|
 |
| | | Author: | lmeyer  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:24 | | Subject: | Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 171 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:
| | Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
|
Maybe OK or alright instead of mediocre. And excellant instead of good? Or
even:
Poor
Good
Excellent
That would not upset the current rankings. Thou you would start to see a lot
more good, until the people got upset and started ranting in the forums.
| | No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | lmeyer | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Tracyd writes:
| | In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:
| | Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
|
Maybe OK or alright instead of mediocre. And excellant instead of good? Or
even:
Poor
Good
Excellent
That would not upset the current rankings. Thou you would start to see a lot
more good, until the people got upset and started ranting in the forums.
| | No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
|
Actually it would upset the current rankings. "Neutral" rankings are not "good"
ones, right now a "good" order would have been rated as "positive".
Poor does equate to Negative.
Good does equate to Positive.
Neutral just needs to be changed to rate an order that really isn't as bad as
poor, but is also less than good. There needs to be an accurate descriptor for
such an order, and mediocre is the word that most accurately describes it. It
also can cover a lot more ground than any other synonym.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:
| | Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
I use all of them.
Most are positive (thank God)
I mainly use neutral if the person paid for the order, but it took longer than
10 days for the payment to reach me (it states this in my terms that payments
must be received within that time).
Negative is usually only used if someone does not buy (or a couple rare circumstances).
Andy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:
| | Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
I use all of them.
Most are positive (thank God)
I mainly use neutral if the person paid for the order, but it took longer than
10 days for the payment to reach me (it states this in my terms that payments
must be received within that time).
Negative is usually only used if someone does not buy (or a couple rare circumstances).
Andy
|
does not PAY, I mean
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2011 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:
| | Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?
Thor
I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.
Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.
Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:
- Poor (not acceptable)
- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)
- Good (happy with the order experience)
With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".
Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.
So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.
If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".
No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.
|
I have been a buyer only for several years and now a seller only for a year.
I like the feedback system the way it is. It works and therefore should not
be tampered with in my opinion. I can use the fb system to sell and to buy (but
always sell, never buy.) All the info I need is right there if I choose to use
it. I do not like the green enema cone, upside down pizza and the cheese slice.
I preferred the happy face and the I don't have a clue face and the kicked in
the gonads face better. But that is just a personal preference with no real
impact,
John P
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Wisconsin
