BUG: Community Rating shouldn't override my own Rating

Two unrated books, but one shows up at the bottom, where it should be, and one shows up in the middle, where it definitely shouldn't be:

How would I even notice that book if the filter had happened to include a couple of hundred books, instead of just these few?

The list ought to show rated books in descending order first, and then start over with only community rated books, also in descending order. Same as I convinced you to do with the new tagging dropdown.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

The current behaviour of sorting by "effective rating"--your rating (if assigned) or the community rating if not--is by design.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594072#Comment_594072

The current behaviour of sorting by "effective rating"--your rating (if assigned) or the community rating if not--is by design.

I agree with fgh that it is a bad design.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594072#Comment_594072

The current behaviour of sorting by "effective rating"--your rating (if assigned) or the community rating if not--is by design.

It's a BAD design Bradley. [:@]

If you want to give users the ability to opt in, fine. Otherwise, this is awful.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594137#Comment_594137

The current behaviour of sorting by "effective rating"--your rating (if assigned) or the community rating if not--is by design.

It's a BAD design Bradley.

Looks like you may have to say NO to "Show Community Ratings".

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594167#Comment_594167

Looks like you may have to say NO to "Show Community Ratings".

Done. (Thanks Dave). fgh's comments still stand. [:)]

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594137#Comment_594137

It's a BAD design Bradley.

I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but what makes it a bad design?

Why should resources with a community rating of 4 sort AFTER your resources that you've rated one-star?

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594201#Comment_594201

Why should resources with a community rating of 4 sort AFTER your resources that you've rated one-star?

'Cos the rest of the community is using

[*] = x refs not working well

[*][*] = books to read on Saturdays

[*][*][*] = books I wish I hadn't bought

[*][*][*][*] = books written before the flood

[*][*][*][*][*] = books that are ok

[*][*][*][*][*][*] = books whose star rating I don't care about.

Until you lick the rest of the community into shape and ban their esoteric rating systems by imposing draconian penalties their 4 star counts less than my one star.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594245#Comment_594245

Until you lick the rest of the community into shape and ban their esoteric rating systems by imposing draconian penalties their 4 star counts less than my one star.

So why not just turn them off? That's what I did.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594247#Comment_594247

Until you lick the rest of the community into shape and ban their esoteric rating systems by imposing draconian penalties their 4 star counts less than my one star.

So why not just turn them off? That's what I did.

'cos I was answering a question not positing a solution.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594245#Comment_594245

= books whose star rating I don't care about.

How do they get 6 stars to use?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594201#Comment_594201

Why should resources with a community rating of 4 sort AFTER your resources that you've rated one-star?

I think people may prefer their own rating in the Library and only see the community rating on the Info page.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594072#Comment_594072

The current behaviour of sorting by "effective rating"--your rating (if assigned) or the community rating if not--is by design.

So I assumed. I'm asking that you change that design. And it seems I'm not alone.

I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but what makes it a bad design?

Why should resources with a community rating of 4 sort AFTER your resources that you've rated one-star?

Because if I wanted it among the 4-stars, I would have given it 4 stars. But I've given it zero stars, so I want it among the zero stars.

I would assume that most people either don't rate, and are fine with the Community Ratings, or do rate, and want their own ratings respected. Perhaps I'm missing something "blindingly obvious", but I'm having a very hard time imagining the kind of user that would want the current design. Someone who only adds his own rating if he disagrees with the Community Rating? That wouldn't be a very smart approach, as the Community Rating can change at any time.

So why not just turn them off?

Because when Logos downloads resources I have no familiarity with whatsoever, the Community Rating gives me at least a hint about their value.

I would have preferred if Logos had spent their developers' time on something more useful than Community Ratings (like Notes...), but they didn't, and if I recall correctly, they insist on 'harvesting' my ratings whether I like it or not, so I would think I should at least have the right to get some use out of them, now that they are there, and not have to turn them off because they mess up my own ratings.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594245#Comment_594245

I use the rating stars as tags because they (almost) pre-date user creatable tags

Star = Read in future

Star Star = Reading Currently

Star Star Star = Average

Star Star Star Star = Better than Average

Star Star Star Star Star = AWESOME

Community Rating means little except 3 or higher on mine

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594359#Comment_594359

+1 on the motion to change the design.

