World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHS Top 200 www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHS Top 200 /  
 

Site Ratings

 
 
Page  Page 3 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#31 | Posted: 2 Feb 2018 13:06 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Have just had a go on the test site "Bulk Rating" facility with 20 ratings (only another 747 to go!).
Comments,
I am using a laptop with a 17.3 inch display but am finding that the "half" star really is very awkward to set and to see if it has been set or not - in both directions i.e if you do want it or don't want it!! I did several "whole number" ratings and discovered that they had registered as halves - and v v. The need to check in great detail both when doing the entry and on the result really slows down entry of bulk ratings. It must be even harder on a smaller screen!
The mouse over response is also very quick/sensitive - just pass the cursor over the star and, before you know it, some stars have yellowed even if one hasn't actually clicked. I personally would prefer to enter e.g "2.5" and to have this number confirmed in the response. Could provide an entry field for simply a number (as well as the "star" entry/response)??

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#32 | Posted: 2 Feb 2018 15:37 | Edited by: nfmungard 
Solivagant:
The mouse over response is also very quick/sensitive - just pass the cursor over the star and, before you know it, some stars have yellowed even if one hasn't actually clicked. I personally would prefer to enter e.g "2.5" and to have this number confirmed in the response. Could provide an entry field for simply a number (as well as the "star" entry/response)??

I find the stars more intuitive. Making this a number input easier is an either or choice and is with Els. For the time being it will be stars, though, as I can't implement a different input at short notice. To support you, I have added a textual display of the inputted number. I think this should help. I have to review the performance as it's really a bit too slow for my liking.

Side note: Paul, to make your life easier, we can also just load the ratings via the database.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#33 | Posted: 2 Feb 2018 16:23 
nfmungard:
I have added a textual display of the inputted number.

Yes that should help by providing a clear "feedback" without the need to inspect the "star"!
I have gone to the test site again but can't yet see this feature

.
nfmungard:
to make your life easier, we can also just load the ratings via the database.

Thanks - but i don't think that would help as my spreadsheet doesn't have the Site ids etc.
c 700 WHS ratings at c30 seconds each would be"only" 350 minutes!!!

nfmungard:
I have to review the performance as it's really a bit too slow for my liking.

Yes quite a lot of time is spent waiting for the input to be updated - I only feel like doing c 10 at a time so as not to lose input.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#34 | Posted: 2 Feb 2018 16:47 | Edited by: nfmungard 
Solivagant:
but can't yet see this feature

It wasn't deployed to /new. I took care of that in the meantime. Needed to check what was important for the release anyhow.

Solivagant:
Thanks - but i don't think that would help as my spreadsheet doesn't have the Site ids etc.
c 700 WHS ratings at c30 seconds each would be"only" 350 minutes!!!

The bulk feature when the data is loaded works okay. So you will not need 6h ;)

Solivagant:
Yes quite a lot of time is spent waiting for the input to be updated - I only feel like doing c 10 at a time so as not to lose input.

Sorry. but no need. The updates are done by Ajax calls in the background. You don't need to submit at all for them to be saved. I will put a note on the page. The checklist meanwhile is not saved as we keep versions, so you really need to submit a "new version".

The performance seems okay as soon as the page is loaded and the ratings are initialized. Seeing it's just a community feature 10-15s patience should be okay.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#35 | Posted: 2 Feb 2018 17:15 | Edited by: Solivagant 
nfmungard:
The bulk feature when the data is loaded works okay. So you will not need 6h ;)

Believe me Nan!! Experience -
a, I look at my spreadsheet - next WHS is Ferto - 2**
b. Switch application to Bulk screen - try to enter 2** - I have just taken 3 attempts to get it to register 2** - it started only registering 1.5*. At last it seems that the final "bit" of the star has gone yellow - hopefully it is now correct?

nfmungard:
The updates are done by Ajax calls in the background. You don't need to submit at all for them to be saved

I think anyone would expect that a page which has "submit" at the bottom of it (a LONG WAY DOWN until you reach UK/USA/Ukraine etc - and scrolling to/positioning at it and then scrolling back up to the EXACT WHS site which is to be entered next takes a LONG time -especially with the long wait for the transaction to respond!!!) requires that it at least occasionally needs to be activated!!! Are you saying that there is NO NEED EVER to press "submit" and that the mere act of entering 2** is all that its required. Why then have a "submit" if there is no need to click on it?

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#36 | Posted: 3 Feb 2018 04:44 
Hi Paul,

We deployed today to PROD. I hope it makes it a bit easier. Otherwise just send me the Excel and we will sort it out.

Regarding submit: It's a choice by Els. She versions every update you make to your visited sites list. This will eventually allow us to show your progression. To get a version, we need to save the full data set at once. That's why there is a submit for visited sites.

