[nkurz]

I voted you down because you asserted that a system was 'best' because you remember from a 'pys' class. This has to be one of the weakest 'arguments from authority' I have seen. You then asserted that a 5-star allowing zero is even better. Then why didn't your (psychology?) professor say so?

I didn't vote down because I disagree, but because you haven't made much of a case. I also downvote the 'wow, cool' comments as unhelpful, and upvote the comments that seem like they will lead to useful discussion. Without intending offense, I didn't think your comment was pitched at the right level for this audience.

Personally, I think you are on the right track, although I think 5 stars allowing halves is even better. Interestingly, Netflix (experts in this field) started out with allowing half-stars and then got rid of them, making me worry that they know better than I.

[fuzzythinker]

You are taking every single word of my comment too seriously. If every assertion needs to have strong backing in order to be commented, the hn comments will probably be only < 10% of what it is now (again, just a guesstimate, don't take this one too seriously too). I forgot if my professor has research backing for a 7 point sys being "best", maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But I don't think I need to remember if there was indeed research backing for it to add to the discussion. Again, I don't think you should down vote every discussion just because they didn't state the research backing, but I'm not the one to tell you that, maybe others can comment on this.

As for the 7 point system being "best" (for general purpose rating), I remember it's because 5 star does not give enough granularity, while 10 points is too much. Maybe that's why Netflix took that out. Now why not 6, 8, or 9? I forgot, again, maybe there was research being done.

As for my "idea" of allow a 0 on a 5 point system; it makes it a 6 point system while retaining a 5 point UI that everyone is accustom to. What is wrong with that? Again, just asking for discussion, not trying to say it IS the best.

Now back to the topic of down vote because I don't have enough backing. If I need backing in order to comment, I wouldn't even be able to comment any of this. Is this what you think is the way hn should work? Also, in order to not make you think I have the research to back up my thoughts, I need to say that in almost every sentence. I also don't think that should be the way hn works.

[nkurz]

As for my "idea" of allow a 0 on a 5 point system; it makes it a 6 point system while retaining a 5 point UI that everyone is accustom to. What is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it necessarily --- it's all a matter of implementation and audience. I think the first thing you are going to run into is a need to visually differentiate a non-vote from a zero. I'm also not sure what problem it's trying to solve.

What I would find more useful (from a 'build a better recommendations engine' perspective) is a 5+: a short list of favorites that can stand in for someone's favorites. Personally, I'd also like a better way to better differentiate the gradations between standard, good, and great. Whether I hate something or 'hate-hate' it isn't going to make much of a difference. Do you think your audience is going to be persuaded to reduce their average rating by a point, or are you still going to find the oft-quoted 4.3 average? I'm doubtful, but this doesn't make it a a bad idea to try.

As to the downvote, I stand by it. My goal is to rearrange the page so that the comments that are most useful to me are at the top. If others find your comment useful, they will see the injustice and bring it back up to the top.

As to the need for 'strong backing', I think we just have different worldviews. With due respect to my friends who are psychology professors, "a [nameless] psychology professor told me" is barely a step up from "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV". We obviously respect different authorities in our lives.

[fuzzythinker]

Re: "Need for 'strong backing'": I think this goes back to the seriousness of how you take the discussions here. For me, forum/msg threads are just causal discussions (one level lower than blog posts), it would be nice if the person stated where they get their backing for the idea or assertion, but it's neither "necessary" nor "too helpful". If every idea/assertions needs backing, there would be almost no discussions at all. Innovation often comes from idea/assertions that have no backings.

It is not "necessary" because to me, if I believe in it and it's important to me, I will test it out. It doesn't matter if the idea came from Steve Jobs or Joe Doe. It's not "too helpful" because often the research being done on it is flawed, outdated, or just really not too trust-able. An example for example I remember reading some group has done research on max width of cell phones people like before feeling discomfort. The Motorola design team was the first to ignore that when they designed RAZR.