BUG! BIG BAD BUG! Ratings

Yes, I know that placing community ratings in the user ratings field of the Library was intentional, but did you take into account that one element of Settings grouping in BWS | Definitions is Ratings? If I select "rating:5" as the group, I in fact get my own ratings. But if I sort the library by ratings to see what will be included, I get community ratings mixed with my own ratings i.e. no useful information at alll.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

(‾◡◝)

Yes, I know that placing community ratings in the user ratings field of the Library was intentional, but did you take into account that one element of Settings grouping in BWS | Definitions is Ratings? If I select "rating:5" as the group, I in fact get my own ratings. But if I sort the library by ratings to see what will be included, I get community ratings mixed with my own ratings i.e. no useful information at alll.

I agree, MJ. I do not understand the thinking on this at all.

An User Rating is totally subjective ... how does adding in who-knows-how-many other subjective ratings from who-knows-what-flavor of other users do any good? What if the preponderance raters were Weslyan and tended to downgrade all of the Reformed works? What if the Reformed rose in the Logos world and downgraded everything unless it were 500 years old and was approved by Calvin himself? And what if the left-brainers of the Logos world gave their highest rating only to the most technically challenging, exegetically-based works (with dead languages receiving the coveted 5 stars) whereas the right-brainers give their 5 stars to any warm and fuzzy story/book that makes them reach for the Kleenex? And, so forth. Are we to assume that a larger population/sample of Users will ultimately determine the "correct" rating for any particular resource? Does it truly 'take a community to make a rating'? I think not. You are exactly correct when you state that by mixing community ratings with your own personal ratings result in "... no useful information at alll." It would be interesting to hear the thinking behind this from Logos.

FWIW: I feel the same way re: Community Tags (I think). If they are provided merely as a suggestion for your own tagging then I guess they do no harm. But if they are going to be somehow used in Searches, then I am not sure I want (or care about) the Community's opinions in my library. Hope that makes sense.

We at the least need to be able to turn off all (or, any) community input.

Pardon me for a second whilst I adjust my tinfoil hat ...

Luuk Dondorp

A community is nice, and is being built by individuals. It can be nice as long as the individuals are being recognized as individuals and can do their own thing contributing to the community. But as soon as the community is taking over control and the individuals are not recognized anymore it is becoming some ugly beast.

So, Logos, please stop this. Be aware of the implications!

Rich DeRuiter

Yes, I know that placing community ratings in the user ratings field of the Library was intentional, but did you take into account that one element of Settings grouping in BWS | Definitions is Ratings? If I select "rating:5" as the group, I in fact get my own ratings. But if I sort the library by ratings to see what will be included, I get community ratings mixed with my own ratings i.e. no useful information at alll.

There seems to be some openness by Logos to allow us to toggle this off/on at some point.

For now, if you give all your unrated items a rating of "1" you won't see the community ratings (I think).

EDIT: I never bothered rating anything. So I decided to take my own advice and rate all my unrated stuff to "1" star (filter library by rating:0). It took several minutes (over 10) for the library to rate over 5,000 resources. But it didn't crash my system and now I don't see community ratings at all. I went back, thinking that maybe I'd want to at least rate all my prioritized resources. But after a dozen or so, I quit. Don't really see the point.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422307#Comment_422307

: I never bothered rating anything.

I used rating in commentaries as a kind of mytag. Then placed my commentaries in collections: Primary, Secondary, tertiary by rating.

Martin Folley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422268#Comment_422268

FWIW: I feel the same way re: Community Tags (I think). If they are provided merely as a suggestion for your own tagging then I guess they do no harm.

[Y]

I must admit to being curious about the ratings that others have given a resource. I know it it is individually subjective etc. etc. but if a resource is rated quite highly it might simply mean that I overlooked it the first time around, or that I had different needs/priorities at that time (maybe several years ago).

I would like to browse the user ratings as a separate field, not just for those resources that I have not rated yet. I would like to see resources where maybe the comunity has given 4+ to my 1, and just check out that I am, of course, correct [;)]

For me, rating:0 means that they have just arrived, and have not been tagged. Most resources have tags, so for most resources I cannot see the user ratings since I have given my own of at least 1 (or hidden much of Perseus!).

