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 things too. 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 A balance of what? Hate and fan votes? This far from reality! It only tells me that more haters voted for Jimmy Wales than for Bush. But it doesn't tell much about the quality since it's mostly fan and hate votes.

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 you only consider logged in users? This basic example should be closer to reality than your assumption for a "balance". Just the plain fact that Jimmy Wales pops up in one of those 2 lists tells me the rating system is mot working, thus it's useless atm.

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...)