I feel like I replied to this days ago. Pardon me if repeat. But if so, this reply is slightly different than before.
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Josh White wrote:
For what it's worth, I changed it to [-1,1] because that seems like the most canonical range.
I vote: don't show -1 to 1 to users. Use 0 to 10 for normal people to comprehend.
perhaps.
well, i've noticed it is still the old 5 rating scale.
that is fine with me....nonetheless, i put the following on the wiki...
Some Issues:
What scale to have users rate on:
(a) binary
(b) ternary (a la Tim Chklosvki)
(c) quintary (a la my dissertation, e.g. 1-5) + like dissertation theefore data is more reusable.
(d) 10-ary + fine grained ratings - a LOT to chose btwn - reliability may suffer - hard to have 10 radio buttons corresponding to each level
ask their friends who are not in science to define "standarscience to define "standard > deviation". If more than half can, keep it on your page.
....<whiney voice on> ya know i kinda like to see the standard deviation. People aren't THAT phobic of math science are they?
Hey, why not? I think people are going to feel more interested and involved if they are able to see the stats.
Josh said no. I don't care so much. Whatever.
Definitely no standard deviations.
Doubters should ask their friends who are not in Doubters should
Good idea.
I put this idea on the wiki.
Bill
_______________________________________________ Heartlogic-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
