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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.
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...
Only the median voter(s) would need to understand that there's no incentive.
> 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.