Back to Forum
Oldest First
Newest First
I've been tracking and trending Phish.net's show ratings data in a dozen or more ways offline, and continually finding strong evidence of improvements both in data point quality and quantity, and in the aggregation of the data. The commonly supposed problems - that newer fans overrate shows, that recent shows are overrated, and that ratings are generally (and frustratingly) trending upward - simply aren't holding up.To take just one example, I've been watching the changes in ratings (per show and on average) from when I started posted the "Rating Unrated Shows" threads - and those have gone *down*, by 0.0444 stars!
As I've noted before, the main problem (and the only one supported by site data) is simply that we need *more* ratings, particularly from some of the very vets who could give valid ratings and improve the data. So, puh-leeeeeeeeeease, hop on this thread and rate some unrated shows!
Score: 4
I think we need more than 5 stars, or maybe we could vote half stars, but I'd prefer out of 10 or even 100.
Score: 3
I think but am not positive that most of the ratings come from within 24 hours of the show being rated. Because of this I believe people are putting say a 5 star over that actual show being a 3 star show because they had a awesome time being there. I actually thought maybe if there was a way I'm not sure how difficult it would be to wait say 30 days after a show to put up the rating stars to be able to rate a show. It seems that most of the hype of that show has worn off and people actually have had a chance to listen to the show.
As for what @conradjohansen said. I kind of agree on half stars but, when say I vote 1 star and you vote a 2 star it makes a 1.5 star rateing. So if that changed would be cool but if not I've come to grow on the solid star rating
And I have been on Phish hiatus for a few weeks enjoying some other tunes. I am now back in action and ready to give it ago again.
Score: 1
I agree with @conradjohansen it would be great if we could vote half stars.
Score: 0
Again, I think there should be a delay on the ability to vote on a recent show. I don't know what the logistics would be, but it would let the "smoke" clear before people were able to rate. De-n00bification if you will.
Score: 1
@ADAWGWYO said: Again, I think there should be a delay on the ability to vote on a recent show. I don't know what the logistics would be, but it would let the "smoke" clear before people were able to rate. De-n00bification if you will.I know that this is a widely held opinion and a popular argument, but as @Lemuria says above and as @KaiSquare explains in full-on statistical analysis fashion here, it's not a position that is supported by the data. What's more, to have a cooling off period for rating shows would actually seem to be counter-productive to the one positive trend that has been identified, i.e. we get better ratings if more people rate shows.
I totally understand why people argue for a delay on rating shows. It sounds logical, seems like a good idea. But I will continue to pound the point that others have made: the best thing you can do if you want to see more accurate ratings is rate more shows and encourage others to do the same!
::breaks out flash drive and heads to the spreadsheet::
Score: 1
@TheEmu's right - @KaiSquare's initial post and follow-up are strong statements based on solid data that's difficult to dispute.
Score: 1
Fair enough. I can understand that. How about then, if when you download a show from the spreadsheet you have to rate a show first. I don't know how feasible that is and it is early in the morning. Seems you might have to have phish.net and the sheet connected somehow and maybe the link released after rating a show... Whatevs, just thinkin out loud reallyPeace
Score: 1
@ADAWGWYO said: Fair enough. I can understand that. How about then, if when you download a show from the spreadsheet you have to rate a show first. I don't know how feasible that is and it is early in the morning. Seems you might have to have phish.net and the sheet connected somehow and maybe the link released after rating a show... Whatevs, just thinkin out loud reallyI like the way you're thinking.
Peace
Score: 0
@ADAWGWYO said: Fair enough. I can understand that. How about then, if when you download a show from the spreadsheet you have to rate a show first. I don't know how feasible that is and it is early in the morning. Seems you might have to have phish.net and the sheet connected somehow and maybe the link released after rating a show... Whatevs, just thinkin out loud reallyIf I am reading your post correctly how do you go about starting to rate shows if you have to rate a show before downloading?
