zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Honestly, all review aggregates are kind of trash. It's crazy that we have stuck with either binary or 5 star ratings this whole time across the internet.

I had a product idea I have yet to make where you replace ratings with rankings. Instead of giving something a 1-5 review, you just answer a few quick questions whether something is better or worse than a listed alternative. You aggregate enough rankings and you can give everything a percentile score. The number is actually meaningful - a 70% means people on average think that it's 70% better than all ranked alternatives.

And you can't lie or influence a ranking as easily. "You think Rings of Power is a good show? Okay, but are you are actually going to rank it above The Sopranos?"

>>legits+D53
> And you can't lie or influence a ranking as easily. "You think Rings of Power is a good show? Okay, but are you are actually going to rank it above The Sopranos?"

Why not ? It depends what you are looking for at that moment.

>>johnch+m93
Isn't the advantage of ranking in support of what you're saying?

If, in the future, your tastes change, a few things get ranked "above" what formerly held your top slot. The top slot was never "200 absolute points," it was just "the highest single ranking"

Although, I do see the coarseness of a new #1 bumping everything down … and forcing a reconsideration of whole blocks of rankings … arriving at "groups" … and basically a star system.

>>gffrd+Lb3
My tastes don't change (bear with me) but the mood I am in does [0]. So one saturday Rings of Power is a good fit but next saturday the Sopranos is a better fit even if all in all I ´d systematically rank one above the other. So suggestions solely based on how I'd rank things on a single axis are not relevant enough.

- [0] my mood changes more often than my taste do