Suggestions group posting on GLOBOsapiens

Rating the reports

Postings 1 - 10 of 25

Page: 1 2 3

jorgesanchez Premium account Joined: May 05 Points: 41625 Posts: 77 Posted: 2005-09-28 13:41:00    For the authors of the reports it would be interesting to learn about the opinions of the voters; that would help us a lot to improve our skill or to change the schemes. I know that rating a report is sometimes arbitrary. For instance, some value a report for the practical usefulness of the destination, others for the pictures, some like to read the text as a tale, others appreciate the author and that inclines his decision to rate the report rather higher than it deserves, etc. I am sure that the ratings would be more objective if the name of the voter would appear, even without any comment if the member does not want, just the points and the member. I know that some members would not rate any report if their name would appear in them, either because they are shy or for other reasons, but I think that the advantages to know who rated a determinate report would compensate for the eventually decrease of ratings. I envisage that the ratings would be more objective. I would prefer to have fewer ratings in my reports, but all with a comment or knowing who rated them. It is always the same point: choosing quality instead of quantity. For the pictures is not possible to apply my suggestion because they are so many that everyday the members would receive lots of emails announcing it. But reports are few and far between. Please, ponder pro and contra. Thanks --- Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum. Reply    Reply with quote    Contact jorgesanchez   ravinderkumarsi Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 14003 Posts: 451 Posted: 2005-09-28 14:54:00    well there is a big discussion in the forum regarding the rating by Rudy i think.. --- at bangalore /back 2 globo after a long Reply    Reply with quote    Contact ravinderkumarsi   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2005-09-28 15:42:00    Hi Jorge, I know what you mean. Have you read "comments" at the end of your reports? That is the correct place for members to reveal their ratings. I wish that members would use this much more and while I too usually leave positive comments, I think we should also give some postive critisism or pointers to ways of improving the report. For spelling mistakes or small errors I sometimes contact to member personally using "contact" but I suppose it could be done under "comments" or the "guestbook" too. Under "comments" we could extend/backup our ratings as follows. Using the Djamena report as an example: originality ***** (one-of-kind experience) style (of writing) ***** (extreamly interesting, dramatic, humour) grammar **** (very few errors) length ***** (full length) use of headings *** (not GLOBO conformed, own structure) usefull tips ***** (many) pictures **** (great) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE: ***** (EXCELLENT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- After a few commented ratings, that way the author knows where the strength and weakness are in the report! I will be posting some comments like that above, hope it will help and authors dont get upset with some of my critisism, remember, its all to do about PERSONAL OPIONION... Regards Rudi P.S: we also discussed rating in the threads: www.globosapiens.net/topic-rating-reports_48_1279_0000.html and www.globosapiens.net/topic-help-to-improve-report-writing_48_1761_0000.html --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   eirekay Premium account Joined: Aug 03 Points: 19539 Posts: 214 Posted: 2005-09-28 21:51:00    I agree with Rudi's comment that some criticism can be made privately to a member's post box. Both David and Britman gave me wonderful constructive criticism on my first two reports that way. They both cheered me on as my reports got better which meant a lot. The one thing about encouraging critical remarks is that we can't control either how the criticism is given nor how it is received. I have belonged to other groups where the critical comments made the task (in this case, writing reports) more a chore than a pleasure to do. I would hate to discourage someone from writing because we set the bar too high. As Bootlegga mentioned in the MoM discussion, I would rather see a mediocre report that offered me something than no report at all. I may be alone is thinking this, but I have been AMAZED and INSPIRED by the quality of reports that Globo generates. Given that we are all volunteers, the amount of time and thought given to all but the very poorest reports is astounding. We are so fortunate to have such a high caliber of members! --- Life is not measured by the breaths you take but by the moments that take your breath away. Profile Pic: Tikal, Guatemala Reply    Reply with quote    Contact eirekay   jorgesanchez Premium account Joined: May 05 Points: 41625 Posts: 77 Posted: 2005-09-29 01:32:00    Thanks Rudi. I did not know that you had already opened a forum with this subject. Sorry, but I am new in Globo and have not yet read all the forums (well, honestly, and I do not have the intention to do it!). About use of headings, you know that sometimes your report can not correspond with “Night Clubs”, “Nightlife”, etc, especially if you are describing Saudi Arabia or monasteries in the Mount Athos, that is why we should be flexible and change the heading title for another one according to the country or city related, otherwise the report would be short. If you are in a cruise you cannot even fill “hotels”, “restaurants”, etc. Just a short comment about the food on board would be enough, and then take the space available for writing about the sea and the birds, the ports you call, about the customs of the natives, their dresses, etc. That would help more the reader. In respect of originality of the destination, that is very relative. You know that many Globo members are from Asia, for instance, and for most of them Munich, Venice, Barcelona and Paris are very exotic places, while for us are Zamboanga, Luang Prabang or Samarkand. For the rest I agree, even with the English grammatical mistakes for the non English speakers, as both of us. But I still think that under “comments” there should be shown the points and the voter, even without comments. Sometimes you find a report voted by 20 members but commented only by 1. Perhaps Globo should give the 2 points premium only for the member who rates a report with a comment. Regards Jorge --- Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum. Reply    Reply with quote    Contact jorgesanchez   ravinderkumarsi Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 14003 Posts: 451 Posted: 2005-09-29 06:40:00    nice that Rudi again refresh our memories,so i was right in writing that Rudi already we had lot of discussion abt this subject in forum before. cheers ravi --- at bangalore /back 2 globo after a long Reply    Reply with quote    Contact ravinderkumarsi   jorgesanchez Premium account Joined: May 05 Points: 41625 Posts: 77 Posted: 2005-10-14 13:45:00    Some weeks ago, when I created this forum, I was notified that Rudy (rangutan) had already opened it earlier under another