Talk:Rating site

	This redirect is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet culture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Rate-me sites talk

(moved here from Talk:Rate-me site)

Comment

This aricle reads more like an advertisement for those rate-me sites than an encyclopedic article. for that reason, it should be deleted. --Revision as of 03:37, 18 July 2006 (edit) User:69.59.203.122 (Talk)

Removing all external links

I removed all the external links, as there was clearly no attempt made to figure out which of them might be notable or well known sites and which weren't. Links to a few such sites might be reasonable, linking to every one in existence is not. See Wikipedia:External links. --Xyzzyplugh 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep some links as examples so people know what rate-me sites look like. Therefore, I've restored the "external links" section for now. However, most of those links seem to be spam, so I've also added the {{cleanup-spam}} tag. --Ixfd64 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

note from james hon: actually, the average score on hotornot of all pictures submitted IS 5.5 (average of 1 to 10). However, pictures are only allocated more ratings as users continue to check their score. Due to a tendency for people with higher scores to stick around and check their scores longer, the pictures with higher scores tend to be shown more often.

This comment made by User:64.166.226.169, was moved from the talkpage. --Sjakkalle 07:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hot or Not talk

(moved here from Talk:Hot or Not)

Had to revert your comment even though it was true -- so sorry

User:Zanimum added the comment that 7 of the top 10 girls were listed as being "gay/lesbian". I checked and it's true! My guess is that girls in this category get more "10" votes regardless of the appearance of their face. I also noticed that two of them were 50 years old, and one was in her forties. She was remarkably well preserved for her advanced age. Alas, truth is no defense for original research, which is the main reason the change couldn't stay in. Now, just get someone to publish an article in a reputable newspaper in which it is reported that 7 of the top 10 girls are gay, and that comment goes right back in the article!—GraemeMcRae^talk 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, one might even get the impression that someone was gaming the system... five of the top ten are also said to be six feet five inches tall (that's rounds off to 1.96 metres).--Pharos 03:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hot or Not is more-or-less reputable. Much of the content they produce is written. They provide this content for the consumption of the marketplace. In other words, the Hotornot site is a reputable publication. Any information taken directly from their site is not original research. I didn't see the comment in question, but if the Wikipedian feels the sexual orientation question is pertinent to the article, he or she could just make a table of top rated users and their basic information, citing Hotornot.com as the source. --24.123.158.30 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Uh if it's true then i see no reason it shouldn't be in the aritcle , if i tell you the sun is bright and you go outside and you see that it's true , then i don't think we need an article to confirm what we can see for our selves . Of course i may have misinterperted what you wrote above.i'm new to wiki , ray 12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system

Can someone provide a clearer explanation of the voting system for me? Like why the raw data shows different results than the average score, and how they interpret voting styles? As well as clarifying the paragraph in the article? Thanks, --Mercury1 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning + possible merge

I'm going to give these two pages a little cleaning and do a possible merge. I've done some research on these sites as well as other rating polls in the past are few rating sites I've collected a few as well. Feel free to leave questions or comments here about rating sites, in general, if you have them; I like rating sites. Also please don't delete all the external links; there are dozens of "rating sites" spin-offs that have emerged since hot-or-not, and good ones are hard to find. Many are very interesting and give telling information about human patterns. Also, I would favor a merge on all of these sites, i.e. Hot or Not, Rate-me site, and any others that crop up, to rating sites with a header-section to the main 3 to 5 sites. The latter name seems to confining, e.g. now that there are political rating sites, rate my personality, rate my legs, rate my dog, rate my teacher, etc. (click here, for a few examples, and click here, for about a 100 rating sites); moreover, in common language people refer to these as photo or personality “rating sites” not “rate-me sites”, as it is now. --Sadi Carnot 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I see that there isn’t a lot of flow on these two pages, and I see that anons like adding many links to these pages, e.g. such as this version. Many of these are just repeats of Hot or Not; some however, I’ve found, are tasteful and interesting, such as:

