# Rating ★★★★☆ & Ranking 🥉🥇🥈

**Ratings are a categorization of works into groups of equal merit/worth.**\
The categories can be a binary _good_/_bad_, the classic x-out-of-5 stars, or up to a 0-to-100 rating.

**Ranking is an ordering of works based on their merit/worth.**\
A ranking is like a rating with each work being its own category and the value intervals between the categories don't have to be uniform.

## What's the point?

### Organizing the Library

- search filters
- automatic lists

### Make Public

- [p2p](./p2p-sharing.md) needs to be implemented
- recommendations based on other users' stuff

## Problem: The granularity is too low

For any granularity lower than the number of works to be rated there is a chance of conflict: "I think this one is better than the other, but not as good as to give it the next grade."

### Solutions

**Use unrestricted granularity (64-bit)**\
This also allows the user to defined an arbitrary amount of rating categories.

## Problem: Opinions can change over time

Ratings given years ago reflect the opinions of the user at that time. They may not be accurate any more.

### Solutions

**Motivate the user to always compare works.**\
\*insert good UX here\*

## Problem: Some works are not "fair" to compare

Different things are liked for different factors. Sometimes a one-dimensional comparison in form of a rating/ranking doesn't make sense.

### Solutions

**Make aspects of works rateable.**\
An aspect is a rateable part of a work. In other words: If you can say how good a work does something, that something is an aspect. This also is a way to avoid tags which are not objective, making them an aspect instead.

## Misc

**The under-educated statistician inside me wants the ratings to follow some distribution.**\
This would combine ranking and rating. Ranking with the combination of a static (but customizable) distribution results in a rating for each work.