Donnie Hale

override my own Rating

You misspelled, "exist at all."

[:P]

-Donnie

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594352#Comment_594352

Because if I wanted it among the 4-stars, I would have given it 4 stars. But I've given it zero stars, so I want it among the zero stars.

You can't give a resource zero-stars. It's a five-point scale, not a six-point scale. So, as far as Logos is concerned, you haven't given it anything and it's trying to do its best for you. If you don't want to see community ratings - except when first downloading a book - you'll need to switch to the five-point scale that Logos is designed for, and give your worst rating as 1, not zero. That way you won't see community ratings, and the problem goes away.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594793#Comment_594793

You can't give a resource zero-stars.

From the original post fgh knows that zero stars = "unrated" (irrespective of how/why assigned...).

If you don't want to see community ratings - except when first downloading a book - you'll need to switch to the five-point scale that Logos is designed for, and give your worst rating as 1, not zero. That way you won't see community ratings, and the problem goes away.

You first need to identify the unrated books and it would be more natural to sort by Rating, else you have to use myrating:0...[:)]

Martin Folley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594245#Comment_594245

Until you lick the rest of the community into shape and ban their esoteric rating systems by imposing draconian penalties their 4 star counts less than my one star.

[Y]

I rate when I want to remind myself as to a resource's quality (according to my humble opinion). Most of my resources do not get a rating simply because they have not offended/applauded me yet [;)]

Could we not have two columns in the library, one for my ratings, and one for all ratings, where 'My Ratings' always come before any community ratings, as opposed to 'all ratings' which is the current mixed bag? That way we can choose what we want to see, and I should not think that there would need to be much more coding behind the scenes.

FWIW ... I sometimes browse the library looking at the the community ratings ... this has sometimes been fruitful in unearthing a gem that I was not previously familiar with. It is not that I would want to block out all community ratings ... they have their place ...

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594201#Comment_594201

It's a BAD design Bradley.

I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but what makes it a bad design?

Why should resources with a community rating of 4 sort AFTER your resources that you've rated one-star?

Simple: Someone might want to keep some books "unrated" (i.e. They haven't read the book yet), they dont want others often silly ratings mixed up with their own, but yet there could be some advantage to having them. Books that I have rated should be in the order that I rated them. All others should be at the end of the line (As zeros). A five point zero? Sure, but a zero nonetheless. [:)]

in my defense... Didn't the original implementation Not have the ability to turn off community ratings? Or have I just not been getting enough sleep? [:D]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594813#Comment_594813

Simple: Someone might want to keep some books "unrated" (i.e. They haven't read the book yet), they dont want others often silly ratings mixed up with their own, but yet there could be some advantage to having them. Books that I have rated should be in the order that I rated them. All others should be at the end of the line (As zeros). A five point zero? Sure, but a zero nonetheless.

But this is a different problem to the one fgh pointed out. (And pointing out the difference was the purpose of my post, above.)

You certainly might want to rate a resource 'zero stars', but you can't. There was a time when you could (by rating, then clearing the rating). But most users found the distinction between and unrated book and a zero-rated book confusing, so that was stopped. So you can't rate a book as zero-stars on Logos (nor on Amazon, nor on iTunes, I might add). I can't see that changing.

You might want the community rating in a separate column than your rating. But that's a different problem, too (even though fixing it would fix fgh's problem). I'd be more hopeful that Logos might implement this, given they did implement the myrating filter. But there's probably not (yet) enough demand to justify it.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594823#Comment_594823

You certainly might want to rate a resource 'zero stars', but you can't.

I know that there are users who want to rate books a "zero." I know this isn't possible. It also isn't my argument. [;)]

Ideally, books when sorted by rating, would be sorted from 5 stars down to unrated (or "zero stars" if you will... my use of the term. Not a "zero star" rating, but merely "unrated" and having "no stars"). When you add community ratings into the mix, you have other peoples ratings mixed up with your own. I understand that some people might want that... but not all. For people who thoughtfully plan out the difference between a 5 star and a 2 star, having other's ratings mixed in is blasphemy! [:P]

You might want the community rating in a separate column than your rating.

That would be fine. Just don't mix my ratings up with "the crowd's".