XKCD explains Star Ratings

[kennyc]

http://xkcd.com/1098/

[John F]

The one star review should read "Most likely just a rant, never actually used the product".

[RainingLemur]

That's...oddly pretty accurate. And the little hover note on the actual site is amusing, too.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

That's...oddly pretty accurate. And the little hover note on the actual site is amusing, too.

I hadn't noticed that!

[elemenoP]

OMG, so true! I call 3.5 stars "the death rating."

eP

[Namekuseijin]

XKCD rocks.

is the famebook thumbs up generation used to the star system?

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by John F

The one star review should read "Most likely just a rant, never actually used the product".

lol yup. i look at most 1 star reviews as "axe to grind". for me to give something 1 star it has to be flawed beyond recognition, whether it's a book that reads like martian is the authors first language or a video game that arrives on a blank disc.

on the other side are reviewers like me who will 5 star anything as long as i enjoyed it. i'm no english professor. the book reads smoothly? good enough for me. i don't look for any deeper insight than "whoa, this is awesome". if i think it's awesome, it gets 5 stars.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I hadn't noticed that!

The "hover notes" are often funnier than the actual comic, and sometimes the cmic doesn't make any sense without it (and sometimes even with it, but for that, we have http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/inde...itle=Main_Page )

[Antoinekamel]

I think 1 star should be "The product is marvelous, but was delivered late for Christmas".

[Matth79]

If I ever bother giving something a 1 star, I'll usually say "because I can't give it zero" and a "Don't touch this with a bargepole because it's" - a virus, a scam, complete junk etc.

[Cyberman tM]

Related comic at XKCD: The problem with average star ratings

[DrNefario]

The other problem with averaging is that it's only worth giving 1 or 5 stars, if you want to have any effect.

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

for me to give something 1 star it has to be flawed beyond recognition.

on the other side are reviewers like me who will 5 star anything as long as i enjoyed it.

I'm like you with the first part, but logic and common sense therefore means I only give 5 stars to something that is absolutely magnificent.

Most people don't though, which is why that comic is scarily accurate!

[booklover6]

Originally Posted by l_macd

I'm like you with the first part, but logic and common sense therefore means I only give 5 stars to something that is absolutely magnificent.

Most people don't though, which is why that comic is scarily accurate!

The places where I rate books have only 1-5 stars. Very seldom do I give a book 5 stars. It has to magnificent in some way or another. I feel there is nothing wrong with giving a 3 star review. 3 stars means the book was good. 4 is better than good. 5 is fantastic. Yet some authors seem to feel that anything less than 5 stars is an insult. They have unrealistic feelings about their work, I suppose.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

lol yup. i look at most 1 star reviews as "axe to grind". for me to give something 1 star it has to be flawed beyond recognition, whether it's a book that reads like martian is the authors first language or a video game that arrives on a blank disc.

I haven't seen this problem, but I rarely read reviews. There is one case of 1 star review that I remember, and that was for a gaming laptop. The reviewer was complaining that there was a problem with a keyboard. It wasn't the only review that mentioned keyboard problems on the model, but it was the only one who said that if the keyboard is bad, than it's not good for gaming. I found the review to be very useful, since I agree with the point of view.