Kiss or Diss – Amateur Video, e.g. Humor, Dance, Misc, Etc., Rating Site

Anyway, I’ll try to sort out the good ones over coming weeks, maybe three good ones for each “category” or something along these lines. I’ll likely follow the following nutshell guideline:

This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

I also want to write the history section, if anyone has any leads? I’ve read the history of how the 1-10 rating scale started (in the 1920s-70s?) somewhere, I’ll just have to dig around to find it? If there are no objections soon, I’ll likely merge all the related pages into “rating sites”, with a category “entertainment sites”. --Sadi Carnot 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link tracking update

Below are links that have been added and reverted lately by users. I'll put them here to get a consensus going. --Sadi Carnot 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good

Hot or Not Moderating Guide – Basic Rating System Information
Kiss or Diss – Rate Amateur Videos: Humor, Dance, Misc, Etc.

Decent

Rate My Voice – Rate Music: Pop, Rock, Country, R&B, and Random (this one seems cool)

So-So

Ambivalent

Weak

Rate Shots – Kind of lame, small pics, lots of ads.

Bad

Personally I'd say delete all the links except to those sites actually mentioned in the article (Rate My Face, Hot or Not etc) and possibly the HoN moderating guide as it gives such a good overview of the thinking behind these sites. Generally, the others aren't noteworthy; putting up only those sites editors consider 'good' violates NPOV whilst putting them all up will mean an unworkably large list; they can be found in 10 seconds on Google if anyone needs them; and, they generally have a short shelf life so it's likely to mean a page full of broken links. (Even RMF and HoN themselves seem to be fading fast.) Iridescent 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge update II

There doesn't seem to be a lot of editors involved in these pages, so I'm going to be bold and merge them all together to rating sites, then put each main site in chronological order, begin to add some sources, think about the pre-1999 history section, and try to organize the links per category. If the article gets to long down the road, we can always do sub-topics back out again. --Sadi Carnot 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging spree...

I've tagged this for spam and advertising and also for cleanup. I realise that the problems with this article stem from the merger of the multiple entries for the various sites into a single page. However, as Hot or Not's article was so much longer than the others, the article now reads like an extended advert for them. The article also seems to make a number of dubious and possibly contradictory claims. I do not have the expertise to do it, however I believe it neads at the very least a complete and thorough subedit (copy edit) and probably a complete rewrite. Iridescent 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up and remove a few extraneous links sure, but tagging with 6 messy header flags on an article that no one works is completely ridiculous. I've sent time trying to build this article maybe you can as well? Certainly, I'll admit, it's hard to write an encyclopedia on a bunch of websites, but it is a cultural phenomenon. I suggest we use one clean-up tag at the top of the article and we'll see if any one cleans it in the months to come. As for spam, the links at the bottom were put there by me. Maybe there’s a few spam inserts in the middle of the article somewhere, I’m not sure? I tried to pick a couple examples out of the 100s that are out there. Maybe you can help in this direction? For now I'm going to rv most of your tags as redundant. Please discuss here if have major objections. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting the tags - however I dispute the "article noone works" - while there's not been a lot of activity since the merger, a quick skim down the history of the old Hot or Not page shows an average of well over one edit a day in recent months by a large number of editors. As Hot or Not/Eight Days is still a major business, that James Hong, owner of HoN, is also heavily involved in running Wikimedia, and that there is considerable controversy within HoN regarding their restructured moderating system & their alleged deliberate distortion of results for commercial gain, I do feel it's important that this page be accurate; it's likely to attract more than its fair share of visitors, the HoN page in particular has always attracted a high level of vandalism and - given HoN's dominance of the sector - there's a risk of it becoming an extended advert. As I said above, most of the problems with the site in its current form stem from the fact that when the sites were merged HoN had a much longer entry, but at the moment there's a lot of duplication and uncited claims. As I say above, I don't have the mathematical knowledge to judge the counter-arguments regarding HoN's alleged bias and manipulation of results; as James Hong is a fairly regular contributor to this page hopefully he will be able to clarify the matter. Iridescent 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Hot or Not* mean attractiveness scores, in 2003, of 160 women, grouped at 40 per age category: (18-25), (26-32), (33-40), and (40+), showing that older ages are rated on a more gentle or forgiving scale, whereas the youngest category is judged on a harder scale.

