On 14 September 2011 15:15, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
expectations that aren't always met. This is a
case where viewing
figures don't help, as lots of people click through to the FA, but the
question here is what the reaction is of those readers. But then I'm
This may be a rare case where the reader-feedback option is actually
of some indicative use :-)
There's currently 60-70 valid ratings on the article, averaging about
4.5 in all four categories; "complete" is the closest we have to a
proxy for "of sufficient length", and it's a safe 4.4. Yesterday's
fungus article, of more reasonable length, scored 3.6 on all counts
with 14 ratings, so length doesn't immediately appear to be a major
factor of disquiet...
(This is a bit shaky to draw conclusions from, I know - it's hard to
do a study on this because of the way ratings "expire" after thirty
edits, so you can't easily look at what the reaction to past articles
was. Is it technically possible to extract all the ratings received by
an article in a specific time period? It might be very interesting to
use the daily FAs, which we know get a lot of traffic and are unlikely
to have drastic flaws, to study as a defined set...)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk