Hi, i'm new on here.. just wondered how the rating system works on this site? Thanks, Gemma
Topic by gemma87 | last reply
It's a suggestion for rating and info user page . When you locate the mouse on a user face , you can see the feature % , best answers % , .... . Why we can't see the "Rate %" ? I think is a helpful way to know how much is the affection of people to this user's instructables . For example you can put a percent for rating . 0-100 % . or more ways . I want to see your look about my suggestion .
Topic by farzadbayan | last reply
How does the rating system work. First i posted a short instructable video about my pinball. Though having 358 views the rating stayed on zero (no star at all). Now, I have improved massively on the post https://www.instructables.com/id/Mechanical-Table-Pinball-IMPROVED-instructable/ and still no rating. Is the function broken or do I just have to face the fact, that nobody seems to care..? :-)
Topic by inspiredwood | last reply
I was just updating the group today, and I noticed that this group has been here for at least six months, and this group has no ratings! I would rate it myself, but I can't rate my own group..... If you were to search for other water war related groups, how many would you find? I checked recently, and unless somebody decided to make one, I found one result-The Water Warrior Group. If this is the only water war related group on all of instructables, then don't you think we could use some stars? If you happen to read this, add a rating! It'll make you feel better about your life, and it'll certainly make me feel better about mine!
Topic by MattGyver92 | last reply
Thanks to some guy who unpublished my latest rating because it was posted an instructable can be blamed for me stopping my rating system. Sorry DjRadio because I can't post them as forum topics and I'm not going to waste my time transferring them. As for Dj, the Ar-3 was great and shot 70 feet. Best true bolt action ever. Sorry about this but I'm going back to making new things.
Topic by Electroinnovation | last reply
Never mind---just read this if you're bored or something......Canida explained it for me What happened Instructables?! All of a sudden half of the instuctables on this site are boosted up a whole number! My best instructable used to be 4.08 which was very good but now all of a sudden its 5 exactly. I feel the new rating system is too easy and it is making it so every instructable has ratings which are way too high. I cant even sort by rating anymore because there's at least 1,000 instructables that are 5 stars and it doesnt show me the true best instructable of that category! Please fix!
Topic by Electroinnovation | last reply
I would like to find out how everyone thinks of the knexers here.Rate form 1 to 101= Horrible2= Very Bad3= Bad4= Not Good5= Getting there6= Okay7= Good8= Really Good9= Awesome10= Knex GodNow just rate these Knexers1.Mepain2.Oodalumps3.Perfect Duck4.Mykhailo5.Dsman1952766.I_Am_Canadian7.Jollex8.TheDunkis9.J-Chode10.PineapplebobTheGreatYou cannot rate your selfExample Post:1. 102. 103. 104. 105. 96. 87.8. 79. 810. 7
Topic by jollex | last reply
I was sorting out my favourites and I noticed there was a rating on some of them. Who rates content? What does it do? When can I rate something? Where are the people that rate stuff? Why should I take notice of ratings? How can I rate an Instructable? I have attached a screenshot.
Question by JM1999 | last reply
A lot of people are complaining about the new Rating Sytem. Well, here's the thing, if you don't rate, these ratings won't become balanced, and they'll stay that way forever!Rating isn't hard, just choose how many stars an Ible or topic deserves!Even if its just a forum topic, rate it!It won't take your time! We need to get these ratings moving!If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Topic by Keith-Kid | last reply
I have rated many instructables so far, but I just realized that I can't rate accurately unless I actually make the thing in the instructable. From now on, I am going to just rate the instructables that I make. Secondly, it will be almost impossible to pull a 5 star rating from me any more. Almost no instructables are the "best ever", so I will not rate it so. Do not ask me if I rated your instructable, I will tell you if I built it or not. That's just my opinion on ratings.
Topic by TheChemiker | last reply
It just occurred to me that Instructable ratings are based in part on the necessity to return to the Instructable to review instructions. Instructables that have steps that are intuitive and/or easy to remember may not get any ratings. In other words good ratings equal Instructable complicated enough to require several visits. That leaves number of views. With a nude or two you could probably get a lot of visitors and a very high rating as well. ;-(
Topic by watermelon | last reply
Ok, so 2 days ago, I was looking for the highest rated Instructable, and it was the 'Useless Machine', with around 4.8 stars. Today, iIooked at the highest rated Instructable, and all of a sudden, there are arounsd 10 instructables with exactly 5*, with few ratings (around 35). The same happened in the Knex section, the 2 highest rated things are exactly 5*, even though I know peoople who rated them 4.5* (me being one of them), the 'Striker' has around 25 ratings- how is this possible? Is this legitimate, or is it a bug? or a hack? I don't know but I want answers!
Topic by TheFoofinator | last reply
I was looking around on instructables today and i saw some people rating a gun out of 10 so i though we could all rate guns. But what does each number actually mean? and should there be different ways of rating for Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced guns? Please give your opinions.
Topic by Loosewire; SOE Operative | last reply
Is it my imagination or did a lot of the entries in the Soft Circuit take a ratings drop. Since most ratings are at 4 or above the majority of those entered into the contest are below 4, and I think this happened over night. I was looking at someones entry this morning an was surprised at how low the rating was. When I looked at other contest entries they all seemed unusually low. Also mine had dropped from 4.17 to 3.67 overnight. Is this a bug?
Topic by ChrysN | last reply
Some time ago YouTube changed their rating system from stars, to likes and, dislikes. I was just curios if it would be illegal for Instructables to utilize this same method. Also, if anyone prefers the like/dislike method better than the stars method then, tell me in the comments.
Topic by wenpherd | last reply
In our recent update, one of the major changes is the removal of ratings and emphasis on favorites. Key points: We did this because most people rate either 1 star or 5 stars The ratings ended up extremely close to one another and became meaningless Our experience with a +/- system showed that having a down vote made for a toxic experience for everyone We're now just using the favorite button now to simplify and keep it a positive experience for all Read on for more details. We've had a rocky relationship with ratings. When we started Instructables in 2005, we had a "+/-" rating system where members could express either an up or a down vote for an Instructable. Good Instructables generally received lots of "+" votes, and the list of the most negatively voted Instructables was pretty amusing (with this taking the bottom position for quite some time). Our experience with this system was two-fold: first, negative ratings really didn't add much value to the community and were often given in a mean-spirited way rather than in a spirit of constructive criticism; second, the community expressed an interest in giving a more nuanced rating to an Instructable. In fact, for a while members would comment on a project and assign it a letter grade from A to F. So, we implemented a 5-star rating system. An Instructable's rating was calculated by the average of all of its ratings. This method is fine when there were lots of ratings, but gives poor results when there are few. For example, if the first two raters of a newly published Instructable both rated it 1 star (for whatever reason), that Instructable would appear to be terrible by its rating, and its rating would only improve as more people decided to give it a chance and perhaps rate it. It is an awful experience for new authors to watch their work be initially down rated and then maybe improve over several days. To address this, we built a Bayesian rating system with 5 stars. The objective was to push the rating of an Instructable towards the average rating of all Instructables when it had few raters. As more people rated it, the rating could diverge further and further from the average. We spent quite some time optimizing this system: we built messages helping people understand what 1 star meant vs. 5 stars; we made it so the first couple dozen ratings of a new member had lower weight than later ratings (so it was difficult to change an Instructable's rating by rating it with lots of newly created accounts); and we tweaked all of the underlying knobs and ratios. When everything had settled, a newly published Instructable would have a rating around 3, a very good Instructable could get to around 4, and an extremely popular and highly rated Instructable approached 4.8 or 4.9. It seemed like the system was working, and it gave a quantitative measure of the quality of an Instructable in relation to other Instructables. However, it was ultimately deeply dissatisfying. After all this work, and lots of input from the community through ratings, thousands of Instructables were all rated pretty much the same, with only slight differences in the rating's third digit. The slight variations were most likely noise, and the ranking didn't give a definitive sense of quality to a new visitor nor a sense of accomplishment to an author. What does it mean to say Sweet Potato Fries is rated 4.22 compared to Arduino-Controlled Robotic Drum at 4.23? Is the rating going to help you decide which Instructable you might try your hand at? Further, when we looked at how people actually rated, it turned out that ratings were heavily skewed towards 1 star or 5 stars. Even after requesting more nuanced ratings, and despite how we described what various star levels meant, people were still only giving As or Fs -- either they liked the Instructable or they didn't. This system probably would have been ok if not for two factors: star ratings appearing in Google searches and the rise of the "Like" button. If you search for "sweet potato fries" on Google you'll likely get a couple of recipes including one from Instructables. Many first time visitors to Instructables find us through searches -- many of them food-related -- so it's very important how our content appears in search results. A while back, Google started including star ratings in some of the search results, primarily recipes. Many recipe sites have 5-star rating systems, so I guess the presumption was that including the ratings might help searchers better choose between results. Unfortunately, this doesn't work because you cannot compare the ratings of one site to the ratings of another. For example, many of the results for a "sweet potato fries" search have 5-star ratings using a basic average system (you can easily tell by the number of raters), while the result from Instructables might have more raters giving it 5-stars, but because of our Bayesian system, the overall rating might only be 4 stars. On Instructables, 4 stars represents a very good project, while on another site, everything -- even garbage -- might be rated 5. All of our work to create a meaningful rating system was being used to penalize us in search results -- why would a searcher click through to a 4-star sweet potato fries recipe when they could go to a 5-star recipe? We couldn't tell how many people were choosing not to visit Instructables because our projects had lower star ratings, but we needed to do something. I'm not proud to admit this, but our solution was to inflate all of our ratings by a full star. Instructables rated 4.9 were suddenly joined by Instructables previously rated 3.9. The ratings became even more meaningless because lots of Instructables were now all rated 4.5 or greater. At this same time, Facebook's "Like" button was gaining momentum. The "Like" button is a pretty nice concept as it eliminates the ability to express a negative preference and it associates an individual with the rating. I think it's more meaningful to know that 10 people like my Instructable than it is to have a 4.5 (or whatever) rating, even if that rating is the result of 10 people giving me 5 stars. Not everyone on Instructables uses Facebook, nor do we want to outsource our rating system to Facebook, but we wanted to learn from the success of the "Like" button and expand upon the concept to make our rating system less like giving a grade or being graded. To accomplish this, we've removed our ratings and made the "favorite" action the way to express a preference on an Instructable. Marking something as a favorite is more of a commitment than saying you like it or giving it a rating, but this is a distinction I see as important and worth developing. At Instructables, we hope to inspire you to take action and build something great which requires a greater commitment than simply liking something. In the future, we plan to expand what you can do with favorites, exploring concepts such as "I made it" and "I want to make it" among others. Do we need something more akin to a like button in addition to favorites? I'm not sure, and I'd love your feedback. We'll be closely watching how people use favorites in its new, highly prominent position. As with most things, this is an experiment, and we're collecting data to see if this change is something that helps our authors. I hope you've enjoyed seeing a little bit under the hood about our rating system! Let us know what you think.
Topic by ewilhelm | last reply
I'd just like to say two things in relation to the new 'view ratings' feature: Firstly, while you can now see who rated your project low, this doesn't mean said person hates you. They probably don't even remember doing it. Sure, mention it to them (I myself have sent a few choice PMs), but don't dwell on it. You have probably done it at some point, and would probably rather forget about it. See this as a chance to correct your mistakes and give older projects a fair rating if you want. Having said this, I would hate to see people bullied into giving 5* ratings to everything for fear that they may get picked up on the odd 3.5* etc. As long as you express your honest opinion. But seriously, ratings on this site are typically ridiculously skewed anyway, so I wouldn't get too hung up over it. Most people don't care about ratings at all.
Topic by knexguy | last reply
Somewhat confused... I'm planning some guerilla projections with a 4500lumen projector (which has a power rating of 450w) can I run it with a 700w inverter? Instructable on these pages says I need 2000w+ inverter can anyone explain why I need so much headroom.
Topic by helterskelter | last reply
I am currently working on a project to rate knex guns, and I need your help. I need 2 people who have a lot off time and knex so you can build at least I new gun per week. We will all build the gun and I will make the collaboration. We will come to an agreement for each category and post the final results. This project should go on for a few months. Please comment.
Topic by Electroinnovation | last reply
I didn't see a Feedback category, so if this isn't in the right place, please move it. In Q and A, the line is "Don't be shy.....ask it." OK. And we've all heard that there are no stupid questions, right? But if ibles is trying to encourage honest (non-troll) questions, rating a question as "Worthless" has the opposite effect. Maybe the question has limited interest. Maybe few people view it. Maybe fewer people answer. These are neutral characteristics, and perhaps they are criterion by which someone judges the questions. To call a question "Worthless", however, is a real slap down and not in keeping with the idea of "be nice". I see that my questions are sometimes rated "Worthless," and, yeah, I feel bad when I see that. ( Maybe I'm too dumb for ibles? Maybe I don't measure up to ible standards? Maybe I'm not really welcome here??) I ask questions because I want answers, and this community is full of helpful people who have useful experience and good ideas. Despite the worthless ratings, I'm getting useful answers from the community and intend to keep asking. If only authors can see the ratings, is the intent to berate us into asking better questions? Constructive criticism might be more effective. If everyone can see the ratings, is the intent to guide readers away from "worthless" questions or to shame the authors into going away?
Topic by mole1 | last reply
Yes before you ask I'm one of those annoying knexers that pretty much everyone hates including ourselves! The reason I say that is because there are some people who get jealous or just want to beat other people so they purposely rate our instructables low to knock us off the front page. This happened to me three times! I only have one left on the front page and I know I'm probably making a bigger deal of this than you guys care but I really wish there was a way to at least report if you think someone attacked it so that we can track those who do it to stop them.
Topic by TheDunkis | last reply
I keep browsing through Answers, and i have noticed that alot of times, the person who asks the question never really selects a best answer, and sometimes it's because alot of the answers are similar. Is there a way for users to rate on another's answers, selecting a best answer by vote?
Question by cyc4015 | last reply
From the Knex section of the site, many members are dissapointed at the loss of the 'rating' filter. Instructable's rating system makes the very best stand out, due to not being based on percentage, and mow they are being shrouded in darkness. Could we please have the rating filter back?
Topic by ~Aeronous~ | last reply
Since the staff changed the ratings paradigm, I've seen only one instructable with a rating of 4 or above. And I've personally rated a few with 4.5.... Why are we suddenly so stingy with our ratings? (Is it like the "negative rating" days? down-rating because we can?) Or is the new system weighted, also? (with views, etc., factored, too?)
Topic by gmoon | last reply
So I decided to give the knex pinwheel here: https://www.instructables.com/id/Knex-Pinwheel/ 4.5 stars out of 5. However, the rating did not change. Before I rated it it was at a 3.38, with 3 ratings. After, it was still a 3.38, with 3 ratings. I tried rating it other ratings and this did not change the rating either. Again, this shouldn't be on the top of a priority list or anything, but its definitely worth fixing.
Topic by DJ Radio | last reply
I have discovered that while viewing Instructables, I cannot rate them because no stars appear in the box to the right. I see the current rating and number of views but no stars. I did discover that by passing my cursor above the rating that the value of the stars appears to the right of the current rating in blue. I am able now to rate the Instructable. However, it begs the question: if this bug is keeping many people from rating projects since they do not see the stars.
Topic by sirmorrow | last reply
As you have all noticed, Instructables has recently implemented a new rating system, based on stars (insert 2001 A Space Odyssey joke here). We've done a bit of experimenting -- and reserve the right to do more in future -- but it's stable for now so here's how it works. UPDATE 2010-09-24: The below calculation has been tweaked to bring Instructables' ratings closer to the level of ratings of comparable content on the Internet generally. We found that we run about a star low, based on a rough look at a bunch of other sites and our (totally unbiased of course!) estimates of their content quality. So, we have added a star to all ratings across the board. It's like grade inflation... but we know our users put up really good stuff and we want that to be recognized. UPDATE: we've tweaked the system a bit more. The below describes the rating system as of 2008-11-15. The rating system uses a weighted average, where Instructables with only a few ratings, or ratings by users who have not rated many Instructables, have a total closer to the middle of the star range than the actual average of the ratings. For example, an Instructable with one five-star rating will have a total closer to 4 than to 5, because there are so few ratings on it. If the user who rated it hasn't rated other Instructables, the total will be lower than if the user who rated it has done a lot of rating in the past. The purpose of this difference is to minimize the effect of 'shill' ratings; we've seen some members attempt to bump their ratings by creating fake accounts just to rate up an Instructable or two! As more people rate each Instructable, the total becomes closer and closer to the true average of the ratings. And as each user rates more and more Instructables, we weight their rating higher and higher. We have done it this way because we want the rating to reflect the opinion of the whole community, and we believe that members who do a lot of rating have been around enough to have a good sense of what makes a good Instructable. Also, members who comment and rate have their rating counted higher, as the comment indicates a higher level of involvement with the Instructable than rating alone. This method makes it so a less-than-stellar Instructable can't be pushed to the very top of the ratings because the author got their friends to sign up and rate it at 5 stars; similarly a really good Instructable can't be dragged too far down by a malicious user. For the mathy amongst you, this is the formula (we changed the way one component is calculated): (siteAvgNumRates * siteAvgRating) + (numRates(ible) * avgRating(ible)) R(ible) = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- siteAvgNumRates + numRates(ible) The avgRating(ible) is no longer a straight average, but a weighted one. It's calculated like this: (W1*R1 + W2*R2 + ... + Wx*Rx) + 2(V1*C1 +V2* C2 + ... + Vy*Cy) -------------------------------------------------------------- (W1 + W2 + ... + Wx) + 2(V1 + V2 + ... + Vy) Pretty complicated algebra, huh? W and V are both weight values, between 0 and 1. R is the rating of someone who has not commented, and C is the rating of someone who has commented. siteAvgNumRates and siteAvgRating are estimates, held constant in the pursuit of not having ALL ratings change every time one person rates one Instructable. As you can see, when the number of ratings for a particular Instructable is low, the weight of the site averages count for much more of the rating value. When the rating count is high, the site averages are only a small part of the total rating value. We believe this algorithm has a good balance between letting the cream rise to the top, and preventing 'rating spam' to coin a term. Please comment!
Topic by rachel | last reply