Peace
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know but really seems that my idea is stupid. people should just jump on there high tech "IPHONE" during the show and rate it a 5 because "OMG!!!!!!!!!!" they played FORBINS!!!!!!!!!.
My example can be found here:
Noob
"This is so a 5 show"
Vet
"but that was the opening song"
Noob
"I know but they have never opened a show with forbins have they OMG"
Vet
"Yeah dude like 2 or 3 times, and that was probably the sloppiest version of Forbins I have heard"
Noob
"I have to text my friends about this"
The computer age has gone to shit and people have become idiots. Sorry if I sound harsh but its true and they rely on it now. I remember when I first started trading tapes you actually waited a couple weeks after the show to get them in the mail and listen to them. Then guess what you rated the show you would make little stars on your J-Card pictures and what not it was fun. It was simple I don't understand why it is so difficult to wait on putting the ratings stars up even say 2 weeks after the show. It's just so people can't jump on like my example right after the encore and because they played an 8 song encore and it be the best show ever. Rated 5.
I do understand that more ratings of the shows helps.
Although say out of 11,000 registered .netters 2,000 went 1,000 rated the show a 5. 2 years down the road finally someone who doesn't jump on right away to rate and take there time listening that show rate it a 2 because it was the worst show ever. just sloppy of the sloppiest. someone coming to .net reads about the show and says wow there is a 4.9 rating for that show and 1,001 rated it, it must be the titts.
If 2 weeks after that show the same people wait and rate the show 500 rate it a 3 and 500 rate it a 2 it is a much better outcome isn't it???
Sorry if it's long and pisses people off but it seems the most logical. I jusmped on to try and start rating shows because I used to listen to the same shows over and over again and never really listen to early 90's or even late 80's phish but now I am and it's great.
Score: 1
Im about to blow your mind.... how about you can't rate the show if you were there? That is, if you mark yourself as attending the show, your rating doesn't affect the overall score. Only people who listen to the actual recording can give an unbiased opinion.
Score: 0
@TheBag said: Im about to blow your mind.... how about you can't rate the show if you were there? That is, if you mark yourself as attending the show, your rating doesn't affect the overall score. Only people who listen to the actual recording can give an unbiased opinion.Ridiculous. I can tell you show after show I have been to that have been way under par. However I do rate the "good" shows I was at a little higher than I should.
Score: 1
@Blackeydsloth said: @ADAWGWYO said:I said a show, not that show in particularFair enough. I can understand that. How about then, if when you download a show from the spreadsheet you have to rate a show first. I don't know how feasible that is and it is early in the morning. Seems you might have to have phish.net and the sheet connected somehow and maybe the link released after rating a show... Whatevs, just thinkin out loud reallyIf I am reading your post correctly how do you go about starting to rate shows if you have to rate a show before downloading?
Peace
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know but really seems that my idea is stupid. people should just jump on there high tech "IPHONE" during the show and rate it a 5 because "OMG!!!!!!!!!!" they played FORBINS!!!!!!!!!.
My example can be found here:
Noob
"This is so a 5 show"
Vet
"but that was the opening song"
Noob
"I know but they have never opened a show with forbins have they OMG"
Vet
"Yeah dude like 2 or 3 times, and that was probably the sloppiest version of Forbins I have heard"
Noob
"I have to text my friends about this"
The computer age has gone to shit and people have become idiots. Sorry if I sound harsh but its true and they rely on it now. I remember when I first started trading tapes you actually waited a couple weeks after the show to get them in the mail and listen to them. Then guess what you rated the show you would make little stars on your J-Card pictures and what not it was fun. It was simple I don't understand why it is so difficult to wait on putting the ratings stars up even say 2 weeks after the show. It's just so people can't jump on like my example right after the encore and because they played an 8 song encore and it be the best show ever. Rated 5.
I do understand that more ratings of the shows helps.
