News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by ckuehne on Saturday November 13, 2010 @01:38PM (#1901343)
"Most reviews give a bell-shaped curve of star ratings;"

Not true now [1] and not true back then [2].

[1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1134743 [2] http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eclstabus/1670r.htm (Fig. 1)

Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by acangiano on Saturday November 13, 2010 @03:00PM (#1901550)
The same was true for YouTube comments, and that's why they switched to Like/Dislike buttons. When it comes to judging the value of things, people tend to be all or nothing.
Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by philwelch on Saturday November 13, 2010 @03:24PM (#1901616)
That's more the case if you show some sort of aggregate 5 star rating on the front page, I suspect. If you look at peoples iTunes libraries they probably use 2-4 stars a lot and 1 or 5 stars more rarely. But on Amazon, people who think a book is 4 stars but see it rated as 3 stars are going to vote for 5 stars to push it up more.
Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by eru on Saturday November 13, 2010 @05:36PM (#1901886)
They should aggregate the reviews by taking a median. That way there's no incentive to game the system.
Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by xenophanes on Saturday November 13, 2010 @07:34PM (#1902095)
Only works if people understand there's no incentive...

Which they won't, cause math is so hard...

Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by eru on Sunday November 14, 2010 @01:01AM (#1902657)
Only the median voter(s) would need to understand that there's no incentive.
Re:SICP review by Peter Norvig (2000) by rbanffy on Saturday November 13, 2010 @08:54PM (#1902266)
> When it comes to judging the value of things, people tend to be all or nothing.

Not really. The sample is self-selecting. People who neither love nor hate don't care enough to vote.