Where My Mind has Wandered

Frequency and User Ratings

Many social networking sites provide a user rating function that allows users to rate content. In many cases those ratings influence content ranking. A good example is YouTube, which uses a five-star ranking system and ranks content using some combination of ratings, total views, and total ratings (I do not know what the actual criteria is).

In these ratings systems for any content item the user is presented with two pieces of information: average rating and number of votes. Average rating tells the user how viewers who have taken the time to rate the video feel on average about the content. Number of votes tells the user how many people have taken the time to vote, which may influence how they value that average rating.

What is missing, and what I would love to see, is vote frequency data. I want to know how the average was reached. This would tell the user a lot more about how the community feels about the content in question.

I’m interested in this data in two categories. The first is votes as a percentage of views. Did the content in question prompt people to rate it more frequently or less frequently than the average for the site in question? A higher than average vote frequency would tell me that, good or bad, this content provokes a response. A lower than average vote frequency would tell me that the information was viewed more passively.

The second category I am interested in seeing is the frequency of votes for each of the five stars. You can reach a 3 star rating in three basic patterns:

• The majority of voters gave the content a 3 rating, while a small percentage voted higher or lower. This tells me the content in question prompts a lukewarm response. It prompted people to vote, but they didn’t feel strongly about it. This would look like a curved line in the shape of a frown on a graph.
• The majority of voters gave the content a 1 or 5 rating, while a small percentage rated the content 2, 3, or 4. This tells me that the content is polarizing; that it prompts a strong response from different groups within the larger site community. This would look like a curved line in the shape of a smile on a graph.
• Voting was equally distributed across all the ratings options. This would look like a straight line on a graph. I’m not sure quite what this would tell me, but it would make me think.

A high or low star rating would manifest as a steep curve, running either down left to right for content that the community did not like, or up left to right for content the community responded positively to.

In a user interface showing the vote totals would be awkward. But a graphic representation, something simple like the five-star visual, would tell you which of the five vote patterns led to the final rating. This could be a simple line curve or something that looked like an audio EQ graphic.

In my focus group of three colleagues is any indication, however, I am unlikely to see this type of information any time soon (think a sharp curve running from the top left to the bottom right). Consensus is that users won’t care; it is more information than they care about.

Search Engine Strategy

Almost every client will tell you that they want a search engine on their site to make it usable, easy-to-use, easy-to-navigate. That is what user interface and information design is for. I used to enjoy telling people that search was the remedy for a bad Web site, and that if site was doing its job no one would use search. I think that is less true today because we have trained people to rely on search more and more.

Search engines are not designed for Web sites. They are designed to be search engines -- connecting people who are not yet at their destination with either the destination they are looking for, or a list or potential destinations that are likely to have what they are looking for. What they are not designed for is way finding at the destination itself.

The typical search engine algorithm does not give weight to what the business wants people to see when they search for a specific term. Most people have no idea how their own search engine ranks search results. And even those that do are unlikely to ensure that search results meet the needs of the business. Yes, the needs of the business should correspond to the needs of the user, but the business has the opportunity and responsibility to affect the search results.

A good analogy is paid vs. organic results. Why not pre-determine the top-three links you want a user to see when they search for a term and then allow for the organic results below? The organic ranking could be based upon page views, a relevancy rank of the language on the page, the posted and/or modified date, or any combination of criteria. Then allow the user to sort the results based upon that criteria. But why not use the opportunity to pick what links you show for key terms, in essence doing your own paid keyword advertising on your site?

Go to your Web site, search for a term, and then consider that is presented to you in the search results. Are those the pages you want people to go to? Can you even tell what pages they are? If the answer is no your organization needs to take a more active role in determining how search results are generated.

Kanan Makiya and the Legacy of Iraqi Ex-Pats

Steve Inskeep's interview with Iraqi ex-pat and Brandies professor Kanan Makiya is fascinating. (Morning Edition, April 18, 2007). When the Bush administration was working hard in 2002 to build a back-story behind the decision they had already made to go to war, Iraqi ex-pats provided juicy tales of both horror and promise. The soundbyte that Makiya provided was on of the juiciest. He told the spin team at the White House that the Iraqi people would "greet the Americans with sweets and flowers."

Inskeep's interview, in which he forces Makiya to confront and explain the role he played, however small, in the case for war is one of those rare moments in which people are held accountable, and perhaps hold themselves accountable in a public forum. In some ways it reminded me of The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning documentary film in which Robert McNamara explores his own role in the Vietnam War. Inskeep's questioning is calm, even respectful, but deliberate and probing.

Makiya explains his thought process and motivations in December 2002 in measured, but seemingly honest words. He takes some shots at the post-invasion Iraqi leadership, but he also takes some moments to swipe at the Bush administration, but he does so with what he leaves unsaid. In answers to the toughest questions about his own role, for example, he notes that he "never argued for this war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, or on the basis of national security" but strictly as a "humanitarian case."

As to what went wrong in Iraq? "Above all, (it) is the looting. The sense of insecurity that today pervades Baghdad was born on the day of liberation in Iraq -- April 9th, 2003 -- when looting went rampant. And when you combine that with suspicions of American intentions and motives ..." What goes unsaid, and I wish Inskeep had asked him, was who did Makiya hold responsible for the looting, and the subsequent erosion of order and security? There is only one answer.

Read What You Link To

Blog rolls are an interesting creature. I think it is true that some bloggers link to blogs that they aspire to be grouped with. Some link to blogs they read regulalry. Some link to blogs that they found interesting but rarely read. Some link in volume simply to try and improve their search engine rankings. Some do all of the above. When I started this blog I simply linked to other people from my agency that blogged and one or two practice group blogs. Now that I am a few weeks into blogging I've decided that if I am going to link to a blog, well then I am going too read that blog. At least occasionally.

If you read my blog I recommend you check out Jeff Weintraub's blog. We write about different things, Jeff is much more likely to write about politics, but I find his posts thoughtful and well-crafted. We share an interest in more than communication, I think we share an interest in the language used to communicate.

As someone who avidly read William Safire's On Language column I appreciate Jeff's post regarding Alberto Gonzalez's use of the passive voice in the statement "mistakes were made" as the Attorney General attempted to accept responsibility without accepting blame. I also appreciate his take on Hillary Clinton's persistant answer regarding her vote to authorize President Bush to go to war.