Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [podcasters] Voting and podcast stats

Expand Messages
  • Garrick Van Buren
    Evo - great mesage. Coincedently, Mark Ramsey just posted about the problem with Arbitron ratings:
    Message 1 of 33 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Evo - great mesage.

      Coincedently, Mark Ramsey just posted about the problem with Arbitron
      ratings: http://www.radiomarketingnexus.com/2005/11/the_looming_cri.html

      His point: Arbitron doesn't want to ask about satellite (probably
      podcasting too). What I pulled from it was the 'diary' methodology of
      measurement. Any of the current podcast ranking devices have the same
      problem as the Arbitron diary - it measures my memory of listenership
      rather than my listenership.

      In a post at the Work Better Weblog, I compared this against scoring a
      football game by asking the refs to remember who played better. (Oh,
      and I kept the meatloaf/lawn mower comparison also)

      http://workingpathways.com/workbetter/archive/our-memories-are-poor-measure-in-context/

      --
      Garrick.

      On 11/2/05, Mur Lafferty <mightymur@...> wrote:
      > Evo sez-
      > > I'm not disparaging anyone from casting votes nor asking for them on
      > > their shows. "To each his own". I've been guilty of it myself. In fact,
      > > we plugged it pretty hard on SoSF a few months back and hit #1 on PA.
      > > Then I grew disenchanted with the whole idea of constantly reminding
      > > people to vote, and now we're no where to be seen in the rankings. Our
      > > audience size (both subscribers and downloads) have increased since that
      > > time, which shatters the idea that a show with more votes has more
      > > listeners. It's not anecdotal for me any longer; it's fact.
      >
      > Mur sez-
      > I'm with Evo. I ran through the "Important" things the other day, and
      > I'd have to say "vote for me on podcast alley and subscribe through
      > iTunes and Odeo and yahoo and add me to your favorites on podcast
      > pickle and... and... and..."
      >
      > Eventuallly we'll have to make an entire podcast based on all the
      > places you can vote. Might be something for our Keeper of Directories
      > to consider, eh, Rob? :)
      >
      > --
      > Mur Lafferty
      >
      > Geek Fu Action Grip
      > http://www.geekfuactiongrip.com
      >
      > I Should be Writing
      > Http://www.ishouldbewriting.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      Garrick Van Buren
      ----------------------------------------------------
      garrick.vanburen@...
      ph: 612 325 9110
      -----------------------------------------------------
      First Crack Podcast
      http://firstcrackpodcast.com/

      gFeed - all my writing in one place
      http://garrickvanburen.com/gfeed/

      PodcastMN - The Sound of Minnesota
      http://podcastmn.com/

      Garrick's Podcast Picks
      http://gigadial.com/public/station/9454
    • P. Dilly
      Podcast pickle origianlly had a 5 star rating method when we first started. The problem with it was that people would rate a podcast with a bad rating to lower
      Message 33 of 33 , Nov 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Podcast pickle origianlly had a 5 star rating method when we first started.
        The problem with it was that people would rate a podcast with a bad rating
        to lower it. Then by lowering it, they passed it and became a higher rated
        cast

        On 11/2/05, alex_nesbitt <alex_nesbitt@...> wrote:
        >
        > We've been having a similar debate about how to rate/vote on
        > podcasts.
        >
        > We have used overall rating score, number of votes, number of
        > inclusions in My Podcast favorites and outbound hits ( all with ip
        > limits) to create lists of top ranked podcasts. I think we have two
        > (and maybe more) problems with our rankings. First, ratings are
        > based
        > on a 1-5 star scale and it's hard for a podcast that's been in the
        > directory awhile to maintain a perfect score. Second, none of these
        > measures take into account the number of days a podcast has been in
        > the directory. Old podcasts really get an advantage over new
        > podcasts
        > for total click throughs and total votes.
        >
        > Here's how I'm thinking of changing our overall ranking - we need
        > something that considers the curiosity factor (click throughs),
        > quality (ratings/reviews), quality of ratings (number of votes ) and
        > inclusion on favorite lists. Then we need to make sure we normalize
        > for the number of days on the site to take listing age out of the
        > equation.
        >
        > So something like clickthroughs/day*weighting factor
        > +votes*ratings/day*weighting factor +favorites/day*weighting factor
        >
        > What do you think about this idea?
        >
        > Alex
        > Digitalpodcast.com <http://Digitalpodcast.com>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        --
        Gary Leland

        http://www.podcastpickle.com

        http://www.sportpodcasts.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.