Abusive rating/double rating

[IMNOTCHUBBYTELETUBBYLOLJK]

Anyone who rates Todestrieb a one is either high on drugs, emotionally immature, or just plain stupid. I was all three....that's why I never even read the story. I should be flogged.


No....I should have scalding hot coffee spilled across my lap.

I'm still all three. But half of the battle is recognizing the problem.

Right?

RIGHT?

RIGHT!?


No. I'm not high on drugs. I just WISH I was.

[Vesnic]

Severenz is working on the site right now, it may be related; but I'll let him know.

Much appreciated, Poop, and you too, mythical Sev man.

[Vesnic]

Anyone who rates Todestrieb a one is either high on drugs, emotionally immature, or just plain stupid. I was all three....that's why I never even read the story. I should be flogged.


No....I should have scalding hot coffee spilled across my lap.

I'm still all three. But half of the battle is recognizing the problem.

Right?

RIGHT?

RIGHT!?


No. I'm not high on drugs. I just WISH I was.

Scalding hot coffee? Then surely you must have read it.

[severenz]

I wanted to confirm that the rating calculations only use the most recent rating for a user; duplicates are not included. As for the ratings not updating for this story, they look accurate to me.

[Vesnic]

I wanted to confirm that the rating calculations only use the most recent rating for a user; duplicates are not included. As for the ratings not updating for this story, they look accurate to me.

Going through it again, it looks like a total of 81/9, if we're to count that one user's first rating of 3, and not include the second rating in the average, that should give the story an additional half star to make it equivalent to nine points, where now it stands at 8 (four stars instead of four and a half).

[severenz]

Thanks Vesnic for giving me specifics. I'll look into this scenario and confirm how the ratings are being calculated.

[severenz]

I took a look - the total sum is actually 79 (not 81) as the user you reported who double-rated gets his older rating of 3 thrown out. 79 / 9 = 8.77777777. Right now I don't round up. 8-8.9999999999 would always show 4 stars. I'm not sure what Amazon does in this scenario.

[severenz]

This is an interesting algorithm discussion - it really comes down to rounding up. Anyone that has an average from 8-8.99999 is going to have 4 stars. Is that fair?

One thing I added is a hover to the image that shows the exact average. Maybe it makes sense to get rid of the stars and move to a score..... tough one.

Yelp did a study on this awhile back:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...nesses/261943/

Another one:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ovies-ratings/

[Vesnic]

I thought the old, or original rating, was the one that's supposed to stick. That makes all the difference, whether we take the three-star rating or the one-star rating as the official one. If it's the single star, then bummerino.

[severenz]

I think the current behavior of taking your most recent rating makes the most sense. The website even tells you that on the rating form.

I do think the "rounding up" issue is worth discussing.

[Vesnic]

Or, as we've discussed a lot over the years, coming up with some kind of system to stop random people from just signing up and tanking people's ratings. It's happened to just about everyone here. That would be one way to keep the better stories more visible.