Talk:H+Pedia:Article Ratings

From H+Pedia
Revision as of 16:55, 16 September 2018 by TranshumanTees (talk | contribs) (Other ratings)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Specific rating types

We will need criteria for:

  • Media/reviews
  • Organisations
  • Ideas
  • More?

Deku-shrub (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2018 (CDT)

Other ratings

I thought of adding a special category for a highly SEO ranked article, maybe a Church of Google inspired logo? Deku-shrub (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2018 (CDT)

I'm just brainstorming so far, but I have an idea: The "5 Plus" rating system.

  • 1+ For completeness
  • 1+ For article/page depth
  • 1+ For social impact (links out/in or whatever)
  • 1+ For number of contributors (like the Westworld page would get one for this easily)
  • 1+ For something else I haven't thought of yet. Perhaps clarity and/or spelling/grammar? A featured article should be free of errors and easy to read I feel.

1/2 stars could also be awarded, an article must be rated at least 4.5+ in order to be considered for featuring.

I don't think we need to a different rating system for different types of article as mentioned above, that might over-complicate it?

Just a thought. LMK what ya think. 🙂 --TranshumanTees (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2018 (CDT)

"For completeness" - right, hence I added Category:Complete articles but I mainly considered this useful for small pages that will never grow significantly. It's less a rating, more a flag to say 'don't bother trying to work on this any more'
"For article/page depth" - this is a good qualification. But we must accept that not all pages can or should be in depth. Transhumanist factions for example and things related to core mission, should be in depth. Details about specific emerging technologies that are best served by e.g. Wikipedia should not be in depth, except where Wikipedia won't cover them.
"For social impact (links out/in or whatever)" - not sure what you mean here. Use by people using H+Pedia? Or use by people based elsewhere? Anarcho-transhumanism for example gets a lot of off-site use, but it's currently pretty exceptional. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2018 (CDT)
"For number of contributors" - I don't think it's about numbers, so much having been diversely contributed to an diversely copy edited. Definitely a good metric though.
Deku-shrub (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2018 (CDT)

Great points! Completeness should be a main one for sure. Doesn't matter about length/depth then.

Depth: I was thinking more along the lines of completeness here too, so it wouldn't matter whether it was a short or long page/article. But redundant with "completeness" as a factor then...

Social impact: I was thinking pages that either; link well inside the site, like to other related topics, or as you mentioned above with the anarcho-transuhamanism page being frequently used. But if it is an exception, that probably won't work.

Number of contribs: I wasn't sure that would be a solid enough metric either. Just something that came to mind.

I think completeness and spelling/grammar should definitely to be key factors. Not entirely sure about the other 3. --TranshumanTees (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (CDT)