|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Why can't we score reviews less than 50? |
| 1-11 of 11 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 06-11-12 04:13pm - 4577 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User  Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
Why can't we score reviews less than 50? It doesn't take long to discover that there are some less than reputable players in this business who have questionable business practices. In fact, the last two sites I signed up for are intentionally misleading customers and, in essence, ripping them off. They should not be rewarded with scores of 50. This is an insult to the legit players out there who are on the level. There are some shady characters in this business and it is best to not treat them with kid gloves. IMO, there should be freedom to rate a site according to the merits and drawbacks of the site, without having to limit a rating to some arbitraty value. I like to call a spade a spade. It is not my site and I am not trying to overstep my bounds. I just feel that if a site is up to no good or the content quality falls far below a bare minimum of what the average paying customer should expect, they do not deserve a 50. They deserve a lemon badge.  | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 04:25pm - 4577 days | #2 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I do agree with your thougts, but the powers that be will give you a definitive answer on that. The gist I got was that it was to prevent the occasional 'POed' customer giving a '0' and screwing the site's stats. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 04:35pm - 4577 days | #3 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
I understand the sentiment. If people just use an AVG value to determine a sites worth, then the results can be skewed if someone singles them out without cause. However, the opposite can be true. By limiting a low score to 50, overall scores can be inflated and give people a false sense of security. Also, people with an agenda can just as easily artificially inflate a sites score, as well. Why aren't the high scores people can apply limited to, say, 80? That way, those with an agenda cannot artifically inflate the score and give them an advantage. It goes both ways. I just think that most reasonable people can tell when someone has an agenda or is being unreasonable in specific cases. Trust ratings also can help someone decide if someone is really being honest. If someone with a Trust score of 100 rated a site a 22, for example, I would tend to give greater weight to their view than someone new with only 2 trust ratings. Sites like this are really the only way to get any kind if info you trust in this discreet business. I say if a site is not on the level, it should be noted and scored as such, and the issue shouldn't be sugar-coated. Just my two cents. Again, I don't mean to overstep bounds. | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 05:05pm - 4577 days | #4 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Some of them ought to receive scores in decimal fractions! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 05:14pm - 4577 days | #5 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
Well, I would rate fairly. For example, the last site I got boned at I would rate the actual quality of the content fairly decent. But as far as the service, connectivity, and hidden bandwidth restrictions etc, compared to sites I have experience with, I would rate the user experience pretty abysmal--10 for user experience/interface and a score of 1 for services rendered.I would actually give it a 10 as an honest and overall appraisal of its worth to an average consumer. In fairness, I coild not say the site deserved a score of 50 that I had to give it due to the minimum restriction. So, in essence, I thought I was being dishonest by giving it a 50 as it was not my honest assesment or opinion. Basically, the rule says you have to artificially inflate your score if it is below 50. This restriction negated my true objective opinions. The result is an artifically inflated score that favors the shady business, not the next unsuspecting consumer who is about to be boned like I was. Edited on Jun 11, 2012, 05:20pm | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 05:25pm - 4577 days | #6 | |
|
BubbaGump (0)
Active User Posts: 109 Registered: Jan 08, '12 Location: USA |
Also, I wanted to add that this would not impact the legit players. We all know them--BangBros, ATK, RealityKings, DDF Newtork, etc..These guys will score high regardless of any bias because people will see through the bias. Sites like these will continue to rate in the 80's and 90's, regardless of what any one individual does. The only people who stand to lose are the true lemons. And they should lose. | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 06:48pm - 4577 days | #7 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
I do understand what you're saying but we explained our reasoning in an announcement we made right after we finished beta testing. See https://www.pornusers.com/announcements.html#255 We understand some users will not agree with us but we feel it was a fair decision in the long run. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 06-11-12 06:53pm - 4577 days | #8 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Although I agree that some sites deserve a score below 50. I have seen reviewers give some sites a very low score for rather dubious reasons. Can you imagine someone pissed because he had a preconceived idea of what a sites content would be like and then discovers that it's not what he thought it would be an decides to give a score way below 50 when most of the other reviews are well above 70 and/or 80? If a site has many reviews with high scores than one bad review isn't going to affect it all that much but most sites don't have many reviews. Take for example a site that has 6 reviews where 5 of these are at 80 and one is at 30. That site would got from having an overall score of 80 to now a score of 71 simply because of that one low score. I always look at the score first but if the info inside the review do not justify it then the score isn't going to make a difference to me. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-12-12 04:03am - 4576 days | #9 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
The way around that problem is to calculate the aggregate score as the median value rather than the arithmetic mean. Arithmetic mean is not always the best "average" to use, but, for some reason, it is almost always used even when it is inappropriate. In the quoted example, the median score would be 80. Median is the best value to use when you want to minimise the effect of extreme scores. | |
|
||
| 06-12-12 05:54am - 4576 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Let's say that they use your method and the site gets a mediam score of 80%. There will still be a review with a very low score and this might create doubts in possible customers that the low score review is the accurate one and the higher score ones are fake reviews. At least with a limit of 50 then you can damage a sites overall score but at least you don't necessarily torpedo it to death. I have joined some sites that deserve a much lower score than 50 but I normally mention that in my review so at least people reading it will know that the site is to be avoided at all cost. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-12-12 06:52am - 4576 days | #11 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
I'm not a reviewer so I can't comment on that side of it but as a customer, if you look at how a site scores in comparison to sites in the same genre then you quite quickly see how it ranks and you can tell that a site that scores over 80 is worth considering and a site below 60 is to be avoided at all costs. Thus whether a site scores 50 or 0 is sort of irrelevant seeing as how they mean the same thing, certainly for sites that have a good number of reviews, if a site is consistently at the bottom of the rankings then you know what that means. What this rule does avoid is something which can often happen with reviews of products on Amazon, where a customer will give a product a score of 1 because they got something which wasn't what they expected (normally because they didn't read the product details or description) and if a product only gets like 2 or 3 reviews then an unfairly low review can directly affect sales. The vindictive customer is something that you need to be careful of, just as you need to be careful of shill reviews, this site lives and dies by the trustworthiness of its reviews and it generally does a good job of striking a balance. | |
|
||
| 1-11 of 11 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
