Timeline for 0 to 10 rating system alternative
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2014 at 21:13 | comment | added | Oleg |
@supercat: oh, I wasn't suggesting to expose all the choices to the end user. But if a Likert-like scale is used, the results should be processed according to the Kano model to produce meaningful data. E.g. "extremely dissatisfied" with system speed could be assigned value of -10, while "extremely satisfied" would be only +2 since the negative impact of poor speed is likely greater than the positive impact of having better-than-satisfactory speed
|
|
| Aug 20, 2014 at 21:01 | comment | added | supercat | That could be helpful, though for some purposes perhaps overly complicated. I think even allowing users to select a range of values (I know this product deserves at least a 6, and at most a 9) would go along way toward improving data (someone with no opinion could express that by saying a product deserves at least a zero and at most a 10). If the maximum "at least" value is below the minimum "at most" value, report the range between them as a rating. Otherwise, compute the rating which would minimize the sum of the squares of the differences between the rating and conflicting reviews. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 20:20 | comment | added | Oleg | @supercat: kano model attempts to formalize the importance of features in planning process, it could make sense to measure implementation against the same "curved" value scale | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | supercat | ...from cognitive dissonance between the fact that the product hasn't really "earned" a perfect mark, but doesn't deserve an imperfect mark either. If there were a rating choice which said "The product was useful, and I have no complaints, but my experience was far from extensive" a lot of users would probably pick that, and such ratings could be useful if such users vastly outnumber those who use the product in greater depth. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 19:39 | comment | added | supercat | I suspect one of the major problems with fine-grained rating systems is that they try to confine a person's feelings to a single dimension when there are at least two conflicting dimensions: how much better or worse than average does the thing seem to be, and how strongly does the person feel that way. If someone uses a product for some narrow purpose and it fulfills that purpose perfectly, such a person may have no reason to believe the product merits a less-than-perfect rating, but also no reason to believe that it doesn't. I think a person's difficulty with a 1-10 scale would stem... | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 12:04 | history | answered | Oleg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |