I noticed something funny, and illuminating, when browsing the Apple App Store. One game had this kind of rating:
In other words, 2.5 stars (which is even stated as text as well). This would indicate that the ratings are split pretty evenly. 50% approval rate.
However, the game had four 1-star ratings and two 5-star ratings. 1 star is the minimum rating, and 5 stars is the maximum.
Wait... That doesn't make any sense. That's not an even split. There are significantly more 1-star ratings than 5-star ratings (in fact, double the amount). That's not even close to an even split. Four people rated it at 1 star, and only two at 5 stars.
Is the calculation correct? Well, the weighted average is (4*1+2*5)/(4+2) = 2.333 ≈ 2.5 (we can allow rounding to the nearest half star.)
So the calculation is correct (allowing a small amount of rounding). It is indeed 2.5 stars. The graphic is correct.
But it still doesn't make any sense. How can 4x1 star + 2x5 stars give an even split? That's not possible. There are way more 1-star ratings than 5-star ratings. It can't be an even split! What's going on here?
The problem is that the graphic is misleading. The minimum vote is 1 star, not 0 stars. (If there were a possibility of 0-star ratings, then the graphic would actually be correct.)
The graphic becomes more intuitive if we remove the leftmost star:
Now it looks more intuitive. Now it looks like it better corresponds to the 4x1 - 2x5 split. In other words, a bit less than 50% rating.
Or to state it in another way: The problem is that the leftmost star is always "lit", regardless of what the actual ratings are, which gives a misleading and confusing impression.
In reality the rating system should be thought of as being in the 0-4 range (rather than 1-5), with only four stars, and the possibility of none of them being "lit". Then it becomes more intuitive and gives a better picture of how the ratings are split.
As it is, with a range of 1-5, with the leftmost star always "lit", it gives the false impression of the ratings being higher than they really are. I don't know if they do this deliberately, or if they just haven't thought of this.
In other words, 2.5 stars (which is even stated as text as well). This would indicate that the ratings are split pretty evenly. 50% approval rate.
However, the game had four 1-star ratings and two 5-star ratings. 1 star is the minimum rating, and 5 stars is the maximum.
Wait... That doesn't make any sense. That's not an even split. There are significantly more 1-star ratings than 5-star ratings (in fact, double the amount). That's not even close to an even split. Four people rated it at 1 star, and only two at 5 stars.
Is the calculation correct? Well, the weighted average is (4*1+2*5)/(4+2) = 2.333 ≈ 2.5 (we can allow rounding to the nearest half star.)
So the calculation is correct (allowing a small amount of rounding). It is indeed 2.5 stars. The graphic is correct.
But it still doesn't make any sense. How can 4x1 star + 2x5 stars give an even split? That's not possible. There are way more 1-star ratings than 5-star ratings. It can't be an even split! What's going on here?
The problem is that the graphic is misleading. The minimum vote is 1 star, not 0 stars. (If there were a possibility of 0-star ratings, then the graphic would actually be correct.)
The graphic becomes more intuitive if we remove the leftmost star:
Now it looks more intuitive. Now it looks like it better corresponds to the 4x1 - 2x5 split. In other words, a bit less than 50% rating.
Or to state it in another way: The problem is that the leftmost star is always "lit", regardless of what the actual ratings are, which gives a misleading and confusing impression.
In reality the rating system should be thought of as being in the 0-4 range (rather than 1-5), with only four stars, and the possibility of none of them being "lit". Then it becomes more intuitive and gives a better picture of how the ratings are split.
As it is, with a range of 1-5, with the leftmost star always "lit", it gives the false impression of the ratings being higher than they really are. I don't know if they do this deliberately, or if they just haven't thought of this.
Comments
Post a Comment