Although say out of 11,000 registered .netters 2,000 went 1,000 rated the show a 5. 2 years down the road finally someone who doesn't jump on right away to rate and take there time listening that show rate it a 2 because it was the worst show ever. just sloppy of the sloppiest. someone coming to .net reads about the show and says wow there is a 4.9 rating for that show and 1,001 rated it, it must be the titts.
If 2 weeks after that show the same people wait and rate the show 500 rate it a 3 and 500 rate it a 2 it is a much better outcome isn't it???
Sorry if it's long and pisses people off but it seems the most logical. I jusmped on to try and start rating shows because I used to listen to the same shows over and over again and never really listen to early 90's or even late 80's phish but now I am and it's great.
Score: 0
@Blackeydsloth - I understand the urge to do something about the perceived inflation of ratings of more recent shows. I could make several different arguments to you; that a "cooling off period" would actually do little to solve the problem you want to address (n00bs will be n00bs) or that even though I may think a given person is totally piss-eared and rating a show for the wrong reason, preventing them from giving whatever rating they see fit goes against the spirit of .net (that's, like, your opinion, man). But let me focus on this argument instead.You are looking at the problem backwards. The problem is NOT that more recent shows are over-inflated. The problem is that OLDER shows are UNDER-inflated. It's not a n00b problem...it's actually a vet problem. Those of us who have heard a lot of older shows are not going back and rating them.
The main point of @KaiSquare's analysis was that higher ratings correlate with a higher number of people rating shows. If you can grant that, then think of it this way: of the current top 150 rated shows, 15 (10%) are from 3.0. Is it possible that's a little skewed? Sure (though some of those are great shows!). So, why is that number skewed? Because, of the top 150 shows in terms of the number of people who have rated them, 105 (70%!!) are from 3.0!
So, I don't dispute that there is a little 3.0 fluffing going on. But there are plenty of non-3.0 shows that I think are fluffed, too. It's just my opinion of it, and that will always be the case. IMHO, the much greater need is to rate the older shows, and hopefully, in the process, introduce newer fans to some of the older stuff.
EDIT: Damn, I'm waaaay behind on my work now. bbl.
Score: 1
The other thing I was going to say is that while I'm not sure @ADAWGWYO's idea is workable and I hesitate to make people jump through any hoops to get shows, I applaud the spirit of prodding people to rate some darn shows!
Score: 0
@TheBag said: Im about to blow your mind.... how about you can't rate the show if you were there? That is, if you mark yourself as attending the show, your rating doesn't affect the overall score. Only people who listen to the actual recording can give an unbiased opinion.I misread this before I replied the first time, as having suggested the opposite - that you can only rate if you DID attend. And we're of course not interested in ratings solely of first-person accounts, nor solely of the experience of being at the show (whether first-person or not). Yeah, okay, they're called "show ratings", but they're really intended to be about the performances - i.e. the shows as Phish (& Co.) put them on - especially the songs' selection, placement, order, execution, and improvisation, as well as guests, antics (e.g. secret language, trampolines), unusual instrumentation, and the like. All else equal, the quality of bathrooms, security, air conditioning, crowd participation, audience attention, etc. TOTALLY affect your enjoyment of having been there. But they're completely irrelevant to what most folks want to know about the event, including (above all) whether they would want to listen to it. They're not experiential reports. They're listening recommendations.
But excluding the input of those who were there? ... That's just weird.
Score: 0
@ADAWGWYO - Yeah ok like I thought I didn't read what you said right. sorry. @TheEmu - Let me start off by saying I was mainly using the vet and noob terms as reference, to a conversation between 2 people. Yes I could have probably used something different but I didn't and am sorry if I offended anyone in anyway I didn't mean it intentionally. (kind of something I've had on my chest for awhile, and I can also flip it around as well starting off with vet instead of noob for that conversation.)
O.k sooo I do agree with what you are saying I understand there are these older shows that are needed ratings for. Although if we are going on what @Lemuria said in his thread
"The commonly supposed problems - that newer fans overrate shows, that recent shows are overrated, and that ratings are generally (and frustratingly) trending upward - simply aren't holding up."
