1.9 KiB
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 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.