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

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#106 | Posted: 3 Mar 2018 16:31 
Thanks for that rundown Solivagant, it had always struck me as a little too neat a story. Will look into it a little more now.

Author GaryArndt
Partaker
#107 | Posted: 5 Mar 2018 09:32 
Many places are getting rid of the 5-star rating system and replacing it with a thumbs up/down system.

The problem is everyone has a different idea of how to rate sites, especially if you allow half-stars. Thumb up/down is pretty simple for everyone to understand, and the aggregate percentage works quite well. We might disagree about whether Angkor is a 5-star or 4.5-star site, but we would agree that it is a thumbs up site. The measurement is coarse for an individual but works in the aggregate.

Netflix recently got rid of their 5-star system and replaced it with a thumbs up/down system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYVo_nt_s5c
https://www.fastcompany.com/3069062/netflix-is-abandoning-star-ratings-in-favor-of-fa cebook-like-thumbs

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#108 | Posted: 5 Mar 2018 10:16 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I think that system works well when the number of reviewers is going to constantly be in the 1,000+ and the range of content is going to be vast.

For us I don't think the thumbs up thumbs down will really work, the number of reviewers is going to be under 100 for most sites (some sites will regularly in the single digits) also the sites just by their very virtue of being WHS are a pretty selective bunch of worthwhile sites thus thumbs down will probably be harder to come by.

I would have thought that it would only really be in more extreme circumstances that people would give a thumbs down.

Even though I seem to be a slightly harsher marker than others on the less interesting sites, I think I may only give two or three thumbs downs (Par force hunting landscape, Schokland? perhaps Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal?) And even on those I think I could easily talk myself out of it.

On the whole I feel we would end up getting a near approximation of our visited count. I don't know if we would learn much from the same amount of thumbs up for places with similar visit numbers form the community.

Say Angkor, Flemish Beaguinages or Sydney Opera House all getting 200 Thumbs up and 2 or 3 Thumbs down.

At least with our current imperfect metric we can get a sense of what places are great, which are average and which are more filler.
When I look at countries where I have visited multiple sites, in the overall score the ranking broadly reflect what I feel are the order of sites.

For example in the UK Edinburgh is probably the best WHS, Kew is roughly in the middle and Liverpool, Derwent Valley Mills and Saltaire are probably the least interesting (Though I have more of a soft spot for Saltaire than others, probably because of a fondness for David Hockney)

Author jeanbon
Partaker
#109 | Posted: 5 Mar 2018 10:25 | Edited by: jeanbon 
But a 2.5-star means thumb up site or thumb down? I personally prefer our rating system anyway because it would be harsher for me to say a site is only poor or fabulous.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#110 | Posted: 3 May 2018 12:24 
I see we have another "phantom rater".
Had a look at Maulbronn when reading Frederick Dawson's review and noticed 5****** from "Mishimareika821208"
He has in fact registered no WHS visits at all. I don't know how many other WHS he has given 5*****

With Maulbronn having a relatively high 17 votes removing his only alters the average from 3.08 to 2.96 but it all adds up!

"Shades" of "New 7 wonders" voting figures????

Author elsslots
Admin
#111 | Posted: 3 May 2018 12:36 
Solivagant:
He has in fact registered no WHS visits at all. I don't know how many other WHS he has given 5*****

He/she rated others as well, but it seems to be a fairly broad range (more 5 stars than I would give, but also 3's etc).

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#112 | Posted: 20 Jul 2018 05:21 | Edited by: nfmungard 
Short update. With today's update we applied a few changes to the ratings.

* I think we removed the phantom ratings. E.g. Maulbronn now has a 4.5 rating by an actual visitor as top rating. You can still rate if you haven't visited, but it's not shown or counted.

* The top list now applies a minor adjustment for number of votes. The leading sites due to a single five star rating have gone down significantly. The eternal city is now in the lead.

* Users are nudged a bit more to rate. For reviews we will actually show the rating along with the review for orientation.

Author clyde
Partaker
#113 | Posted: 20 Jul 2018 07:08 
Well done!

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#114 | Posted: 20 Jul 2018 09:12 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Thanks, it intuitively feels a little more reflective of travel experience that way.

Though it is a little sad that some of the sites with only a few visits drop down as they bought something unique to the rankings, but it does remove the potential for abuse so I think it is a good way to handle it.

Having those less known sites at the top did differentiate our list from any old travel magazines:
Top XX WHS You Must See Before You Die!! You won't believe what is number 14!!!

Kamchatka falling outside the Top 100 is one of such sites, that I found really interesting to have at the top of the list.
Interestingly on that one the page says there are three rankings, but only two are displayed, both of which are 5*.
I understand the third 'non visiting' vote (2.5) not displaying but shouldn't that make the Community Average 5* with the score being reduced due to the low number of votes?

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#115 | Posted: 20 Jul 2018 10:17 
Kamchatka points to a bug. Will be corrected -> Rating will be 5 stars which will put it back into the top 20 as other five star sites with one rating already make the list.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#116 | Posted: 20 Jul 2018 12:52 
nfmungard:
Kamchatka points to a bug

Ah great, wasn't trying to nit pick and I think it is a good improvement, thanks for your hard work.

Page  Page 8 of 8:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
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 ®
 ⇑