order of ratings

**theworm**[$] · #1 01-29-2003, 04:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that it's been discussed here before, but in what order do ratings appear? I know that all of the Advisors and CLs come first, but then what? It's not by date - not alphabetical - what is the determining factor?

nicholmere · #2 01-29-2003, 05:33 PM

I have no idea, sorry

I've always thought that the order of the raters was determined by a system as complicated as the IS system.

However, here are some other posts about rater rankings.

**Prepoia**[$] · #3 01-29-2003, 05:58 PM

I think people on your wot show up first.

Sandy

**theworm**[$] · #4 01-29-2003, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prepoia
I think people on your wot show up first.

Sandy

Doesn't seem that way. Some people on my WOT are way down at the bottom.
For a while I thought it was by date, but it's not.
Oh well.

Sordid-1 · #5 01-29-2003, 06:03 PM

As far as I have been able to discern:

A) CLs first
B) Advisors next
C) Peons - sorted by the relative POWER of their rating.

The power is solely determined by how many wise and just CLs/Advisors trust and/or block the peons. Therefore, there are actually ratings-castrated peons with NO rating power. Lots and lots of them. And not all people you would expect.

Look at the ratings of a newbie with no trusters sometime, using it as a baseline. You can easily figure that in a system where the "power" is determined by Advisor-trust, ZERO Advisor trust pretty much equates to ZERO (or minimal) rating power.

Then look at the names that show up BELOW the newbie. Established members pushed lower than low by Advisor blocks. Many would find it interesting. Many would be interested to know that the very act of rating in certain categories is roughly equivalent to pissing against the wind.

At least that's how I THINK it works. We had an in-depth discussion about this at Lynne's board.

**theworm**[$] · #6 01-29-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nicholmere
I have no idea, sorry I've always thought that the order of the raters was determined by a system as complicated as the IS system.

However, here are some other posts about rater rankings.

Thanks Katherine.
I knew that I saw something about that here.
Well - none of those theories work (at least not in my case) so I'm going with the complicated IS system thing.

**amykhar** · #7 01-29-2003, 07:24 PM

I have a feeling the rating sorting thing also sports a bug or two. I know it has gone through several iterations over the past three years.

The key thing to remember is that we can only see the ratings when we are logged in now. This means that our own WOT plays into how we see that list somewhat. It also sorts by rating, not sure if anybody noticed this.

So, if you get a bunch of VH's and then a few H or lower, the lower ones sink to the bottom. (Unless the low rater is an advisor or CL). This has effectively sunk some of the raters out there who like to get noticed by their low ratings.

Amy

**theworm**[$] · #8 01-29-2003, 07:31 PM

Thanks Amy and Sordid.

What Sordid says makes sense, by category. I don't tend to write in one main category - I write in whatever strikes my fancy. Someone who trusts me will rate, and on one review stay at the top, another get in the middle, and on the third be way at the bottom. I think it may be the who is trusted by whom thing, within a category.

How ridiculously complicated is that? It almost seems smarter to just do them in chronological order. I suppose there could be a lot of objections to that too.

Oh well - no matter. I was just curious.

I did notice that the higher ratings come first - but that seems true only when looking at our own reviews. Is that true also when we look at someone elses? Never mind - my curiosity on this topic isn't worth the research.

**Penguinlady**[$] · #9 01-29-2003, 07:45 PM

Speaking on behalf of the TRs, it doesn't make sense that Advisor reviews are placed higher than ours. After all, we are hatted precisely because of the number and quality of our REVIEWS, not our ratings or comments on other people's reviews. So doesn't it make sense that people who are recognized for their reviews would appear at the top of the list, ahead of those who are recognized for their ratings and comments on OTHER PEOPLE'S reviews? There are some Advisors who haven't written in ages, but their reviews appear before those of TRs who grind out reviews on a regular basis.

Phooey.

Sordid-1 · #10 01-29-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

penguin:
So doesn't it make sense that people who are recognized for their reviews would appear at the top of the list, ahead of those who are recognized for their ratings and comments on OTHER PEOPLE'S reviews?

No. That doesn't make sense.

What makes sense is to put me and jkkelley first because we have really cool fezzes, and then to sort out the remainder of the raters in order of attractivenes (or breast size, your choice.)

