Thread:Talk:Article feedback/IMDB rating: Only consider trustworthy users/reply (9)

I see where you're coming from but I refuse to accept this for ratings.

I think the simple criteria for a "trustworthy user" would improve the ratings and effectivly kick out the fan and hate votes. And yes there are fan and hate votes. And you just don't want to believe it? This is reality. You sound like every person on the internet is a perfect WP user... Of course "trustworthy users" are fans of something and also hate things. But they're surely more objective on rating an WP article than those hate and fan anons.

"That a page on a controversial figure like George W. Bush gets a 2.7 for "objective" ... tells me that we've probably hit the balance about right in the article" Sure :D Do you really believe this??? This is far from reality! It only tells me that more haters voted for Jimmy Wales than for Bush or that Bush has more fans voting than Jimmy Wales, who is of less interest than Bush. But it doesn't tell much about the quality of the article!

Actually I think the more votes a very low rated article has, the higher the chance that the article quality is actually rather good. Think about it.

How many anons and how many logged in users voted for the Jimmy Wales article? What's the rating when votes by anons are ignored? This basic example should be much closer to reality. Just the plain fact that Jimmy Wales pops up in one of those 2 lists tells me that the rating system is not working.

Talking of balance: I bet the ratings on w:Special:ArticleFeedback have extreme peaks on both ends like this: Ask yourself if that's how it should be and what might be causing this.

To be fair, even the IMDB rating system can't avoid these: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/ratings But that doesn't mean the rating is well balanced as you defended the 2.7 for Bush...

Plus, if the system was really balanced, the articles listed on w:Special:ArticleFeedback should reflect the diversity of WP articles in general with 95% of unpopular topics. But in fact there are mostly popular topics popping up in these top and bottom ranking lists. Now my only question is: WHY? Please answer this. (I assume that all kinds of articles have been voted meanwhile and if not, it still won't be "balanced" after years...)