Wiki:
Page name: suggestions for wiki-ratings [Logged in view] [RSS]
2006-07-09 13:25:27
Last author: Lady Chaos
Owner: Lady Chaos
# of watchers: 4
Fans: 0
D20: 11
Bookmark and Share
Suggestions for wiki-ratings


Here are a few suggestions for the new wiki ratings concept... They're not orders, just suggestions... anyone feel free to add their own.




The meanings of ratings could be made a little simpler with ratings 1-10+ rather than 1-100+. It's not a big deal, but it just seems easier to read, e.g...
0 = page not rated / not rated yet
1 = page not particularly worth looking at / does not deliver what it promises
2 = page worth looking at only if you are interested in the subject
5 = page interesting/creative/funny and well-written enough so that even if you are not interested in the subject it might be worth a look.
10+ = page totally out of this world with awesomeness, so cool in fact that even if you have no interest whatsoever in the subject, you will enjoy it.

Perhaps mention whether a page is interactive or joinable, e.g. contests.

Sometimes there are a group of pages for one subject, e.g. different pages for advice topics in the Christian Advice wiki. Perhaps index pages should be considered when this is the case, but referring to all the pages in the index. This means that wikis with a lot of info on them can be split into 2 or 3 pages and still get rated as a whole.

A great idea would be to have the option of averaged ratings - the more council members who rate a page, the more accurate the rating will be, right? Just sum all the ratings given and divide by the number of people who rated it.

Perhaps allow a few long-time non-council ET members rate the wiki pages? There's a lot of awesome pages out there that aren't being watched by council members.

A lot of people want their pages rated, or may know of a great page that they think should be rated, but they don't want to be made to feel like egotists for asking. There should be somewhere people can list pages they want rated.

Pages change, if someone feels their wiki got a crappy rating, or change their page and want it re-rated, maybe there should be someplace specific they can ask about it without offending whoever rated it.

- [Lady Chaos]




Back to about wiki-ratings

Username (or number or email):

Password:

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: But rating 1 says it doesn't have to be the best of it's kind per say :/

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: No, but that makes the point that not every wiki which isn't necessarily a bad one (as opposed to saying every 'good' wiki since there's levels of good) has to be rated.

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: How does it make that point?

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: Well, that 'the page has to have good content, but that's not enough'. So not every wiki with what someone might consider 'good content' (subjective anyway e.g. good art) should necessarily have a rating.

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: Heh, it seems impossible to make a positive short description of a 0-rating :P

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: Indeed. It shouldn't be seen as something negative though (in my opinion anyway). If it was the page would be flooded with requests for ratings, and all non-rated wiki owners would feel left out completely. :/

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: Agreeing to that of course :)

2006-07-09 [Lady Chaos]: Perhaps an 0 rating should be distinct from a wiki "not being rated yet"... e.g. I would give a wiki such as ARAF an 0 rating because it is somewhat dead and doesn't deliver any of what the title is about (I'm not having a go at this particular wiki, just citing it as an example - the guy who made it hasn't been here in ages, so I hope no one takes offense).

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: You can't distinct 'not rated yet' and 'not rated' though, they both show in the same way: they have no rating.

2006-07-09 [Lady Chaos]: Hmmm... perhaps I should change 0 on the page to 1... that will make it easier to understand. Sorry, I should have put that. 0 does sound more like "not rated" rather than "the lowest rating"... My bad. I'll change it

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: But 1 means we want everyone to look at it at least, so we wouldn't give that to just any wiki...

2006-07-09 [Lady Chaos]: Ohh okay, so when you rate a page, there is no lowest rating like that? Hmmm... maybe I was thinking too much like the star ratings they give to movies...

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: There is no rating that means a wiki is bad or not worth looking at, no :)

2006-07-10 [iippo]: Having no rating at all is far less depressing than having a bad rating. We want to keep things positive.

2006-07-10 [Lady Chaos]: Good point, good point... hmmm... I have another idea... speaking of how depressing it can be be getting no rating, perhaps it'd be a good idea to tell people why... that way they won't be as discouraged and will hopefully have some idea of how to improve their page. Result - ET will get better.

2006-07-10 [Ocean Soul]: I think this is weird. If my page doesn't get any rating, it really doesn't depress me or affect me in any other way.

2006-07-10 [Lady Chaos]: That's okay... but other people may have poured a few years worth of effort into making a page, and believe it to be good. While they are hardly likely to be offended or depressed if it is rated lower than expected, if it isn't given a rating at all, and is thus put on par with wikis such as ARAF, then I don't blame them for being depressed... and if they choose to ask for a reason, I think they're entitled to one... helps to keep the system fair, or at least I think so. And knowing what was wrong with the wiki will help them to remedy it and improve.

2006-07-10 [Sunrose]: I think there are members who will be offended or depressed whether you tell them the reason or not or might even get worse. The ratings are supposed to be a positive thing, we don't want it to become crippled before it even really got started :/

2006-07-10 [Lady Chaos]: But don't you think it would be a good idea to give a reason / advice for improvement (not an essay, just a few small hints as to what led to the lack of rating) should the owner of the wiki ask for them? I think it is only fair, I mean, after all the wiki-ratings are one person's subjective opinion. And they ARE the first thing one sees when they click on the ET login page... it is understandable that elftowners would take it seriously.

2006-07-10 [Sunrose]: As I wrote on about wiki-ratings the suggested wikis are taken into the Councilforum now, thus they are not judged based on one person's opinion anymore. // It also depends on the member, not everyone takes it that seriously. And of course we can do as you suggest, but I guarantee you that it won't suffice for all members.

2006-07-10 [Lady Chaos]: The councilforum? That's great! It will make people happier to know that their wikis are being rated by more than one council member. And suggestions/reasons may not be enough for some members... but if someone who has put effort into a wiki page and is asking for constructive advice on why it wasn't rated, they should get it, otherwise they won't know how to improve their page, and will just be frustrated and confused.

Number of comments: 39
Older comments: (Last 200) 1 .0.

Show these comments on your site

Elftown - Wiki, forums, community and friendship. Sister-site to Elfwood