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

Re: [podcasters] Voting and podcast stats

Expand Messages
  • Carl D Cravens
    ... If you re at the top of the rankings, you re more likely to get noticed by big-media. Regardless of how poor an indicator of worth vote rankings are,
    Message 1 of 33 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Dennis Hays wrote:

      > IMO, voting gets you to the top of some "scale" where more
      > potential listeners can see you exist and try out your
      > podcast. Other than that, and some ego strokes, what else
      > does voting do for a podcaster?

      If you're at the top of the rankings, you're more likely to get
      noticed by big-media.

      Regardless of how poor an indicator of "worth" vote rankings are,
      being high in the rankings gets you attention... newcomers will try
      you out just because you're in the top-ten.

      --
      Carl D Cravens (raven@...)
      Error reading user's mind (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)ntuit
    • 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.