Comments on: Star Rating System (Optional)

By: Shahrooz Bhopti

Shahrooz Bhopti — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:02:36 +0000

RATING STEP 1: + / - (DIGG METHOD)
USER CHOOSES TO KEEP THEIR VOTE SIMPLE

- After rating with digg’s simple thumbs up or down, Pligg will adjust for step 2 automatically:

+ = 4
- = 2

RATING STEP 2: 1-5 (5 STAR METHOD)
USER DESIRES MORE INSIGHT TO THEIR VOTE

- After 5 star method is selected, pligg moves to next phase:

1 = 200
2 = 400
3 = 600
4 = 800
5 = 1000

RATING STEP 3: 1000 POINT SYSTEM
USER DESIRES MORE ACCURACY TO THEIR VOTE

- This is where one may tweak a vote to 725 or 950

- Most won’t reach this level of adjustment, but it’s good to have.

By: James Molokai

James Molokai — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:46:33 +0000

I prefer the thumbs up, thumbs down approach, as I think it is a more accurate way of reporting/voting. Either you like it or you don’t. Simple. Plus I’m not worried about ‘cloning’ digg, as digg works, and people are becoming familiar with it. It’s new, and that is something people want, something new.

By: Brian Clancey

Brian Clancey — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:43:14 +0000

I always thought the system should allow negative votes. This way a story could rise and fall. A five-star rating system accomplishes this — allowing things to rise and fall. One of the things I will probably change oinb my sistes as well, is to include the latest additions on the first page — and put the top ranked separate. We are really presentign news sites and news tends to happen in chronogical order. It shouldn’t be the case that the most sensational opening of a story has a higher rating than less sensational conclusion.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:54:52 +0000

Star-type rating works for me, I like it a lot. Amazon uses it, so does a whole lotta other sites, and they’re doing fine by those.

Personally, I like the option of not just a binary yes-no (or yes-or-nothing) but the ability to show more of how much you liked a post, and a star-rating system does it perfectly.

By: Joes

Joes — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:52:36 +0000

I personally do not like the digg type ratings and prefer traditional ratings. Traditional ratings seem to mean something where it just looks like these thumbs up ratings are just showing how many people just clicked in and spent the effort to say they went to the story.

By: cHRIS

cHRIS — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:31:47 +0000

How do you use the new templates. I like them better than the default in 6.01.

By: Medallion

Medallion — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 03:53:21 +0000

I have to disagree with everyone above.

I can tell you that a lot of people would like and support this. I personally know a lot of my friends have been talking about this and wanting such functionality, considering digg-clone sites all look the same (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but it’d be nice to use a more familiar rating system.

It is true that not everyone will like it, but a lot will.

And to answer those who may not like it, I suggest to just keep them both and let the admin/site-owner select which one he/she likes.

For what it’s worth, it’s a mighty good differentiator. And a worthwhile feature.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:56:01 +0000

i dont think that star voting is a better option than one click “i like this one”.

you don’t rate some 120 minute movie, you just rate what you read in past 10 seconds. btw, you’re not rating anything, it’s just a reminder for you to keep an eye on what you found as interesting. because you can access your votings from your control-panel-sorta-kinda thing.