Another bug?

[yongbo]

I received 11 anonymous ratings on <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?

photo_id=3391056">this image</a>, but found it with only 8 ratings

on the 3 days Rate Recent Sum queue as the 792nd. Is it a bug? Btw,

I like the new rating system but prefer Rate Recent Average as the

default page (notice a lot of the good photographers stop posting

images recently, mate rating is not the problem anymore, quality

become to the issue now).

[mottershead]

It is a bit confusing, and I guess I'm going to need to make it clearer somehow.

 

There are two rankings in the Top Rated Photos which are not based on all the ratings that the photo has received but only on the ratings that were made in the "Rate Recent Photos" (RR) section of the Gallery. These are the Rate Recent Average, which is the average of the ratings given in the RR section, and Rate Recent Sum, which is the total of those ratings. Rate Recent Sum is the ranking that comes up by default, although there are many other rankings to choose from, most of which are based on *ALL* the ratings given. When you are looking at the Top Rated Photo rankings that are based on the RR ratings, the count of ratings will be different from the count you see if you directly open the photo page, which shows all count of all ratings.

 

By the way, apart from the RR thing, there is often a slight discrepancy between what a photo says its rating count is and what the TRP rankings say, because the information shown under the TRP is only tallied every five minutes, or so.

[yongbo]

Thanks.

[bobatkins]

Sometimes I think it would be better if we had a black box that spat out "overall photo.net rating" and that no discussion of how it worked or why it worked or if it changed ever took place.

 

It seems that the more statistics and options you provide, the more confused people get. It's important for Brian to know how it all works, but it just seems to confuse everyone else.

 

Amazon have it right. 0 to 5 stars in 1/2 star increments. Clear, concise, not at all confusing. You don't even have to be able to read to understand it. The more you make people think, the less they like it.

 

Once more I'll plug Steve Krug's "Don't make me think" - a guide to web usability. KISS is the way to go if you want to avoid confusion. You cannot make anything on the web too simple.

[adrian_studer]

Brian: hmm, I still think there's a hick-up with the Top-Photo galleries.<br>

I've an <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=3394158">image</a> that has 14 anonymous ratings with 5.43/5.29 that only shows up with 10 ratings in the top-photos gallery. And I don't think these 4 ratings are from the last 5 minutes or so ;-)<br><br>

Overall I think the recent changes to the voting system to be very positive. At least the ratings are coming in more frequent and I think also more honest than in the past.<br><br>