I usually judge an article by the talk-page flow. Anyway, what is James Hong’s Wiki user name? As to the moderator system controversy, is there an article or page somewhere that we can source or use as a basis? If you give it to me, I’ll do the math and add a synopsis to the article. In 2003, for example, I studied the HoN rating distribution according to age category by counting the ratings of 160 women, 40 from each category: (18-25), (26-32), (33-40), and (40+). Those results, shown below, indicate that either the algorithm deviates or is biased per age or that older participants are scored on a more gentle scale (the latter seems to be the case according to others who have done similar types of sampling studies). Is this the kind of thing you were looking for? --Sadi Carnot 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that James Hong's Wiki user name is JHong but I'm not 100% certain of that. There were some contributions from him on the old Hot or Not user page but they appear to have vanished during a spurt of editing last year. There is an anonymous post purporting to be from him at the top of this talk page - the user ID (64.166.226.169) tracks back to downtown San Francisco where Eight Days Inc is based, so may be genuine. If so, his claim that HoN has a mean score of 5.5 is most definitely not borne out by your graph.

The Hot or Not Moderation Forum[1] contains a number of threads discussing alleged bias in the algorithm. Unfortunately the forum appears to be unmoderated, and so clogged up with flaming and arguments that it's virtually impossible to sort out exactly what is going on. Iridescent 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That forum is funny. I can’t believe that with all that discussion, the site has changed very little, in terms of improvement over the years. We’ll have to chip away at the moderator section a little at a time. Maybe J’s or some of the other HoN moderators can come over here to edit this article. Thanks for the link. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin section

I've deleted the "Origin" section as a blatant copyvio - taken verbatim from http://www.hotornot.com/pages/about.html, right down to the "our friends". Iridescent 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to split off Hot or Not

For heaven's sake! We only just merged them... - iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But hot or not deserves it's own page. It's had heaps of mentions in tv shows and movies, it's fairly famous, I can't see why it doesn't have it's own page to begin with! And dude, what's with your signature here, it takes up three lines of code on the edit page!JayKeaton 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and re-split them if you really feel the need — I, and I believe everyone else involved in this car-wreck of an article have pretty much washed our hands of it — but before you do so, you might want to have a skim through the long discussions that preceded the original merge — everything on this talk page aside from section 1 & this section is a re-posted copy of the discussion from the HoN page. You might also want to skim through the losing battle against original research, personal attacks, spamming/linkfarming and unsourced meanderings that constitutes the history of the old Hot or Not page to see just why the old article was killed off. Also in my experience from multiple attempts to rescue the HoN article, finding independent non-trivial sources that aren't just puff-pieces for Eight Days & their assorted companies is a lot harder than you'd think — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-splitting Hot or Not and every other company that gets a paragraph or more. Anything not notable either gets pared down to a list entry if sourced, or moved here to the talk page. I might make a separate "list of" article if the list gets long or unruly, or vandalized. Hot or not is a notable company, a significant (if somewhat marginal) Web 2.0 pioneer, and I'm sure there are verifiable sources. Wikidemo 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and pruning

Very recently, User:JzG and I furthered the ongoing clean-up of this article by removing and organizing a bunch of links to external sites. Although perhaps helpful or interesting to some, Wikipedia has guidelines against becoming a "link farm". If there is a site you would like to add, please realize that our verifiability policy requires that information be sourced, and relevant. We are not a directory of businesses or an indiscriminate list of random information. So please keep things tidy and organized. So if you add a link and somebody deletes it, that is probably what happened. Right now I have made a suggestion in the article that the standard for inclusion in the list is that a site should be either the subject of a proper Wikipedia article on its own, or somehow sourced by a citation to a reliable source.

Overall, this article still needs some sources, so any help is appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy?

ChaloNiZambia, this article has been around for fourteen years. If you really think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]