User talk:M-Sarge/sandbox

Need to address Ranking, Criteria, and Audience

Instead of starting with our names, I think it's more true to a "power-ranking" to name sections by the snack food. Additionally, since this is a "ranking," we should figure out criteria to rate and later rank these snack foods, but first we should decide who our audience is. I think the easiest, most easiest to address audience is college students on the go, but we could also do an audience like children or parents of small children because many of your personal stories are tied to being young. Tendollarfrog (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I agree, power ranking seems to be the appropriate approach, but I'm concerned about how we're going to divide the work since we need an introduction and each of us can only work on one subsection. I think 'college students on the go' would be a good audience since we would all have credibility for that. Some suggestions for criteria are: price, satisfaction, and availability. Although taste and texture are obvious factors for ranking food, we all have different preferences for eating snacks. These are also only suggestions, and I am open to changing or adding criteria. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

After rereading the project description, I believe we can edit as many sections as we want, as long as we don't mess with the one we originally wrote. The introduction will require extensive teamwork to come to several consensuses, so I think it would be better to have that discussion under another header in the talk page. I like your criteria and think it's definitely objective enough to be well received by the other authors, pending their input. How should we address this criteria? We could assign numerical values or just describe how well each snack food does in each. On a side note, I think it would be a good idea to create subsections to clearly show where each criteria is addressed. It may be a good way to additional organization for an otherwise lengthy piece of text. Tendollarfrog (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I agree that price should be used as a criteria. College kids and parents of young children care about how much snacks cost, which can determine if they purchase them. Personally, I think using college students as our audience might be better because it is easier to establish ethos. Also, when it comes to actually ranking the snacks, should we model it after the chair rankings on Onwardstate that we looked at in class? It gave an overall ranking and the specific data for each criteria. This could be useful for trying to actually arrange the snacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlgalvin (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should use numerical values for ranking (like from 1 to 5 or something similar), so that it would be easier to give an overall score for each snack. Also, each snack having a subsection for each criterion sounds like a great idea, so that it's easier to navigate through the wiki article, like if the user only cares about price, they can just look at that specific subsection for each snack. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think an average of the ratings next to the section name (the snack food name) would also be a good tool for readers just skimming the article. Tendollarfrog (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I think adding numbers to the ranking might make for unnecessary work. If we do that we'd have to make some sort of grading system with criteria for each number. It might be easier to not get into that.Appearing (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Without a grading scale, how will we effectively compare snack foods to be able to rank them, which is something pivotal to "power ranking" things? I think it's important to assign scores. Explaining and expanding upon what makes a 1, 3 or 5 is extra work, yes, but I believe it's a necessary evil to properly achieve to expectations of this assignment. Tendollarfrog (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Format of Snack Sections

If we are following through with each snack having subsections for criteria, I believe the section should describe the snack before going into the ratings. How much information should be put in the descriptions? I think we should give enough detail that the reader can get a good sense of what the snack looks and tastes like. However, I'm unsure if we should give any information like the manufacturer or how it first originated. Would it be better to just link it to its separate wiki article, assuming it has one? --Uwhoop bus (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think manufacturer information is relevant- they can go to a real page for that. I agree that a description is necessary, but only 50 to 100 words apiece. The guiding descriptive elements should be along the lines of: generic name, popular brand names, shape, size (ounces? relation to hand, etc), color, texture both to the touch and when eaten, taste, nutritional information, etc. Tendollarfrog (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Are we allowed to put photos in? We could just put a photo of each snack with a brief description and then go into the grading subsections.Appearing (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, pictures sound like a great idea, and I think the descriptive elements Tendollarfrog gave are sufficient enough for the descriptions of each snack, so that the reader can get a full sense of what the snack is if they've never tried it before. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should list each snack from weakest to strongest. Within each snack we should first give a brief description then talk about if the do or do not meet our set criteria, and finally give a rating out of 5 stars. I think your ideas on a 50-100 word description and its descriptive elements are good. But we need to decide on criteria in which to rank these snacks. If our audience is on-the-go- college students then I think one good criteria would be its ability to be eaten while mobile.M-Sarge (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. That will be a much later edit, though. Tendollarfrog (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Introduction

What should we put in the introduction? I think it's important to address the problem that our audience, college students, face by describing it. Additionally, our criteria should be introduced and what helps a snack score high or low in each. Is there anything else we could include before I begin working on a draft? Tendollarfrog (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I think we should also explain the criteria we chose (like price since most college students are frugal) and explain why we excluded some (like flavor since taste is subjective). --Uwhoop bus (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Message received! Tendollarfrog (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Criteria

Suggestions for criteria in which to judge our snacks have been brought up in a couple of sections so I thought it necessary to give it its own section. Price and ability to eat while mobile (or maybe just portability?) are good criteria. Does anyone have any other ideas? M-Sarge (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Uwhoop bus suggested that we use price, satisfaction, and availability on Saturday, but I think portability is an important criteria to include. Tendollarfrog (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Those four sound good to me, should we start a subsection for each and debate the rankings? Mlgalvin (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that works I'll start each subsection. I'm not 100% sure what "availability on a saturday" means so maybe Uwhoop bus can fill that out? M-Sarge (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Saturday was just the day she posted it. Tendollarfrog (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I think convenience would be a good criteria. For example; is it easy to carry around? Does it leave a dust on your fingers that you'll have to wipe off later? Does it leave crumbs? Convenience might not be the best word to describe these things though.Appearing (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think portability should be combined with this concept. Tendollarfrog (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Price

