Thread:Talk:Article feedback/IMDB rating: Only consider trustworthy users/reply (38)

Yes, I have viewed the list of most trafficked pages. But since we're talking about the rating tool, I thought the most rated numbers were the most relevant to the conversation. What looking at the top 30 most viewed articles does NOT show is the AVERAGE rate of views on the other 3+ million pages that another user previously cited. From my experiences on Wikipedia I would bet that if you average ALL daily views, at least 50% would be celebrity pages - throwing out some arbitrary .000001% sample doesn't show anything. In fact, my concern is the articles that do NOT show up in the "most rated" results - where kids are vandalizing pages using the ratings tool (yes, I said VANDALIZING, deal with it) and the ratings stay up for MONTHS, because the pages are locked (due to excessive vandalism), so they're not being edited every day, or even every week.

"So why do you care what the rating is at any given moment?"

Thank you!! You just made my point. What is the point of having a ratings system if the working philosophy is "Why should we care what the ratings are?". That's EXACTLY what I and others have been saying!! A large portion of the ratings are meaningless so what's the point of having them? And before you try and cook up ANOTHER condescending answer - It's a rhetorical question, so you can save yourself the trouble. I thought the point of this page was for users to give FEEDBACK about how the tool was working (or, in this case, NOT working), not to have one or two users repeatedly try and "sell" the tool to us every time anyone disagrees with you.

As I said in my original post - I'm coming to this page from a segment of Wikipedia where the rate of fan/hate votes are extremely high - specifically, current and former child stars - From previous experience, I'm well aware that most Wikipedia editors couldn't care less about the young Disney / Nickelodeon stars' pages (where the average age of readers ranges from 8 to 14, and, as a result, the highest percentages of mischievous edits and ratings per user occur), so I thought it might be useful to give some feedback from the perspective of those pages. Obviously there are people here who have trouble reading, but in my original post I clearly stated that if the tool were to be kept I would suggest following IMDb's format - NOT using ratings on bio pages (where vandalism voting is most likely to occur), and NOT showing ratings until there are at least 10 votes to allow at least SOME chance of there being something useful to discern from the results. Again, I thought this page was for users from different areas of Wikipedia to give feedback about their experiences with the tool - not to be subjected to obnoxious and condescending feedback on our feedback. This was clearly a mistake on my part. It won't happen again.