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

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#76 | Posted: 11 Feb 2018 19:13 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Colvin:
Yosemite National Park gets a .5 rating is beyond me ken

Anyone that puts .5 for Yosemite I feel bad for. Because, the assumption must ultimately rest on a poor experience. Which ALL of us have had at one point or another. Perhaps, a busy weekend or holiday and getting into traffic in Yosemite Valley. Fully-booked campgrounds, gov't shutdowns, wildfires, and/or wildlife behavior adapted to humans? There are several conditions that could contribute to a poor visit. Yet, this is where its difficult to be objective as we can only judge a WHS based on our own experience, weather and tourist numbers included!

As someone who loves Yosemite and have visited many of its wonders, I'm dubious of any visit being seen as a "full Yosemite experience" that does not include Glacier Point or the backcountry. Sure, still a WHS tick, but perhaps equivalent to visiting Paris for a day just to see the Eiffel Tower and leaving before dinner. Sadly, popularity is an issue for Yosemite. I would agree that Yosemite Valley is far too busy during Summer weekends and holidays. Another sad reality for years, was an enjoyable visit to Mariposa Grove was often hampered by visitor numbers and a degraded environement.

There is hope still however, as return visits often provide a more positive experience with greater planning and tough lessons learned! This was the case for me with return visits to the Grand Canyon, Macao, and Namhansanseong.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#77 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 01:37 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
Anyone that puts .5 for Yosemite I feel bad for. Because, the assumption must ultimately rest on a poor experience.

There seems to be more going on than just a bad "visit experience" to Yosemite! 13 sites (out of 21 rated i.e 62%) get "top rating" of which 5 are in the Netherlands. Amsterdam gets 5 but Brugge only gets 1
Anyway - our policy is clear - Community members have the right to rate as they wish, however "perverse" these may seem to some of us!
To paraphrase - "By their ratings shall ye know them".

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#78 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 02:53 
Solivagant:
Community members have the right to rate as they wish, however "perverse" these may seem to some of us!

Not fully convinced we should keep extreme outliers (more than 1 std deviations, possibly 2) when calculating the site rating. If someone awards 0.5 to Yosemite and it's not a data entry error, he/she should at least write a short review explaining a bit their motivations.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#79 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 03:25 | Edited by: Solivagant 
nfmungard:
Not fully convinced we should keep extreme outliers (more than 1 std deviations, possibly 2) when calculating the site rating

Agree entirely - how we use the ratings is a completely different matter from how we set the "rules" (or even "guidance") as to how WHS should be rated!! I think we all agree that people have the right to record their ratings as THEY see fit (some might be doing the rating solely for their own personal interest/record with no concern at all about/ interest in how their ratings impact the "community" view of WHS. Though - dare I say it - some could be operating other "agenda" e.g to ensure that their nation's WHS or their particular "interests" get "marked up" by more than the "general view"). The Community then has the right to use those ratings as IT sees fit in order to produce "robust" statistics which tell us something worthwhile about a site and its comparisons with other similar ones etc - that requires a degree of "normalisation"!! I would have no problem with setting an "exclusion" policy when calculating rating statistics, which is along the lines you suggest (we would need to publish that so people doing ratings would be aware of how they might be used. Something along the lines of "I consent to my ratings being completely ignored by the Community in its statistics if, in its expert opinion ("infinite wisdom" even), it regards them as irrational"! - just joking!). Not quite sure how it would operate given the large numbers of WHS with relatively few ratings. If we take out too many outliers we are in danger of just finishing up with a centralising tendency and a rather "grey" assessment of every site which gives us the answer we "wanted"! Needs "thinking through" using some real examples!

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#80 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 05:08 | Edited by: nfmungard 
Seeing it's Els site, I feel she can make the judgement call when to exclude a rating from the average. As of now there are only a few candidates. And this would follow the general approach with the reviews and the community.

Author elsslots
Admin
#81 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 11:25 
nfmungard:
Seeing it's Els site, I feel she can make the judgement call

For now I would draw the line when I see that someone is creating extra user accounts to push his (country's) sites.
The general impact of 1 odd rating will disappear whenever there are more ratings in the future. It does not have an effect now on the top sites (ranks 4-10 seem very much in line with the earlier https://www.worldheritagesite.org/ranking/most+popular+sites )

Author Khuft
Partaker
#82 | Posted: 12 Feb 2018 13:08 
Thanks Els for the pragmatic approach. I wouldn't be in favour of deleting some of the ratings just because we don't like them, except in egregious cases as the one you mentioned.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#83 | Posted: 13 Feb 2018 07:41 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A "click bait" article from UK Daily Telegraph but still might be of interest!
"Are these the most disappointing World Heritage Sites on Earth?" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/unusual-world-heritage-sites/
I list the 19 and our current average ratings below. I don't know where our averages/quartiles etc etc stand at the moment and what our lowest average rated sites are - am awaiting a "statistics page" from Nan! I think (on the basis of a very quick perusal) that our lowest rated sites based on "significant" numbers of votes are Battir and Hortobagy which are lower than those of any of the DT 19 - so our answer is "No these are NOT the most disappointing sites". The highest rating we have given any of the DT 19 is Meiji Industrial at 3.0 based on 6 ratings between 4.0 and 1.5. Mine was 1.5. The lowest rating we have given to any of them is Struve at 1.44 based on 16 ratings between 3.5 and 0.5. Mine was 0.5.
I have visited 13 of the 19 and only 1 (Struve) was in my "bottom 19" so I could have suggested plenty of others with 18 at 1.0 or 0.5!
Messel 1.82
Woudegemal 2.53
4 Lifts 2.68
UNAM 2.73
Aflaj 2.25
Humberstone - Not yet Rated
Englesberg 2.56
Falun 2.69
Struve 1.44
Meije 3.00
Rjukan 2.33
Berlin Housing 1.69
Van Nelle 2.45
Australian Convict 2.25
Wallonia Coal 1.88
Grimeton 2.83
Halsingland 2.22
Fagus 2.77
Fray Bentos 2.17

