View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
Author |
Message |
purple
|
- #1
- Posted: 12/10/2009 05:10
- Post subject: concerning statistics
|
I was thinking that statistics should be weighted in part from member ratings but mostly from points given to them from being favorited/in charts. This way, the statistics page for member "rated" stuff will be more representative of what the members actually enjoy, rather than what afew people have given them. For example, the top member rated album is an Elvis CD which only 8 people have favorited and the top meber rated song is from Arcade Fire's Funeral (which is a great album, but there are better songs). I know that there's a chart with albums based on points, perhaps this should be merged with member rated...
just some thoughts
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #2
- Posted: 12/10/2009 12:35
- Post subject:
|
I agree, I was just commenting on another thread that people are getting a bit smart with their ratings which is really affecting the average ratngs. The algorithm does need to be tweaked a little to stop people from gaming the system. At the moment, we offer member rating charts for albums, bands, charts and tracks. Albums and bands could. in theory, be rated taking into account their appearances in member charts, but tracks and charts themselves cannot. At the moment, we use the 'mean' average rating but perhaps something else would now be more appropriate.
Regarding the overall chart, one idea which we've been pondering is to calculate the overall chart taking into account the rating that a chart has received. If a chart has been rated with 90% it would have more weighting than a chart that only has a 60% rating. Personally, I think this would lead to a much higher quality overall chart (which would have the benefit of being 'peer reviewed' as part of its compilation)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
- #3
- Posted: 12/10/2009 14:20
- Post subject:
|
I am not a fan of the chart ratings. Often it appears only to be a popularity contest, or a vindictive rating system, with little thought and agreement on rating criteria. There also appears to be a bias against most "recognized" charts. Let the number/position of charts remain the criteria for ranking; forget the idea of weighting by rating. _________________ Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
purple
|
- #4
- Posted: 12/11/2009 05:56
- Post subject:
|
I like the weighted idea, but there does need to be some way to weave out the "vindictiveness factor." Perhaps any rating could show up on a members chart page but, when calculating how to weight the chart, scores 10 or below are not counted and (this would be really tricky to program) scores below 50 which are the same as those given to the rating member are discounted (for example, many people will rate your chart a 40 if you rate their chart a 40, take a look at telefunkers page).
As a side note, because members often don't re-rate a chart when it is edited I've gotten into the habit of deleting my chart every time I edit it so members are rating my new selection of top albums. Tell me if this is messing up the system in any way or not preferred and I can stop.
thanks
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #5
- Posted: 12/15/2009 18:36
- Post subject:
|
No, deleting the chart each time won't mess the system up and is probably the most sensible thing to do if your chart has more than a few tweaks.
I'm not sure we can do much about tit-for-tat ratings. They'll always exist and we cannot program around them. In truth, the 'mean' average is the simplest way of doing things and probably no worse than any other method (and particularly for items that have been rated a great number of times).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #7
- Posted: 12/17/2009 12:02
- Post subject:
|
yes, we thought about doing a truncated mean but that means discarding some votes and how many do we discard? We could pick an arbitrary value but some albums have more votes than others, so it would end up being equally as [un]valid as what we are doing now, plus it has the possibility to annoy some members if *their* vote isn't counted.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Charicature
Age: 49
Location: Vermont
|
- #8
- Posted: 12/17/2009 16:16
- Post subject:
|
albummaster wrote: | yes, we thought about doing a truncated mean but that means discarding some votes and how many do we discard? We could pick an arbitrary value but some albums have more votes than others, so it would end up being equally as [un]valid as what we are doing now, plus it has the possibility to annoy some members if *their* vote isn't counted. |
Perhaps the tracks can be weighted by taking into account the number of charts that the albums on which they appear are referenced? The good old fashioned force multiplier? Or perhaps modify their ranking simply by the number of people that have actually rated them. The site must keep a statistic of total membership - perhaps that could be used as a "master" modifying variable, where rankings are a factor of the average rating multiplied by the percentage of the site's membership offering a rating.
For instance, say the site's membership is 1,000, and 10 people rate a certain album for an average rating of 80. The album would get a ranking score of just .8, as only 1% of the membership rated it at all. The same system could be applied just as easily to charts and tracks, I would imagine.
Granted a low rated album rated by a lot of people will possibly outrank a highly rated album that few have rated, but if it's really a good album then having more people rate it will cause it to surpass the album of lesser quality eventually anyway - otherwise, the album could be said to not have enough appeal to truly be considered "high quality" and the rankings are still legitimate. _________________ <(: @ >
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #9
- Posted: 12/19/2009 16:16
- Post subject:
|
Yes, there's a whole host of ways we could decide to calculate this but I don't think there's a perfect answer. The more complicated we make it, the less people will understand what numbers they are looking at and the less meaningful the numbers will be. I think sometimes, keeping things simple is the best way to do things which is primarily why things have stayed as they are.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|