The rating system is inconsistent

[phantazm]

Our rating system offers more now than it did initially, as recently
comments were added. Unfortunately it was "added", not "integrated".
The present version is more like a conglomerate than a final fusion.

Now we actually have two different rating system, living side by side.
Each with its own advantages (and disadvantages)...

System 1:
You can finetune your rating from deepest red to super green.
But you cannot comment, and only have 4 categories, no more...

System 2:
You may comment, after choosing in 15 categories (4 good, 9 bad, 2
others).
But only 2 color options, green / red (or gray), no finetune at all...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUGGESTION

My suggestion to a simple but flexible unified system:

Let users rate read, rate, comment on (m)any levels. Ratings should be
finetunable, via the rainbow system. Give newbies a very simple system
as first default. And experts a very precise sytem chosen after their
own preferences. Our present model lies in the middle; aint bad but
aint best either. Most users are somewhat newbies, but experts are
more productive. Let both have their own end of same system (and let
transition be easy).

'one size does not fits all' - let individuals decide what really
fits, let users decide complexity level, how much or simple or what. A
system expandable, collapsable, according to need...

A
Choosing between Red or Green is simplest rating ('Good or Bad' =
'Block or Not'). A third Gray option for unknown/other/useless is
unneccesary, deeper levels deals with these.

B
A further possibility would be choosing a major category like the
present system works. A site may be bad, but a "virus" is still a
quite different danger than "phishing". Such difference matters...

C
Why stop here, if the rater knows more, and could add it? Presently a
major category is called "Fraud, scam, phishing". Indeed, all phish
are scams, but not all scams are phishy. This is not a detail, so why
not add available information?

D
And again, why should the system stop, if the rater could proceed and
add more information? A site may be a "scam", but why not add that
it's a "pharmacy scam", not another "Money Mule"..?

E
And again-again, if it's possible, why not allow the rater to identify
the site more exactly? If the "pharmacy scam" is "Canadian Pharmacy",
then it's an already wellknown scam. If the system recognizes too, it
could at once offer offer a wiki explanation. User edited, WOT
moderated. Raters would not have to write their own intro every time,
but can still comment further if need.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OUR TWO (PRESENT) RATING SYSTEM IN DETAILS


System 1: Reputation rating:

Trustworthiness
Vendor reliability
Privacy
Child Safety


System 2: Add a comment:

Useful, informative
Entertaining
Good customer experience
Child friendly

Spam
Annoying ads or popups
Bad customer experience
Fraud, scam, phishing
Malicious content, virus
Browser exploit
Spyware or adware
Adult content
Hateful, violent or illegal content

Useless
Other

[cooldude3659]

I see your point Phantazm, and very much like your ideas. It seems
however, that you are in a way going back on what you previously said.
You first said to make it simple for newbies, but then you talked
about adding many options to define a website more exactly. Do you
want those options only for people who set them to that? I'm a bit
confused.

[phantazm]

> You first said to make it simple for newbies, but then you talked
> about adding many options to define a website more exactly. Do you
> want those options only for people who set them to that? I'm a bit
> confused.

Okay, i essentially suggest a simple system. But my second point is
also, that a simple system is not the same for newbies and experts. 2
examples:

Is this site good or bad? Chose green or red. Simple enuff. For
newbies...

Is this site bad? Yes, it's a scam! Furthermore it's a pharmacy scam.
More specific: it's "Canadian pharmacy". Simple enuff.

In short: I aim at a simple system. But, also a flexible system. Let
the users decide their own level. Newbies and experts could both use a
simple system. But is is not the same level they are talking about.
However, in a flexible system they can each chose their own level.
Still confused? Let me know! And thanks for your response...

[cooldude3659]

Ah, I see your point now. I do agree the WOT system needs to be
simplified.