**theworm**[$] · #11 01-29-2003, 08:02 PM

Yeah - I'm pretty, and I have big boobs!

edited to say: OMG, I can't believe that I just posted that!

Sordid-1 · #12 01-29-2003, 08:13 PM

The Worm -

In that case, you shall more than likely end up on my Web of Trust (or at least your big boobs will.)

Amy -

It seems that in the "peon" realm, review ratings are NOT sorted by rating type on product reviews. I noticed that it DOES work that way on Member Center stuff, though.

As far as I can tell, in product categories the peons are sorted by ratings weight with VH, H, SH, NH, OT mixed together in a nice mushy conglomeration.

**amykhar** · #13 01-29-2003, 08:50 PM

Wormy, I read your post and thought Magenta had posted it. Then I saw it was you! That'll teach me not to make assumptions.

Amy

**Penguinlady**[$] · #14 01-31-2003, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sordid-1
...sort out the remainder of the raters in order of attractivenes (or breast size, your choice.)

Dang! I knew I shouldn't have had that breast reduction - who knows where I would be in the pantheon if I'd just hung on to 'em!

jnbmoore · #15 01-31-2003, 10:02 AM

And here I thought padding my review with scads was the way to increase my WOT when I really should have been padding something else.........

AVaddict · #16 01-31-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jnbmoore
And here I thought padding my review with scads

scads? Is that like chads, but outside the state of Florida?

scmrak · #17 02-07-2003, 05:02 PM

Sorry to be wresting the thread back on topic. I know you hate me for it...

I think it goes:

CLs
Advisors
Everybody else except people you have blocked
People you have blocked

I think that the sorting within those groups is deliberately randomized... Here's an idea to figure out how they're sorted, though: compare what you see when you look at a list of ratings to what someone else sees. Of course, don't tell anyone I told you that, cause it's probably against the rules.

BTW, I notice that in the writers corner, the ratings are randomly sorted, 'cause people I have blocked show up all over the list. I think they're in order of the time they were rated there.

-30-

rex

sleeper54 · #18 02-07-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scmrak
Sorry to be wresting the thread back on topic. I know you hate me for it...

I think it goes:

CLs
Advisors
Everybody else except people you have blocked
People you have blocked

I think that the sorting within those groups is deliberately randomized... Here's an idea to figure out how they're sorted, though: compare what you see when you look at a list of ratings to what someone else sees. Of course, don't tell anyone I told you that, cause it's probably against the rules.

BTW, I notice that in the writers corner, the ratings are randomly sorted, 'cause people I have blocked show up all over the list. I think they're in order of the time they were rated there.

-30-

rex

You lost me twice there...

"compare what you see when you look at a list of ratings to what someone else sees."

But how do I know 'what someone else sees'...??

"I notice that in the writers corner, the ratings are randomly sorted. . .I think they're in order of the time they were rated there."

?? If they display 'in order of time' (which they do) they are not randomly sorted. . .or am I missing something...:-?

...tom...

scmrak · #19 02-12-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper54
You lost me twice there...

"compare what you see when you look at a list of ratings to what someone else sees."

But how do I know 'what someone else sees'...??

That's why I thought it might be against the rules: two people comparing would have to know each others' WOTs and Block Lists. I can cut and paste a given review's ratings list and mail it to you, but (if I'm right about blockees being at the bottom [and I think I am]) you'd need to know who on the list I have blocked to make much sense out of it. And, of course, it would require that several parties compare several sets of ratings lists and block lists before you could divine a pattern. If then...

Quote:

"I notice that in the writers corner, the ratings are randomly sorted. . .I think they're in order of the time they were rated there."

?? If they display 'in order of time' (which they do) they are not randomly sorted. . .or am I missing something...:-?

Well, sure, that's non-random. But we were discussing what scheme epinions uses to change that order and -- so it seems -- they aren't applying any sorting process, merely leaving them in order of the rater's arrival. Therefore, I submit that they're unsorted -- instead, they're just piled.

-30-

rex

Flamepillar · #20 02-13-2003, 01:20 PM

Speaking of WOT's, we no longer have anyone on the site trusted by over 3000 members. Would've made my own thread about it but I don't think it's that big a deal. Just happened to notice it today. Unless those also change with each member depending on their block list... mine says 2998.