designation. But what I mean is different. I propose that when somebody rates a report, even without comments, the voter of the rating should be shown, and maybe (although not necessarily) the author of the report be informed with a short message stating, more or less: “This is to inform you that the member “aeiou” has just rated your report about Biafra”. That is all. If the member rating the report does not want to add comments, is OK, just the points, but also his name. I write this because I have noted that the ratings are according a quality system. If a report about, let’s say, “St. Kilda Island”, has been voted by 50 members and each has given only 1 point, it has less value and appears at the bottom in the general ranking than another report about, let’s say “Kafiristan”, with only 1 rating of 5 points. But it happens that sometimes the ratings are not objective. Maybe you do not like that member and for a good report you rate it with only 1 point, or you like that member because is from your country, or he or she is nice with you, and to his/her average report you award 5 points, or maybe the member is new and has another criteria to evaluate reports, or just granting 1 point he/she erroneously thinks that it means “number 1”. Maybe if the name of the member is registered the ratings would be more impartial and objective, even if the authors receive fewer ratings, because it might happens that the voter does not want to be mentioned and then does not vote. But at least the ratings would be less subjective. I write this, not only for me, although some months ago I noticed that a very elaborated report that I wrote, that was in the general ranking during some weeks at the top and the many written comments in it gave me all 5 points, without exception, then some anonym member voted it and my report suddenly appeared in the number 100 or so in that general ranking. Then I guessed that the anonym member gave me only 1 point. It is OK, I accept it, but at least I feel curiosity to know who was. Some magnificent reports written by some members about exotic and hard reaching countries that thanks to them I decided to join Globo, do not deserve to be so far-away in the general list, because are much superior and valuable than some appearing in the first best reports, and I was very surprised (and even annoyed!) to see them so distant from the top best reports. I would appreciate your comments. I know that being a Globo member is not a matter of life or death, but just a cultural activity and an entertainment (although some take it more seriously!), and I am just looking for more objectivity in the ratings. Thanks for your attention Jorge Sanchez --- Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum. Reply    Reply with quote    Contact jorgesanchez   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2005-10-14 17:22:00    Jorge, that what happenes to your report happens to us other members too and in the picture ratings very often also. There is always one-in-ten members out there that are either jealous, stupid or rebelious. I personally think member voting should be anonomous ONLY IF it is well observed and well controlled by staff. Staff should exactly know who rates a report/picture *worst when the average is well ****above! If this not the case, then I agree that ALL ratings should be "open", i.e. members name shown for whoever rates. So few people rate, perhaps only certain members should! Perhaps a rating board-of-members should eventually be established in 2010? [Complicated!] Another way and my favorite alternative: only the best 500 members should be able to rate/vote. The top 50 members have two votes and award winners five votes, staff and moderaters 10 votes!!! That would elliminate erraneous, double rating and ALSO some members that are rating for them selves or against others!! Staff please choose, this point is important to many of us. Members please react! RR :-(( [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2005-10-15 00:31 ] --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   isaacmolina Joined: Aug 05 Points: 1717 Posts: 53 Posted: 2005-12-25 14:25:00    Yesterday I wrote a report about Zaragoza, where I went recently for a couple of days with my friends to a concert. I wrote excitedly the 9 sections and filled them with pictures. Everything was impeccable with the 2000 and 1000 spaces in every section taken to the full extreme, and I expected ratings of 3, 4 and even 5 points, no less, because I mixed my experience with some didactic history of Romans and Arabs, and furnished addresses of hotels, museums and any other useful info that I could collect during my stay by way of visiting cards. At the beginning lecturers must have given me 5 points to my Zaragoza report because for a while it was number 1 in the general hit parade of the reports, and even two members wrote me nice comments. This morning I woke up and connect Globo in my computer and see my report in the ostracism! Some more lecturers voted it, but anonymously, without comments. It was evident that at least one of them did not like my report and gave me only 1 point and that was why it went back so many positions. Then, thanks to a third reader, daniserralta, who gave me openly 5 points and wrote me a comment, its position improved a little bit. You can check it yourself, people with no fare intentions can rate a picture or report with only 1 point and send you picture or report to the ostracism, very far away in the general hit parade, unless you picture or report is consolidated by many other voters and then 1 point rating only would back it down a few positions. I do not mean to receive 5 or 4 points always for my pictures or reports, but I would like fair game, showing the name of the member rating, because I have noted that those who only give 1 point never sign the “comments section”, what means that they purposely want to harm the author, maybe because your picture or report will surpass his or her, or whatever, who knows. If the name of the member rating was shown, then improper ratings would automatically be eliminated, I am sure. The fact is that this unfair behaviour discourages the author to furnish further contributions. For instance, I am preparing a new report about Dublin, where I was this summer with my friends to several musical concerts (we are all musicians and play in a band in Barcelona), but after this disappointing fact, I hesitate to finishing it. --- isaac molina Reply    Reply with quote    Contact isaacmolina   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2005-12-25 17:29:00    Hi Isaac After 11 votes I'm pleased your report is holding well above **** www.globosapiens.net/travel-information/Zaragoza-1988.html In the past such "ghost" or "phantom" raters you meantion upset me too but I have learned now to trust the GLOBO system and the majority of members to vote honestly and correctly . After more than 10 members rate an erraneous or false vote counts very little in the average. On the other hand I have also seen members rate ***** for poor travel reports :-( The average there also settles to the correct average eventually :-) R'Rudi --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   Page: 1 2 3