- They are the single most useless, abuseable idiocy on the site and should be removed and not allowed.
- I don’t use places and therefore have no opinion.
- I find them informative, honest and people don’t abuse them.
0 voters
Just asken’ for a friend.
4 Likes
Major annoyance.
1 Like
Friend of mine too Marko
1 Like
Well, this is pretty one-sided, completely as I expected. Hope this feedback makes a difference down the line.
Maybe its one sided as you Stacked the Poll.
I dont see any harm in them , they may occasionally be usefull.
there a score after all.
and yeah maybe sometimes its abused. But so are ones with Reviews
But if even 5 percent of the people find them useful, thats enough to keep them. Not everything has to be for everybody.
1 Like
Part of the intent of allowing textless reviews was to increase data input. I’m curious whether that has happened. Have places been added at a better pace, and have people actually been rating places more now that the level of effort required is less?
I certainly have. As I’m expressing an opinion heard over and over again by Ratebeerians and people who occasionally use RB, and wanted to see how people thought about it. 36 out of 39 harshly against that is pretty much obvious.
No they are not even occasionally useful. They simply cannot be to anyone. Nothing about them is useful. Without words to back the numbers, place ratings are void of meaning. They are a tick and should be treated as such, away from people’s eyes and away from the scores.
They are also very much frequently abused, much more than ratings with any text. They skew the scores. And they literally bring the site down in the eyes of publicans and casual users. The biggest amount of bitching I’ve received about Ratebeer and any types of scores is due to them. Also, they are against the point of places - providing feedback that is useful to visitors.
The only people who find them useful are those who abuse and those who tick. A better solution should be easily implementable for tickers, and abusers should not be catered to.
See the problem i have with that is if you really wanted to see what people thought you need to be more careful in the poll wording.
I saw the post yesterday before any votes cast and decided i couldnt vote as the was no sencible choices.
You prejudiced the outcome before it started. So the outcome is suspect.
Thats not true is a Venue has only one entry and its only a score. Then that possibly better than no score at all. Now if that person only has 1 or 2 place ratings then prob not, buut id they have 20+ im going to treat that as usefull info.
Is there Evidence of this, and if so why are those abusive ratings not being dealt with rather than trying to remove all blank ratings
Again what evidence of this. How can you know what other users do or do not find useful.
1 Like
Also, I left you the option to comment. So you did. Nobody else did. I’d imagine they would if they agreed.
No, that single-score rating is still useless. It doesn’t tell you why that score is such. There might as well be no score at all. What’s a 68 / 100 place to you? What’s a 68/100 place to that guy? How does that relate to other places in the town? You simply don’t know. The scales vary from person to person and as such any place rating without text backing is useless. All the more reason to convert those into some manner of ticks. Actual abuse is much more easily weeded out when the culprit is forced to elaborate.
They are being dealt with when things are obvious. When less obvious, abuse falls through the cracks. So they are dealt with when the admin team has the time and the will. And it’s an endless battle that can be prevented.
How do I know? Well, I’ve only had at least a high double digit if not triple digit amount on discussions and conversations on that subject with other regular and casual users + people from the scene. I browse, sometimes on a daily basis, through an enormous amount of places and I’ve witnessed how those things look. That’s evidence enough for me.
You don’t see any harm in them? I see the global perception of Ratebeer suffer because of them.
I wasn’t going to bother commenting, but I agree that the poll options have very clear bias. There you go…
Happy cake day btw…
And as I’ve said, the bias is intentional. Glad you’ve expressed your opinion though.
Im all for encoraging words. But i dont think we ever want to discourage use.
There been a few places that i think a score is all i want to say.
In fact i think on the Whole i would rather just score places. I find thinking of things to say difficult for places. and dont think many of the place reviews ive left do the words actually add much if any value.
But if some one leaves 100 Wordless Place reviews that is usefull. I can see how there scores work in many places so get a feel for their scoring so when they are the only person scoring a place i still have info
But they dont even seem common, or ive not seen many.
My problem is all to often i see people in the beer world looking down on others, for enjoying beer in a different way from them
Saying the only way to do it is my Way. I think we want to be Inclusive not exclusive
Yes, we should be inclusive. That’s why we have both ticks and ratings and the same system should be used for places.
Travelers (and Travlrs I reckon) actually use places to look up venues worth going to . Even if it’s “typical pub, 6 taps, fine service, beers in good shape” - which isn’t that hard to think of - can make ALL the difference in the world if you’re the sole rater. Nobody wants to check every single textless raters rating history to get the feeling for some random guy’s rating habits. That’s creating unnecessary work for the reader. And it doesn’t work unless you’ve visited a bunch of those places yourself, so you can glean the system.
And what about the publicans? So you give them a 68 and their score is generally 85. And it drops and they’re not the best place in town anymore. Why is it like that? A lot of them would like to know, in that case, what went “wrong”. And things like this occur frequently. And when it happens due to the action of a non-returning user, like so many of these, you can’t even message them for an explanation. People then suspect foul play - but it could also be legitimate. And RB fails its purpose. They are doing more harm than good in the end.
This is absolutely not about looking down on anyone and has nothing to do with looking down on anyone.
In short, the current system is deeply flawed, and I don’t see people flocking to use Ratebeer because they can just rate a place without text, which was the rough idea. Restrictions should be imposed and/or this should be tweaked.
Oh totally, do this all the time. Nearly always research places before i go anywhere.
Ratebeer Places are important to me. But theres been times that i just want to score a place. Want it to be the same method as all my others.
Dont care if it doesnt count to score. If people want to assume that cause i havent said stuff my score isnt as reliable as those that do. But cant just be a tick. It needs to be same scoring method
Well, that’s how I’d do place ticks, of course. Same scoring method, no text, not shown with the others, does not count. Maybe allow them to count if the user has a certain, 100+, amount of place ratings.
2 Likes
Well it really depends on the user.
One of my friends klm1 is doing textless place ratings, but since I know him I know I can rely on his scores. So there is some value there for me.
But the system is abused. No doubt about that. I’ll name the countries where I’ve noticed the abuse - Italy, Spain, Poland.
They’re just useless. Especially if they’re the first to rate a place (and that’s more common than you think) it sucks. No description whatsoever about the place makes me not want to visit it when I’m around. I can’t rely on someone’s scores that I don’t know.
1 Like
Although I also don’t trust and take into consideration the textless place scores, I must say that I don’t trust the text by raters who have only a handful of other place ratings, as well. I try to see what the more prolific travelers have said about the place before deciding whether it’s worth a visit. So, though I voted among the majority, getting rid of them in itself will not change my decision making algorithm
