|
Author
|
Topic: TUG Ratings - Medians vs. Means
|
Roger
TUG MemberPosts: 1633
From:
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-03-2005 08:34
   
This is not a big issue with me and I do not expect change, but for the sake of discussion...The TUG ratings are given as arithmetic means (what most people think of averages, although the word average can refer to a number of different figures). Most statisticians would recommend that ratings like this be given as a median (the middle rating when the ratings are arranged from low to high). The reason... it is much easier to throw a mean off with one or a few skewed ratings. Examples: Suppose that ten people rate a resort as a 9. Someone has it in for the resort and throws in a rating of a 1. Another person really likes the resort (much like the vast majority of evaluators) and gives it a 10. (This case is not entirely imaginary. I have seen it happen.) The former evaluator (even though his/her rating is very much out of line with the overwhelming majority of evaluators) influences the rating by a half point. The second evaluator has little impact on the rating. (Summary, single individuals are given considerable power in the ratings if they submit ratings way out of line. A median is resistent to this kind of influence.) For a different kind of example, a couple of owners could affect a rating fairly considerably by submitting 10's. To have any real impact on medians, they would have to submit a very large portion of the ratings. I realize that standard deviations are listed so one can see if there is diversity in the ratings, but standard deviations are only suppose to be used if the ratings fall into a normal distribution pattern. If I see a large standard deviation, I never know if this is because there is considerable (but normal) disagreement about the quality of a resort or if a rating (or several) has been submitted that are way out of line nor do I know if the rating was on the high or low side. ------------------
Owner since 1996 (a paltry one)
TUG member since 1997 [This message has been edited by Roger (edited 04-03-2005).] IP: Logged |
JeffV
TUG MemberPosts: 3854
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-03-2005 10:58
I think they are so subjective as to be relatively meaningless thus I rely much more on written reviews for information. I also look for how many have submitted ratings.IP: Logged |
snelson
TUG VolunteerPosts: 6545
From: Belly-View, WA. Owner: Embassy Poipu (floating); Winners Circle (Week 52), Raintree Vacation Club; Club Regina
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-03-2005 23:02
It's probably been five years since I even looked at the resort ratings page, and at least that long since I submitted a rating.Numeric resort ratings are like lime jello with cottage cheese blended in. No matter how you mold it, it's still lime jello with cottage cheese blended in. Even if you put it on lettuce with a sliced peach on the side, it's still lime jello with cottage cheese blended in. Save your energy for the real tragedies in life, such as stopping the next woman who comes up with the a new church potluck menu idea as bad as lime jello with cottage cheese blended in. ------------------
Steve Nelson [This message has been edited by snelson (edited 04-04-2005).] IP: Logged |
Bill4728
TUG MemberPosts: 283
From: Sumner, WA Owner: Club Intrawest, Monarch Grand Vacation & Mountainside Lodge
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 04-04-2005 11:11
I agree with Roger, But I don't understand why more people don't do ratings. Unlike reviews that that considerable thought & time, ratings just take a minute or two. It is unbelievable that over 80% of the timeshare locations here on TUG have less than 5 ratings. Most statisticians would recommend that ratings are not meaningfull until there are at least 10 rating points. Take the time and do some ratings. ------------------
Bill IP: Logged |
snelson
TUG VolunteerPosts: 6545
From: Belly-View, WA. Owner: Embassy Poipu (floating); Winners Circle (Week 52), Raintree Vacation Club; Club Regina
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-04-2005 11:18
I don't do ratings because reducing a resort to a single number is total nonsense. I see no point in spending any effort on something that is not only worthless, but is actually inaccurate and misleading.------------------
Steve Nelson IP: Logged |
Present
TUG MemberPosts: 83
From: Plantation, FL
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 04-06-2005 11:33
Being a relatively new "TUGGER", I can tell you that the real reason I joined was to access the resort database / ratings database and historical sales database (since I already had access to the BBS as a non-member). However, seeing now how outdated most of the information is, I am a little disappointed. I think that if everyone made an effort to contribute some information on a regular basis (including reviews, ratings or sales data), it would help to greatly improve this site. Picking up from a thread from the Florida board, I know that a few people have made submissions and they have never appeared; and that eventually life goes on and you forget to follow up with your submission or lose interest or whatever.For the volunteers that work so hard, and for all the people who go above & beyond to make submissions, I would really like to say thank you for making TUG such a great place. And hopefully, someone who has not made a contribution to one of these areas will do so now. ------------------
Helen IP: Logged |
Timeshare Users Group Bulletin Boards