So really we are talking every show and not just the older shows or recent shows. from the way I am reading it.
I really don't want to argue back and forth about it. I try whenever I can to listen to shows and rate them as best I can. there is nothing I can do to make people rate shows. I don't know how to get people to rate more shows and rate them accurately Hell I may not even be rating them to someone else's standards but I can try my best.
In the meantime I will think of something that could be done to get people to rate shows.
Score: 1
@Blackeydsloth said: You certainly didn't offend me at all, and I hope I didn't give that impression! I completely understood that you were using Nooby McNooberson and Jady McJadedVet as reference points. My response wasn't intended to single you out, it's just the response that I've given several times when the idea of a cooling off period for shows has come up - and it has been floated many times by thoughtful, intelligent .netters such as yourself. It's just all part of my crusade to get people to rate, as you have been doing, more shows! Yay!
@TheEmu - Let me start off by saying I was mainly using the vet and noob terms as reference, to a conversation between 2 people. Yes I could have probably used something different but I didn't and am sorry if I offended anyone in anyway I didn't mean it intentionally. (kind of something I've had on my chest for awhile, and I can also flip it around as well starting off with vet instead of noob for that conversation.)
O.k sooo I do agree with what you are saying I understand there are these older shows that are needed ratings for. Although if we are going on what @Lemuria said in his thread
"The commonly supposed problems - that newer fans overrate shows, that recent shows are overrated, and that ratings are generally (and frustratingly) trending upward - simply aren't holding up."
So really we are talking every show and not just the older shows or recent shows. from the way I am reading it.
I really don't want to argue back and forth about it. I try whenever I can to listen to shows and rate them as best I can. there is nothing I can do to make people rate shows. I don't know how to get people to rate more shows and rate them accurately Hell I may not even be rating them to someone else's standards but I can try my best.
In the meantime I will think of something that could be done to get people to rate shows.
And you're absolutely right - I think people should rate *every* show they've listened to.
To summarize:
1) I totally get where people are coming from about the cooling off period, even though I don't agree.
2) We all agree that rating more shows is good.
3) You rock.
4) Go Huskers.
(see how I slipped that last one in there?)
Score: 1
@TheEmuRight on. Ok so now I need my thinking cap back on.
I kind of had the idea of setting up some sort of contest type thing. similar to the Monday Mystery Jam. Where if you are the first person to rate and review all the shows that week. You can win a prize maybe if it's not a livephish DL maybe I don't know.. This is where I am stuck on the prize thing. But that is what I have thought about off and on all day.
Well I'm off to bed I have finally chilled out for the evening and am very beat. have a good night and don't work to hard.
BTW: that was pretty sneaky of you to sneak it in there
Score: 1
Any impetus could help. I've been doing the Rating Unrated Shows threads (11 so far). Do more, rate more, be more, yay.
Score: 1
While I'm a noob, I think (could be wrong) I rate shows fairly. Most 3.0 shows I've attended are 3s to me. I try not to vote 5, that's for the best of the best. (NYE '95, Cypress) 5/5 should be the holy grail of shows, very few should get 5 stars in my opinion.
Score: 1
Continuing evidence that more ratings, improves ratings...Over the time that the eleven "Rating Unrated Shows" threads have happened, we've gone from an average of 11.2 ratings per show and an average show rating of nearly 3.8508, to 15.82 ratings per show and an average rating of 3.6848. Bluntly, a 40% increase in ratings has lowered the average rating 5%.
Those 11 threads are of course just one element in overall site growth and expanding participation by users. But as all these trends continue, the ratings improve. Just check out the "top rated shows" list on the homepage recently - MUCH improved from even six months ago!
Score: 1
Absolutely. THAT list really does read like an all-star list of Phish shows.
Score: 0
You must be logged in to leave a comment!