Question on the ratings

Muzza

New member
Apr 11, 2011
37
0
0
Visit site
Hi

I have been reading the mag for ages but it strikes me that almost everything gets 3,4 or 5 stars.

This doesn't really give a huge spread and makes everything seem the same, so I was wondering if it would be better to make more use of the 1 and 2 stars or maybe make it out of 10 or maybe even a 100?
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,255
26
19,220
Visit site
Probably because WHF doesn't go out of it's way to seek outright 'tat' for review.

Having said that, I can see one and 2 star items when I search the reviews section.
 

Lee H

New member
Oct 7, 2010
336
0
0
Visit site
Muzza said:
Hi I have been reading the mag for ages but it strikes me that almost everything gets 3,4 or 5 stars. This doesn't really give a huge spread and makes everything seem the same, so I was wondering if it would be better to make more use of the 1 and 2 stars or maybe make it out of 10 or maybe even a 100?

It's a fair point, but you have to take the ratings together with the price. A very expensive product can get 3 stars because for the price it should have done better. Whereas a cheap 5 star product can be as much because it was suprisingly good as anything else.

The star rating alone doesn't give the full picture
 

Muzza

New member
Apr 11, 2011
37
0
0
Visit site
professorhat said:
3 is average for the money. So it would be unfair to give a score of less than 3 if the device performed to this level would it not?

Agreed but by this rationale most of the things WHF review is average or better than average for the money?
 

Muzza

New member
Apr 11, 2011
37
0
0
Visit site
Lee H said:
Muzza said:
Hi I have been reading the mag for ages but it strikes me that almost everything gets 3,4 or 5 stars. This doesn't really give a huge spread and makes everything seem the same, so I was wondering if it would be better to make more use of the 1 and 2 stars or maybe make it out of 10 or maybe even a 100?

It's a fair point, but you have to take the ratings together with the price. A very expensive product can get 3 stars because for the price it should have done better. Whereas a cheap 5 star product can be as much because it was suprisingly good as anything else.

The star rating alone doesn't give the full picture

I agree but I jsut thought a larger spread of ratings would be more helpful for novices like me!
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
Muzza said:
professorhat said:
3 is average for the money. So it would be unfair to give a score of less than 3 if the device performed to this level would it not?

Agreed but by this rationale most of the things WHF review is average or better than average for the money?

Most things are average. That's why it's the average.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Muzza said:
professorhat said:
3 is average for the money. So it would be unfair to give a score of less than 3 if the device performed to this level would it not?

Agreed but by this rationale most of the things WHF review is average or better than average for the money?

Indeed it does. My point was, if WHF review 10 products of the same type, in the same price bracket, and if none of them produce results which are not considered worse than average, what would be the justification for giving some 1 or 2 stars? Surely, they all have to get 3 stars or above?

They can only review and then report on what what they see or hear.
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
But then if 10 TVs picked at random are better than average, where did the average come from?

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, this ignores the fact that the rating system doesn't say that 3 is average. I forget what it does say, though...

EDIT - it means 'decent'

RE-EDIT - damn, it says 'average' in the buyer's guide. I'll get me coat...
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
John Duncan said:
But then if 10 TVs picked at random are better than average, where did the average come from?

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, this ignores the fact that the rating system doesn't say that 3 is average. I forget what it does say, though...

EDIT - it means 'decent'

Okay, decent rather than average. Point remains the same though i.e. if none of the products are "Disappointing" (2 stars) or "Awful" (1 star), it would be unfair to rate them as such.

So the only solution would be to actively seek out products that were either disappointing or awful and then include them. But I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

John Duncan said:
RE-EDIT - damn, it says 'average' in the buyer's guide. I'll get me coat...

Victory is mine! (it's a bad day, I'm relishing everything I get ;) )
 

Lee H

New member
Oct 7, 2010
336
0
0
Visit site
professorhat said:
if none of them produce results which are not considered worse than average, what would be the justification for giving some 1 or 2 stars? Surely, they all have to get 3 stars or above?

Unlike our annual performance review at work where a department has to meet a ratings distribution curve. We can't all be good. When I was a people manager I was once asked which of my team I would be happy to downgrade to meet the curve!
 
Yes, although 3 might supposedly mean "average" that doesn't mean literally that there as many 1 and 2 star products as 4 and 5. I actually rather like JD's 'decent', or 'OK for the money, but could be better' which is what it seems to mean in practice.

@ Muzza, there have been debates about this before, but the 1 to 5 is easiest to pick up, and as others have said, needs to be qualified with "...for its price". An absolute process with 100 meaning 'as good as it gets' or 'state of the art' would mean a DAB radio might score 12, which would make a new reader run a mile! It would probably scare off advertisers too, and we'd have no mag to read. But 4 stars means one of the better DAB radios for £80, which is what most buyers need to know.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts