<Jim>The new rating scale creates an ongoing confusion...
Jim, Thanks for putting the links to Paul's and my web sites on your FOTD site. I'm of the opinion that the new rating scale for your FOTDs, while solving one problem, creates an ongoing confusion of much larger dimension. The problems as I see them: - When I see a bare rating, I never know which it is, - When you do give a "This is the new rating system": - It's cumbersome to always have to add a string of words to identify the rating system in use, - And even if one is told: "This is a rating in the new rating system" where does one go to find the relationship between the two -- and then *remember* that, if you find it. - In theory, one would always have to repeat the relationship between the two rating systems every time a rating is given to insure full clarity. This is clearly not practical. I confess I currently remain confused. I understood the old rating system -- and it allowed for poor quality images to be effectively rated, as well. Despite the compressed scale of ratings from 5 to 10 (in the old rating system) you were able to effectively compensate with fractional ratings -- e.g.: 7.5 (in the old rating system). Abandon this madness! Respectfully submitted, - Hal Lane ######################### # hallane@earthlink.net # #########################
Hal Lane wrote that Jim's conversion should be written. In other words, Jim probably never wrote a fractal with a rating between one and four, so Jim thot he needed more bandwidth on the scale. It never occurred to Jim that it would mean subtracting four from whatever score he was inclined to give it in the first place. That would be like saying "To hell with sales: I want more resolution on my rating system." So, Jim, my recommendation for you is essentially to keep with the old rating, because you probably did not change it, anyway. Maybe you could say that it's on a scale of one to fifteen, where you trash fractals with ratings lower than five.
participants (2)
-
Hal Lane -
Jay Litwyn