rating less than 4 some verbal explanation is necessary. Why am I getting ones and twos without any explanation? How can I improve my article without knowing what the person was upset about? In particular I talk about a recent 2 I got for Software Design Principles and Patterns in Pictures[^]. BTW the rating is clearly outside of the variance interval, yet it influenced the article's average (also something new). Thanks
Nick Polyak
I'm back to my desktop, so I can answer you... It was me and my fat fingers... that 2 wasn't intentional, and fixed when I realized the mistake (and that's why Chris didn't saw it)... Sory for the bad moments... :sigh:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
-
I'm back to my desktop, so I can answer you... It was me and my fat fingers... that 2 wasn't intentional, and fixed when I realized the mistake (and that's why Chris didn't saw it)... Sory for the bad moments... :sigh:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
Hey Peter, thanks for correcting it! sorry for the commotion, but at least it made Peter look at the rating second time:) I just could not image what was so bad about the article that deserved a 2:) Nick
Nick Polyak
