Forum: Bug Report and Feature Requests

Not Bad' is the same as 'Not Good'

I see "not bad" as "it's okay."

From Collins dictionary:

In British:
passable; fair; fairly good

In American:
good; fairly good; not unsatisfactory

Yeah, I ran out of numbers.

I see "not bad" as "it's okay."

Each of us interprets a phrase like 'not bad' based our own experience. I could live with 'it's okay'.

However, in my past, people who have said 'not bad' in regard to something I did follow that phrase up by pointing our the deficiencies in what I did do.

However, in my past, people who have said 'not bad' in regard to something I did follow that phrase up by pointing our the deficiencies in what I did do.

It's an informal expression.

Someone asks you, "How are you?"
You answer, "Not bad."

If you weren't okay, you might say, "I'm bad" or "Not good."

If you were having a really good day, you might say, "Great" or "Good."

Someone asks you, "How are you?"

You answer, "Not bad."

I personally would never say 'not bad' if I were feeling good for it has a negative connotation to me. I would say Good or Okay.

As I said, we all interpret similar phrases based on personal experience. We often come up with different meanings.

I consider "Not Bad" to be better than "Not Good".

So does SOL.

4 - not good
5 - some good, some bad
6 - not bad

remove any descriptions from the scores except for 1 and 10.

That is a possibility, but some guidance would be useful. How about:

1 – Total Waste of Time and Effort
2 – Very Bad
3 – Bad
4 – Not Good
5 – Mostly Good, Some Bad
6 – Average
7 – Good
8 – Very Good
9 – Outstanding
10 – Worth Reading Again and Again

We could also move to a like/dislike system.

We could but it would invalidate Lazeez's purpose. Lazeez has also said he is not going to change, or even address changing, the system again. My rating nomenclature is about changing the descriptions of the numbers, not changing the system.

Changing what the numbers mean, is changing the system.

Changing the system means how the ratings are calculated. Changing a label is not changing the system.

As I said in another thread, we all define terms differently.

You apparently define a non-functionality change to the code to be a change to the system.

I require that the code's functionality be changed in order to qualify as a change to the system.

I require that the code's functionality be changed in order to qualify as a change to the system.

Keep in mind, if the definition of a 6 changes, that means the old 6s won't equate to the new 6s. For that reason, it's a change to the system.

For that reason, it's a change to the system.

Since system has not been defined above, I will take a stab at a brief description.

The system begins with code that allows readers to input their raw scores. Then the code uses the raw scores and a number of factors to calculate an overall rating and the code displays that rating as the story's adjusted rating.

Changing the code to display new labels changes how readers view and use the system. As I said earlier, doing so is a cosmetic change to the system's code, in that the change does not affect the way the system's code calculates the rating.

Changing the code to display new labels changes how readers view and use the system.

Unless the new labels have identical meanings to the old ones, those readers who take the labels seriously might assign different values to stories, resulting in different overall scores.

On Systems Analysis courses, I was taught that 'system' was all encompassing, not just computer calculations, so using that definition I'd have to agree with those who reckon changing the labels represents a change to the system.

AJ

I'd have to agree with those who reckon changing the labels represents a change to the system.

That may be so in general terms. But as I said, Lazeez stated that he was not going to change the way the system calculates the raw score, and that type of code change is what I earlier defined as a change to the system.

So you are actually saying that a set of labels that are clearer in meaning relative to each other than the current labels will change the rating a reader assigns to a story.

What that means is the current labels are inappropriate and need to be changed regardless of whether the change is a change to the system or not.

If it were broken, fix it. It's not broken, so don't change it.

I agree with that sentiment. You see the labels as acceptable. I see them as inappropriate and in need of change. Some people agree with you, and some with me.

For some stories, there is no rating low enough to be appropriate.

There's a disconnect between the description the reader thinks best applies to the story and the number it translates to. Perhaps the number should be displayed in the drop-down listbox as well as the wording.

AJ

There's a disconnect between the description the reader thinks best applies to the story and the number it translates to.

