This is a good point: there's no indication as to what the rating is rating??? Is it difficulty, reliability, or what? And even worse, was it made on some previous version?
I've made comments on older versions of apps, and then the author has changed the app, and I find I cannot remove the warning or caution/comment I made earlier. I wonder if these shouldn't be tied to version numbers of the app? Chip -----Original Message----- From: Rod Hutton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Meaningless app ratings Hi Bruce, Yes, thanks, but it wasn't that I was bothered because I failed the course or something. smile It was the fact that the low rating implied that the app doesn't completely accomplish the task for which I wrote it, namely, to make the accessibility of a program reliable. Because it accomplishes the task I feel an accessibility-enhancement app should do, it should have gotten a rating of five, not two. I simply think the person who rated it was being gratuitously nasty. By the way, what are you working on now? Cheers, Rod On 2/17/14 6:24 AM, LB wrote: > Hi Rod, > > there is one person that always gives a low rating. There is always one person who is negative and we can not stop them. > Ignore the rating when it is low for that person is always going to give one. The biggest fears are those who just want to take our email addresses. > > Sincerely > Bruce > > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:55 PM > Subject: Meaningless app ratings > > > Hi all, > > I'm not licking my wounds here, but my most recent app, Power Mixer > Enhance, was given a rating of two out of five, with a total of one > rating, while no comments were offered. I guess I'm wondering how we > can encourage App Central members to rate apps, and yet have ratings > gain a meaningful significance to people who are considering whether or > not to use them. I know we can't force people to explain the reasons > for their personal ratings, but then is there really any value to having > ratings associated with apps when people can rate them on a whim without > having to take responsibility for assigning a rating which novice users > may assume has been assigned by those who hold authority of some kind. > I say this only because experience has taught me time and again how > easily people can be misled to believe that their welfare is being cared > for when this is actually not the case. It seems to me that the current > app rating system is a potential source of confusion at the very least, > and, at the worst, an instrument to mislead WE users. The screen reader > competition leaps to mind as I think about the possibility of malicious > behaviour hurting WE users, especially in the light of GW Micro's > partnership with Microsoft. I have seen nasty comments on the GWInfo > list, and I have taken exception with several posters who seem to be > attempting to strike at the Window-Eyes product by merely criticizing GW > Micro rather than offering support to the GW Micro user community. I > think we are well advised to remove as much confusion from the GW Micro > website as possible, wherever it is found, and these irresponsible app > ratings are a good case in point, since where there is no accountability > for our opinions there is no value to be found in expressing them. > > Respectfully, > > Rod > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > >
