2006-07-09 [iippo]: Just a quick reply to one point on the average-thing: it was considered and we didn't see the point of it because if someone gives a rating of 10 and another one wants to give it 30, they can do the math and give it 60 and the average will be 30. If someone find a rating disagreeable, it will be discussed with the crew and modified if that's the result. But good job on thinking up how to improve and the constructive criticism, instead of just complaining like a lot of people do. :)

2006-07-09 [Lady Chaos]: Hmmm, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of that... I wish there was something that could be done (without using good ol' popularity-contest polls) so that the ratings are something other than one person's opinion though...

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: 1-10+ works in the same manner as 1-100+: the levels are the same, only with an extra 0 added. // The part about whether a page is interactive and joinable, doesn't that fall under the 'friendly' category? // I'm not sure I get the index-comment...can you explain again? :) // The rating-ability is given to Councilmembers only in an effort to not have it turn into a popularity contest. If there are pages being missed, they really should be suggested on about wiki-ratings :/ If the ratings-feature is worked out more, maybe then we can start going around asking non-councilmembers to help rate wikipages.. .

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: Remember that the feature is new: we're also just humans and we're trying to figure out how to make this work. We don't automatically know the best way to handle this new feature, it will only get better in time when more and more pages are in the ratings.. . As [iippo] said the ratings can always be changed, they aren't per definition the final rate that will ever be given.. . If someone finds they improved their wiki, they can bring it up again. It might be a good idea though to create a different place where wikis can be suggested (and recorded).

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: And I agree with [iippo] that this suggestions wiki is more helfpful than what has been going on the previous days :)

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: 1-10+ works in the same manner as 1-100+ Not really :/ because it seems to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that any not-rated wiki (i.e. rating 0) isn't worth visiting at all. And presumably the point of the rating was to put the *best* wiki pages in one place for people to see, but not rate every single wiki in elftown or risk offending their owners, or to say that non-rated wikis are rubbish. In the system on the other page - 1 is good, not just seen as the lowest rating, If that makes sense.

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: The index thing, I thought was already done :) For example, art contests - which is a list of lots of contests, all held on different pages.

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: I don't follow you, how does it imply that? Instead of implying the wiki may just not have been viewed by a rater? // Rating 1 would be good in both systems, it's however still the lowest rating (besides 0) in the whole scale.

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: It's the lowest yes, maybe I'm just reading it wrong. But currently a wiki getting any rating (even 1) is put onto the list of most-artistic (etc). The above implies that any artistic wiki page worth visiting (i.e. that shows art in some form or other - based on the difference between the desciptions of 1 and 0 above) should have at least a rating of 1. And by that argument I'd rate every personal art wiki which I come across (providing it actually had art in it - which most do), but I don't. And neither does everyone I had thought. And rating 0, I assumed means no rating, whether the wiki had been visited by a council member or not.

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: Ah, in that sense I think right now we're rating the best of the best, which means simpler wikis that are in some way still worth visiting are not rated as much yet. However, I don't think a wiki containing art immediately makes it worth a visit. Not rating it doesn't mean it's bad, but rating it does mean it’s good enough to send everyone there to look at it. The rating-system will slowly change when more and more wikis are added and a clearer difference in levels appears. If then the best wikis are close to 100, it will be easier to add wikis of 1. I don't think this problem changes when you change the scale, it will only change with rating more wikis.

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: True, which I suppose only disputes the 0 rating then (or not being rated). Perhaps that's something that can be clarified to the general public overall if it's a common misconception - that if you're wiki isn't rated then it isn't worth visiting at all / doesn't contain what it should. Which obviously isn't the case, but maybe some people think that? (based on [Lady Chaos]'s opinion on the 0-rating above)

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: Well, how to describe in short what a 0-rating is?

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: Well I wouldn't call it that ^ above (non-exported wikis aren't rated anyway). It just means they don't deserve the extra attention of being 'the most artistic wiki pages', yet anyway. Maybe like you say when everyones more used to wiki ratings, some can be higher, and more can fill in the gaps left in the lower numbers. For example (if it was exported, let's assume it is for the moment) I wouldn't rate my own art wiki, because while I want people to visit it of course, I don't see why it should have extra attention - or be on that list of the 'most artistic' yet. And so far it doesn't look like most council members are rating their own wikis either - but that doesn't mean...

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: ...they consider the wiki worthless. I hope I'm making some sense here :/ I'd call a non-rated wiki your everyday day to day one (how everything was before the rating system came along). And a rated one, an extra special / good / useful one. At the moment anyway. Otherwise we'd surely be faced with the prospect of rating every public wiki on elftown into some kind of scale.

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: You wouldn't call it a 0-rating or..? So then the question still remains how we can best describe non-rated wikis in the shortest way possible..

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: Sorry, I meant I wouldn't call it a page not particularly worth looking at / does not deliver what it promises - the definition above. Which I think is the misconception (especially as non-exported wikis aren't rated at all - does that make them useless). I don't really know, not very helpful I know. Perhaps emphasise that not all wikis are rated, and it's (at the moment) used on the best ones, not necessarily every one. *shrugs*

2006-07-09 [Sunrose]: It was sort of clear there were going to be issues with this feature, now to figure out how to best go about them..

2006-07-09 [shotokan_gal]: Well I've re-read the ratings page and under criteria there's Firstly there has to be good content on the page, but that's not enough. The page also has to be unique or best in some way. Perhaps that part of it could be emphasised a little more to the public (somehow) :P

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.