Here we'll debate price. This should be very straightforward as we need to find which is cheapest. We could argue over if the price is justified or size variants costing more or less however. M-Sarge (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should scrap this criterion, all snacks are 99 cents or a $1.99, leaving not much difference. Additionally, prices vary by quantity, location, etc. Tendollarfrog (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Since they are all cheap we could make them all just a 3 instead of removing the criterion. Mlgalvin (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they're all pretty cheap, but I think we should keep it in. However, if this means all the snacks get a score of 3 for price, I think it's because we all chose cheap snacks, so we can't see much of a difference. As M-Sarge suggested, we could argue if the snack is worth the price. The score could be determined by how well the snack does in the other criteria. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If we aren't going based on each snacks individual price then we should go off if they are worth the price. Like Uwhoop bus said we can determine this based on the other criteria so price should be the last thing we judge. But if this is how we decide to score it then wouldn't it be the same as our final rating? I think maybe we should also keep in mind the amount of snack you get. Like are there 3 or 6 donuts in those mini donut hostess packets that Tendollarfrog is using? If you are getting a lot of food for your snack the price rating should increase. M-Sarge (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case, 6 oreos are in a pack, 6 donuts are in a pack, im not sure if the fritos/chex mix are snack or family size, and gummy worms are probably a smaller snack bag. So for a dollar or two, fritos and chex mix are probably a 3, and donuts, oreos and worms are probably a 2. Mlgalvin (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On Walmarts site, a 40 pack of Oreos is 3 dollars and the 6 pack is 99 cents, so I think Oreos should be a 3. Tendollarfrog (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Satisfaction

I imagine this is where most of the debate will occur. I think it's important to distinguish satisfaction from "how good do I feel eating it" to "does it satisfy my hunger". I think arguing how good I feel eating will get us nowhere since we will all pick our favorite snack so we should probably choose satisfy hunger. Unless you meant which taste best and if that's the case then we should create another section for hunger satisfaction. Personally I think Oreos might be the most satisfying followed up by Chex Mix. A snack is supposed to satisfy your hunger but not fill you up. The powdered donuts can be very filling and the gummy worms and Fritos aren't quite filling enough. I think Oreos and Chex Mix strike a good balance but that may be my own personal bias because they are my two favorite snacks. M-Sarge (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth it to quantify this criteria (calorie content would be the most exact way), but I think your basic ranking works well and can be backed up using logic. We still haven't come to a consensus on if we are going to give each a score out of five in each criteria. Tendollarfrog (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I think the ranking should be as follows: 3- Oreos and Chex Mix, 2- doughnuts and fritos (can be too filling in my opinion), 1- gummy worms (not filling enough). Tendollarfrog (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I can agree to that. M-Sarge (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with these rankings. Mlgalvin (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Portability

Portability shouldn't be too hard as well. In my opinion it would go gummy worms > fritos > chex mix > oreos > donuts M-Sarge (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, portability also factors in if you have to wash your hands afterwards due to the mess they leave. So, my ranking would be gummy worms > chex mix > oreos > fritos > donuts because the type of fritos that are specified are nearly as sticky as donuts and are full of dust. Tendollarfrog (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I think if we factor in the amount of dust it leaves / mess factor we should call this category something besides portability.108.52.143.32 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)108.52.143.32 (talk) Appearing (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. My problem with portability is that all snacks are portable, but not all are clean. I think it's okay to combine both ideas into a "hassle" factor, but that isn't the right word for it. Tendollarfrog (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

I agree with Tendollarfrog. How much of a mess you are making definitely adds to the portability factor. My thinking for portability was not "can I take it somewhere" but rather how easy is it too eat while say walking or taking the bus. Gummy worms are very easy to eat this way but donuts not so much. I think portability is a good way to label the criteria but if somebody makes an argument for hassle or something else we can change it. M-Sarge (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Could we agree on a 3 for gummy worms, a 2 for oreos and donettes, and a 1 for the chex mix/fritos? Mlgalvin (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree! Tendollarfrog (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Scoring defintions

Heres some ideas for how to score each snack criteria out of 5.

1. 1- Performs very poorly
2. 2- Not the worst but could definitely be better
3. 3- Fulfills some of the requirements well, and others not so well
4. 4- Fulfills all the requirements
5. 5- Fulfills all the requirements and then some. There are no downsides

Heres some ideas for how to score each snack criteria out of 3.

1. 1- Performs very poorly
2. 2- Has room for improvement
3. 3- Great job we love it

I don't know if you guys would rather use a 5 point scale or a 3 point scale. I personally think the three-point scale may be more straightforward and easier to understand. However, the 5 point scale may give a more specific or accurate scoring. Appearing (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the three point scale because it's simpler. Since we have four criteria, I think it makes sense to use a more generalized ranking for each.

Mlgalvin (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I like the three point grading system. Tendollarfrog (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Links and Sources

Just need to remind everyone that we need to put hyperlinks and citations in our article, as stated in the syllabus. I'm not entirely sure on where we would need citations since we're just ranking snacks, but we can at least put links. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we link to the real pages for the snacks since each one has a specific brand? Mlgalvin (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, linking the actual brand page is a good idea. I also think that User:Appearing idea to include photos is another great opportunity to include links and references.

Tendollarfrog (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Tendollarfrog

Using specific brand names

Seeing how almost all of our snacks have specific brand names, I think we should do that for all our snacks. I originally had put gummy worms but have changed it to Trolli Squiggles, which I specified as my preferred type of gummy worms. I think this makes it easier for us since we would only need to look up one brand for our chosen snack. Also, some brands are widely known for certain snacks, such as Oreo and Chex Mix. I've already made the changes, which is just the gummy worms section, but if it's preferred to use a general snack name, then I am open to that suggestion and will change it back. --Uwhoop bus (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No this is a good idea. It will help if we want to add pictures as well. M-Sarge (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)