Now if Els changes her mind about it, we can have dynamic updates for visited sites, too.

For ratings there are no versions, so saves can be made immediately. That's btw also how it works on the site pages themselves. There aren't any submit buttons.

Nan

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#37 | Posted: 3 Feb 2018 13:56 
Vic Falls has disappeared from Zimbabwe's "list" for purposes of ticking and rating as well as from the "Complete List" and the Map of Zimbabwe - but NOT from Zimbabwe's list of WHS below that map. It is ok everywhere for Zambia

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#38 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 00:25 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The "Top List" says I have rated 768 sites - yet I have only visited 767!!!
I have double checked (takes a long time!) and, as far as I can see, I haven't rated ANY site which I haven't checked as "visited" - so the system is miscounting somewhere! I wonder if it is tied up with the Vic Falls issue above?? If we aren't going to prevent people from rating sites they haven't visited it might at least be worth highlighting such situations.

Author elsslots
Admin
#39 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 00:57 
Solivagant:
Vic Falls has disappeared from Zimbabwe's "list" for purposes of ticking and rating as well as from the "Complete List" and the Map of Zimbabwe - but NOT from Zimbabwe's list of WHS below that map. It is ok everywhere for Zambia

Fixed. Was a data issue with the location.

Author elsslots
Admin
#40 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 01:55 
Solivagant:
The "Top List" says I have rated 768 sites - yet I have only visited 767!!!

The difference lies in the South African Fossil Hominid Sites, which you have rated but not ticked as visited

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#41 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 13:05 
I could not go lower than 2.0 in any of my ratings. These were my only WHS below 3.0!

Drottningholm: 2.5
Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen: 2.5
Skogskyrkogarden: 2.5
New Lanark: 2.0

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#42 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 13:29 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
These were my only WHS below 3.0

There are some travellers who hardly drop below 5.0!!!!
The most "amazing" site I noted so far re "ratings" is the Flanders Belfries which range from 1.0 to 5.0!!!
We are all "different" and look for different things in WHS! You have "set your standard" and have your particular interests so perhaps you gain on average from concentrating on those?

Author JonasK
Partaker
#43 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 14:25 
Hello!
I really like that new option and I hope I will find the time to also rate my visisted sites soon. Unfortunately now, as the rating system has been introduced, I cannot update my site count anymore, since a "Script" is slowing down my browser when opening the checklist. Anybody else having this problem?

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#44 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 16:32 
JonasK:
I really like that new option and I hope I will find the time to also rate my visisted sites soon. Unfortunately now, as the rating system has been introduced, I cannot update my site count anymore, since a "Script" is slowing down my browser when opening the checklist. Anybody else having this problem?

we will offer the old page again. the new page is probably a bit too heavy for simple devices to handle. i will need a little time to refactor all of it.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#45 | Posted: 4 Feb 2018 16:54 
Should do a separate report for this. Below the sites sorted by standard deviation. Tarnowitz is still in the lead courtesy a single community member who seems to feel really strongly about the Polish list.

Site Rating Votes Std Deviation Min Max
Tarnowskie Góry Lead-Silver Mine
2,08 6 1,62 0,5 5
Sangiran Early Man Site
1,90 5 1,59 0,5 5
Vegaøyan 2,50 2 1,50 1 4
Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba
3,17 3 1,31 2 5
Wooden Tserkvas of the Carpathian Region
2,88 12 1,31 0 5
Great Smoky Mountains
2,50 4 1,27 0,5 4
Sammallahdenmäki
3,00 8 1,27 1,5 5
Zamosc 3,00 5 1,26 2 5
Island of Gorée 2,33 3 1,25 1 4
Orkhon Valley 2,50 3 1,22 1 4
Ischigualasto / Talampaya
3,50 3 1,22 2 5
Rock Art of Alta
3,33 3 1,18 2,5 5
Gobustan Rock Art
2,67 6 1,18 1,5 5
Route of Santiago de Compostela
3,13 12 1,17 0,5 5
Elephanta Caves 3,21 7 1,16 2 5
Québec 2,90 5 1,16 1,5 5
Rock-Art of the Mediterranean Basin
2,33 6 1,14 1 4,5
Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatian Metropolitans
1,88 4 1,14 0 3
Quseir Amra 3,13 8 1,14 1,5 5
Maymand 2,58 6 1,13 0,5 4
Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France
2,76 17 1,13 1 5
Mir Castle 2,25 6 1,11 0,5 3,5
Coa Valley and Siega Verde
2,78 9 1,11 1,5 5
Bauhaus Sites 2,93 14 1,10 1,5 5

Page  Page 3 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next » 
WHS Top 200 www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHS Top 200 /
 Site Ratings

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