I'm not sure there is such a disconnect. I don't really look at what the words say, per se. I see a scale of 1 to 10, decide where the story fits on the scale, and then pick the one that matches that spot. Be they words or stars the selected spot is the same for me, and also for those I've personally spoken to about this issue. If you changed all the wordings I doubt I'd notice the changes at all. I vote on S0L the exact same way I vote on FS, and it only has stars.

I vote on S0L the exact same way I vote on FS, and it only has stars.

They show up as empty squares in my browser :(

AJ

I see a scale of 1 to 10, decide where the story fits on the scale, and then pick the one that matches that spot.

You may pick your numeric rating value at the proper point on the current scale, but since there are no integer labels, I strongly suspect the value you select is influenced by the words used to define those unmentioned integers. Since you know that Lazeez scale uses 6 as the average, that probably influences your selection also.

Personally, if I wanted to have an 'average' value, I would want it at the center of the integer range. Therefore, I would define an odd number of values. Instead of 1-10, I would use 1-9 and define 5 as average. The 1-10 range means the average is 5.5 and since the reader selection are integer values, average would be defined as either 5 or 6.

Most 1-10 scales define 5 as the average value, and I suspect most readers think of 5 as average. I suspect they think of 1-3 as their Poor range, 4-6 as their Good range, and 7-10 as their Excellent range. If that is true, Lazeez's weighting system adjusts the readers' raw scores of 5 to produce 6 as his adjusted average. If the labels were adjusted to reflect 6 as average, then the weighting system might produce a 7 instead of a 6 for an average story. :(

There really is no good answer. Most readers are not aware of the weighting system shifting their raw rating value to a higher value. I don't have a problem with adjusting the value, but I have never like the words selected as labels, so perhaps new labels that reflect 5 as average would be a good idea.

Lazeez's weighting system adjusts the readers' raw scores of 5 to produce 6 as his adjusted average.

Most readers are not aware of the weighting system shifting their raw rating value to a higher value.

Actually, it's the other way around. The system changes the raw scores downward. It was done because the scores used to be too high.

Yes, I did say that backwards.

So an average reader who considers average to be a rating of 5 is effectively giving the story a 4 after the system adjusts the readers' scores based on 6 being its average.

Minor edit.

Did I say it right this time SB?

Did I say it right this time SB?

I don't know how it works, only that it adjusts downward.

Several factors are in play. One is the scores given to other stories in a related time period to yours. So if you happen to get your score re-calculated when the other stories are getting really high scores, you're downloaded more than if those other stories were getting average or less than average scores. But I believe the time period is long enough for that influence to be lessened.

When I score a story, I use the descriptions. Outstanding is "Wow, this story is really really good." Great is "I liked this story a lot." Not bad is "the story is okay." Is that average? I don't look at averages especially since we're not seeing raw scores.

Since the score is basically the appeal to the reader, I believe the descriptions are better than numeric numbers. So how did the story appeal to you? It was outstanding. It was not bad (okay). It had some good and some bad. Makes sense to me.

a question of deciding if I will read a story again

I've only done that by accident. Sometimes I realize it while reading it and other times I see that I've already scored it.

But I've never read a traditionally published novel more than once either. Movies are different. If I like it, I'll watch it many times.

I can't even list the number of movies I've seen over 20 times.

The Godfather, V for Vendetta, Die Hard, It's a Wonderful Life, West Side Story, Les Miserable (the musical), Singing in the Rain, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and on and on.

Even new movies. I must have seen Hidden Figures and The Imitation Game at least 10 times each.

I love movies.

[This is not a complaint, just a suggestion for an alternative to consider]

Some years back Lazeez finally got fed up with all the bitching about the scoring system. He made a few changes to have it what he saw as a fairer system - they were to deal with the 1 bomb haters, fan bois, and comparing scores under old systems to the current one. He then said that was it, no more changes end of story - I kind of believe him in that I doubt he'll make any more changes to it at all. Thus any discussion on possible or wanted changes is simply a waste of electrons.