Well, yes, I decided they were “less good” by comparing them to the other eight restaurants as a whole group. And they can go in the bottom 20% of restaurants. But that doesn’t mean they are bad restaurants - they could be great restaurants and the other eight were excellent. I have no problem saying all ten are great restaurants if that is the case - you apparently wouldn’t. So how do I divide the other eight among your other four groups, since I said I couldn’t rank them? Just randomly?
Also, if I’m using your 5 equal groups and there been an actual bad restaurant, and I had to choose between the pub and the buffet to be in the bottom 20% , I couldn’t have done so except randomly. And that would also mean the other less-good restaurant would be lumped in with a better restaurant since two must be in each group. So I have one group with a actual bad restaurant and a less-good restaurant and another with a less-good restaurant and a better restaurant, and the less-good restaurants have been randomly placed in their groups and the other six are divided into three separate groups although I see no difference between them and the seventh.
I don’t find that useful - you obviously have a different opinion.
I agree. A general review is better than a simple numerical rating. And having a dialogue with somebody is better than reading a review.
But circumstances. I didn’t invent the idea of a one-to-five rating for this thread; these things commonly exist. There are situations where the only two options you have are to give a one-to-five rating or to not do so. And I think you’d agree that a one-to-five rating is more information than no rating. Like I’ve said, this is an issue of doing the best you can with the tools you have.
Yes, that system isn’t going to work very well when you’re applying it to only ten items. In a situation like you described, I’d probably opt to give two of the places a four star rating and the other eight a five star rating.
I just don’t take those surveys. Nor do I use their results for information unless I really can’t find anything else; and then I take them with a HUGE grain of salt. But I find that it’s really rare not to be able to find any further information.
Plus which, as near as I can tell, you’re not claiming just that a one-to-five rating is more information than no rating; you’re claiming that a one-to-five rating in which each category must have the same number of items is more information than one in which categories may vary in size.
And again: I’m probably more often dealing with only ten items, or even fewer, than you are. And almost never with a free choice of multiple dozens or hundreds.
I would say “tend towards” rather than “must have”. Other than that, yes, I do feel that. But I’m open to discussing other possibilities which might lead me to change my mind.
I feel I was clear on that point. It’s the first line in the OP.
Of course, as a practical matter, anywhere that “requires” you to give a 1 to 5 star rating is likely a business that has a ridiculously skewed version of what the stars mean, so your rating system ends up being:
5-Star This employee is perfect, and thus keeps their job.
4-Star Fire this person immediately.
3-Star Fire this person immediately.
2-Star Fire this person immediately.
1-Star Fire this person immediately.
I guess I just don’t see why there’s all this angst about ratings? Most intelligent people take them with a grain of salt. And, if most people are like me, they don’t tend to rate things at all unless it was especially good or exceptionally bad. So, that skews things even more. Why the categories need to have an even number of entries seems completely unclear to me no matter how many times you’ve explained it.
Personally, I feel self-reflection is a good thing. I like to not only know what I believe but also to ask myself why I believe it. I want to know if something I believe is just a habit or if it’s based on good reasons. If I find something is just a habit, I can consider working on changing those beliefs. And if I find a belief is based on some good reasons, I can consider whether a different belief would better suit those reasons and whether those same reasons can be applied to other beliefs.
I could do all of this in my head. But I find that doing it as a process with other people works better. Other people are going to point out things that I might mentally avoid and bring up possibilities that I may not have considered.
This has happened here. I feel that by discussing how I rate items, I now have a clearer grasp of my process for doing it than I had a week ago.
I’ve spent a lot of time reading ratings. I read Amazon ratings, I read ratings on other vendor sites, I read Google ratings, etc.
There are always exceptions, but most people do rate
5 – this is great, I see no flaws
4 – this is good enough, but I want to quibble about something
3 – this is imperfect, and has the following flaws, but basically does the job
2 – I didn’t like this, and here’s why
1 – this item sucks
Also, a lot of the 1 ratings are stupid. Some are “I bought the basic item and it doesn’t work”, but some are cranky people being cranky on the internet. And a lot of the 5 ratings were given without much thought.
Still, that scale is pretty much the norm. And it’s normative, not quintile - y.
Yes, I agree. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was saying otherwise. I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted in two ways.
When I said “I’m open to discussing other possibilities” I meant it in the sense of “I am enjoying this discussion that we are involved in.” I didn’t mean it in the sense “I wish such a discussion would start.”