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#84 | Posted: 13 Feb 2018 10:53 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Khuft:
Thanks Els for the pragmatic approach. I wouldn't be in favour of deleting some of the ratings just because we don't like them, except in egregious cases as the one you mentioned.

I would agree with this, and what Solivagant has said above.

Whilst most of us don't really think the Struve Geodetic Arc is the most magnificent site, who is to say that someone that turns up and gives it a five doesn't just know and care more about the innovation it represents and looks on at the rest of us "heathens" for dismissing it because it isn't very interesting to visit on holiday?

If people want to use it to promote their own agenda, then well, that is what they will do, it will all come out in the wash.

People that care about it, like us, can see what is happening and it becomes a handy way of filtering in or out recommendations.

Just on that, the user talked about above ranks lots of Dutch sites as 5 stars and Yosemite as 0.5, however interestingly they have left Kinderdijk un-scored. Thus the logical conclusion one can draw is that they hate these Windmills so much they must be actively seeking to have them removed from the list?

Author elsslots
Admin
#85 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 05:04 
Solivagant:
It would be "nice" if the list of WHS shown on the second also showed the rating - so, just how are we "rating" Christian buildings, Buddhist ones, Palaces, Mountains, Rock art sites etc etc? By using the already available list of WHS by Category we could get a picture of this without too much development effort.

I've just implemented this function. See for example: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/category/id/12
It works for all categories but due to the caching it may take a while before all category pages show the ratings. You can speed up the process by clicking at the 'flow' sign at the bottom right of the page.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#86 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 06:20 | Edited by: Solivagant 
elsslots:
I've just implemented this function

Thanks - nice to have the "sort" function as well so we can easily see the highest/lowest rankings for each category. One further point - The "star" format has its benefits - particularly when doing the rating, but in a list it is a bit awkward in showing, for instance, non-integer differences. It might be said that these are not that significant statistically but are still of "interest" I think. So I look at the highest ranked "Religious Structures" and see 7 with "4 point something" with a half star (i.e more than 4 but less than 5). It turns out the highest (Vatican) has 4.7 whilst the lowest (Skellig) has 4.22. I would suggest that all "average" pages show the figure in the format e.g "4.22*" as on the individual member visited pages

By the way - what is the "best" way of getting to "Category" now - there is no "tab"?

Another couple of questions/suggestions regarding the so called "Top Lists" and tab
a. I see that the title is "Community Rankings" on the page rather than "Top Lists" as on the tab. Better to call both simply "Statistics" or "Rankings"?
b. Why is there still a separate page titled "Top 25 Community Members"? What does it add over and beyond the existing "Community Page" where those who have "visited the most WHS" is easily accessible from "ranking" 1 -25 and beyond. I don't particularly want to be in a list called "Top" anything - especially when "Top" simply means "have visited the most"! Thankfully this Web site is NOT "Most Travelled people" etc (which I prefer not to subscribe to).

Author elsslots
Admin
#87 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 07:04 
Solivagant:
Another couple of questions/suggestions regarding the so called "Top Lists" and tab
a. I see that the title is "Community Rankings" on the page rather than "Top Lists" as on the tab. Better to call both simply "Statistics" or "Rankings"?
b. Why is there still a separate page titled "Top 25 Community Members"? What does it add over and beyond the existing "Community Page" where those who have "visited the most WHS" is easily accessible from "ranking" 1 -25 and beyond. I don't particularly want to be in a list called "Top" anything - especially when "Top" simply means "have visited the most"! Thankfully this Web site is NOT "Most Travelled people" etc (which I prefer not to subscribe to).

both done

Author elsslots
Admin
#88 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 07:06 
Solivagant:
By the way - what is the "best" way of getting to "Category" now - there is no "tab"?

There was no room anymore for yet another tab. I will try and see if I can fit it in.

Author elsslots
Admin
#89 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 07:10 
Solivagant:
Thanks - nice to have the "sort" function as well so we can easily see the highest/lowest rankings for each category

We may need to revisit the assignments of the categories: I was missing Rome under 'Ancient Rome'

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#90 | Posted: 17 Feb 2018 08:33 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Solivagant:
I would suggest that all "average" pages show the figure in the format e.g "4.22*" as on the individual member visited pages

They could also usefully show the No' of "votes" to give the "average" a context in terms of quality/quantity - The full ranked list has this already so its layout could be copied or else it could be done for e.g Categories with no need for extra space compared with the current "row" of stars up to 5 - e.g 2.5*/8 = Average of 2.5 stars based on "8 votes".

Another "idea" for the future? "Averages" (and or histogram) by Member, Overall, Country, Category, Nat/Cult/Mixed.

Page  Page 6 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 ®
 ⇑