Rosie Perera

I totally agree. Different people use ratings for different things. For me, a 2-star rating means "I haven't had time to rate this yet" whereas for some it's might be pretty low rating, and to others it might be fairly decent. An average of a number that means different things to different people must be taken with a huge grain of salt. So putting it in our face every day is not good. Make it an optional extra field that we can show or not show in our library as we wish.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422687#Comment_422687

I totally agree. Different people use ratings for different things. For me, a 2-star rating means "I haven't had time to rate this yet" whereas for some it's might be pretty low rating, and to others it might be fairly decent. An average of a number that means different things to different people must be taken with a huge grain of salt. So putting it in our face every day is not good. Make it an optional extra field that we can show or not show in our library as we wish.

My biggest problem with community ratings is that they do not represent the average user opinion about a resource, which is what they are supposed to represent. This makes them misleading. The rating only represents how people have marked them. Rosie uses them to determine what she has read. Some, self included, use them as a means of organizing books (asided: I would not have done this a couple of months ago if I had a mytag manager). But all of these uses go into calculating the user rating. Now we have many people giving all resources in their library a rating of 1 further skewing the results.

An average of a number that means different things to different people must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

EDIT: Why do I keep doing this :-) I wrote my comment before I finished reading yours. This is exactly what I was getting at but you said it much clearer. That's what I get for posting before my first cup of coffee.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422687#Comment_422687

I totally agree. Different people use ratings for different things. For me, a 2-star rating means "I haven't had time to rate this yet" whereas for some it's might be pretty low rating, and to others it might be fairly decent. An average of a number that means different things to different people must be taken with a huge grain of salt. So putting it in our face every day is not good. Make it an optional extra field that we can show or not show in our library as we wish.

[Y]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422687#Comment_422687

I totally agree. Different people use ratings for different things. For me, a 2-star rating means "I haven't had time to rate this yet" whereas for some it's might be pretty low rating, and to others it might be fairly decent. An average of a number that means different things to different people must be taken with a huge grain of salt. So putting it in our face every day is not good. Make it an optional extra field that we can show or not show in our library as we wish.

Very well said, Rosie [Y]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422779#Comment_422779

I for one am glad that Logos has figured out yet another way to take any decisions we might have in the use of their software entirely out of our hands [Y]

[:P]

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422782#Comment_422782

Logos (Bradley) has stated that they will provide the ability to control this in a future release - http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58219/418199.aspx#418199

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422801#Comment_422801

Well, having read Bradley's input from 4 days ago, no need to rehash how Logos and its customers don't think alike. Lucky for us. Think how chaotic Logos would be if the customers' input were used? Point taken.

Now I know they won't DO this but bringing in the Logos.com votes would be considerably more useful. Especially as a reminder when I have several choices I always pick. It's the same issue and not perfect, but better data that would improve over time.

Similarly bringing in 'other' Logos resources as an option in searches would increase their sales. I've gone through the Logos.com library multiple times only to keep finding resources other people find invaluable, plus the hidden ones that were buried inside the Logos.com collections.

I'd think, with Logos supporting internet-based searching on handhelds, that it would not be that troublesome for the PC/Mac product. And VERY profitable for them. They kind of already do this with their Faithlife line.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422806#Comment_422806

Similarly bringing in 'other' Logos resources as an option in searches would increase their sales. I've gone through the Logos.com library multiple times only to keep finding resources other people find invaluable, plus the hidden ones that were buried inside the Logos.com collections.

With L5, Logos now provides the ability to preview resources you don't own when trying to open them.

In the example below the commentary on the right has a footnote which references a page in Halot (which I don't own). If I click on the link in the footnote it tells me that I don't have it and opens a preview of the resource.

Interesting to see if Logos extend this to increase searching - presumably this could only work when online.

Graham

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/422816#Comment_422816

With L5, Logos now provides the ability to preview resources you don't own when trying to open them.

In the example below the commentary on the right has a footnote which references a page in Halot (which I don't own). If I click on the link in the footnote it tells me that I don't have it and opens a preview of the resource.

Now that is VERY nice! [:)]