Suggestion for change in review scoring
Moderator: Official Reviewer Representatives
- Anirudh Badri
- Posts: 261
- Joined: 03 Jun 2017, 14:49
- Currently Reading: Quiet
- Bookshelf Size: 47
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-anirudh-badri.html
- Latest Review: Galactic Passages: Planet 6333 by Dean and Anson Vargo
Suggestion for change in review scoring
Currently, when the reviewer score is calculated, the system considers the current editorial review score to be the average of all review scores to date. As a result, this considers the score for all reviews equally, regardless of how long ago that review was.
If however, there was a look-back similar to the popularity score for the BOTD (where the editorial review score is the average of the most recent 4-5 reviews), the system would be much more reflective of the current performance of the reviewer. This would thus enable a reviewer who has improved dramatically and is now consistently scoring well to have a good score without a couple of bad scores from the beginning weighing them down. Conversely, it might also ensure that reviewers take special care before submitting a review because it is going to be much more relevant. This might prevent complacency because of previous performances.
Of course, I do not know the reasons for the current system, so it is possible that this suggestion is unfeasible or counterproductive. This is just a suggestion that I hope will make the community better. What do you all think?
–Oscar Wilde
- Doaa Wael
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 11:59
- Bookshelf Size: 23
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-doaa-wael.html
- Latest Review: "My Trip To Adele" by R.I.Alyaseer and A. I Alyaseer
- Anirudh Badri
- Posts: 261
- Joined: 03 Jun 2017, 14:49
- Currently Reading: Quiet
- Bookshelf Size: 47
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-anirudh-badri.html
- Latest Review: Galactic Passages: Planet 6333 by Dean and Anson Vargo
Of course, if there are other design considerations in play, that would be a major factor as well.
–Oscar Wilde
- Gingerbo0ks
- Posts: 735
- Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 13:59
- Currently Reading: All the Crooked Saints
- Bookshelf Size: 168
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-gingerbo0ks.html
- Latest Review: "Strong Heart" by Charlie Sheldon
- Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU
I believe it does. I have a very low scoring review (not sure why it even ended up being published) from ages ago that is "dragging down" my average. I've been hitting 80s and 90s recently and this poor review is still affecting my score.Doaa Wael wrote:yes I think taking the last couple of reviews 10 for example, is a good idea, but anyway, if you have a lot of good reviews towards the end, the bad ones in the beginning don't really affect ur score significantly
Not sure if I 100% agree the formula should be changed though.
― Cassandra Clare, Clockwork Angel
- MsTri
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 1949
- Joined: 02 Jul 2017, 12:56
- Favorite Book: The Spirit Seeds Book 1
- Currently Reading: the Secret of Safe Passage
- Bookshelf Size: 1033
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mstri.html
- Latest Review: Suddenly Free, Vol. 1 by Yvette Carmon Davis
- Reading Device: B07HZHJGY7
I WOULD like to see the formula changed somewhat, perhaps only encompassing the last 10 at the most. My last several reviews have been in the mid-90s, yet I can't seem to get above an average of mid-80s, due to a couple of scores several reviews ago. I'm honestly starting to despair that all these great numbers will ever budge me from where I've seemed to settle.Gingerbo0ks wrote:I believe it does. I have a very low scoring review (not sure why it even ended up being published) from ages ago that is "dragging down" my average. I've been hitting 80s and 90s recently and this poor review is still affecting my score.Doaa Wael wrote:yes I think taking the last couple of reviews 10 for example, is a good idea, but anyway, if you have a lot of good reviews towards the end, the bad ones in the beginning don't really affect ur score significantly
Not sure if I 100% agree the formula should be changed though.
- MrsCatInTheHat
- Posts: 3817
- Joined: 31 May 2016, 11:53
- Favorite Book: Cry the Beloved Country
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 376
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mrscatinthehat.html
- Latest Review: Marc Marci by Larry G. Goldsmith
- Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU
- Publishing Contest Votes: 0
MsTri wrote:I WOULD like to see the formula changed somewhat, perhaps only encompassing the last 10 at the most. My last several reviews have been in the mid-90s, yet I can't seem to get above an average of mid-80s, due to a couple of scores several reviews ago. I'm honestly starting to despair that all these great numbers will ever budge me from where I've seemed to settle.[/color]
Mid-80s is a great reviewer score! You should be proud of your work. If the old ones didn't count, then those who did well early on would be on the same footing as those who did not; that doesn't seem particularly "fair" either.
- bookowlie
- Special Discussion Leader
- Posts: 9071
- Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 09:52
- Favorite Book: The Lost Continent
- Currently Reading: The Night She Went Missing
- Bookshelf Size: 442
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-bookowlie.html
- Latest Review: To Paint A Murder by E. J. Gandolfo
That being said, I thought Scott changed the formula last year so that reviews prior to a certain timeframe were given a little less weight in the average score.
- ashley_claire
- Posts: 410
- Joined: 03 Mar 2015, 03:13
- Favorite Book: The Prince of Tides
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 158
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-ashley-claire.html
- Latest Review: One Way or Another by Mary J. Williams
- va2016
- Posts: 225
- Joined: 26 Dec 2016, 02:15
- Favorite Book: The Vatican Protocol
- Currently Reading: The Chauvinist's Guide to Modern Romance
- Bookshelf Size: 716
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-va2016.html
- Latest Review: The Mystery of the Hidden Cabin by M.E. Hembroff
Totally agree! Suggest 10 or 15 reviews, as the count.Anirudh Badri wrote:Hello All.
Currently, when the reviewer score is calculated, the system considers the current editorial review score to be the average of all review scores to date. As a result, this considers the score for all reviews equally, regardless of how long ago that review was.
If however, there was a look-back similar to the popularity score for the BOTD (where the editorial review score is the average of the most recent 4-5 reviews), the system would be much more reflective of the current performance of the reviewer. This would thus enable a reviewer who has improved dramatically and is now consistently scoring well to have a good score without a couple of bad scores from the beginning weighing them down. Conversely, it might also ensure that reviewers take special care before submitting a review because it is going to be much more relevant. This might prevent complacency because of previous performances.
Of course, I do not know the reasons for the current system, so it is possible that this suggestion is unfeasible or counterproductive. This is just a suggestion that I hope will make the community better. What do you all think?
Thanks!