Hacker News Reader

Comment by cardanome | Hacker News Reader

> One the more thought required to give feedback the less likely users give feedback.

That is great! This means the people giving feedback would tend to be power users that are able to giver higher quality feedback.

> As a side effect short content is very nice as finish/playtime become strong signals that require a user to do almost nothing.

Perfect! It is clear by now that users vastly prefer short content that gets to the point quickly.

So basically 5 stars ranking would vastly increase the quality of the content but that is bad, how?

The only issue I see is (political) vote brigading. Maybe set additional hurdles like minimum account age and the like for voting. Strong content moderation could help. I guess there is no silver bullet for that issue.

View on HN

Your first point isn’t true because most of the 5 star usage boils down to 1/5 stars and not 2-4. There are some users that use whole range and the info does have value. The main problem though is while that system may be better for certain users, it will be worse for the entire user base as you want a system that works well for both casual and power users. Really you want a system that works better for casual users as most users on typical system like YouTube/spotify/tiktok/etc would be casual users. And while having model distinguish between user types is possible, ui wise you aren’t going to want to have both thumps up/down as an option and 5 stars. A toggle is possible but even for users that would use full ratings, a toggle is fairly unlikely to be used.

Even for power users it may not be net benefit for them. Recommendations are not based solely on that user’s ratings but all ratings. If power users give better signal but total quantity of signals decreases then it’s likely that recommendation quality drops for both casual/power users. Making up guess numbers a 5 star system is likely to get you 3x less data points and many of those data points are of similar quality anyway (users that only rate 1/5 stars). Worse signal that has higher volume often leads to better model.

My argument was based on the premise that votes from power users are more valuable as they better at judging the quality of the content. While the quality is partly subjective, it is not entirely so. Meaning power users, having more experience, know better what casual users should watch and would like then the casual users themselves. It is in the interest of the casual users for them to not be able to vote/their vote to count less.

I later suggested ways to make the hurdles for voting higher, which would fix the problems you mentioned. Required account age, maybe even how much content you need to have watched. Honestly, we could just filter out the people that only do 1/5 star votes. (With niche content of course there would be the issue of having no/just a few votes but voting would not be the only metric anyway.

I am very heretical towards common held UX believes and think trying to design for the lowest common denominator just results in all around awful experiences for everyone. We should rather strive to empower users.

I don’t think counting there vote less is useful. Low quality signal that is plentiful is very often better than sparse higher quality signal. My past experience is working on recommendation systems at tiktok/snap. Having a lot of weak signal from casual users is extremely helpful for power users. Recommendations are often based on large amount of basic engagement data. I think a large aspect to TikTok’s system being considered strong at recommendation is because Ux is designed for very frequent simple signals.

I can also say working at companies like that generally any system changes require an ab test and long running back test. I’ve generally seen companies move from 5 star to simpler like/dislike system and those changes would have been ab tested and found that user experience is overall better. I don’t know for specific systems whether overall better was across all users or some users.

> My argument was based on the premise that votes from power users are more valuable as they better at judging the quality of the content.

That is quite unlikely. What you call power user is someone distinguished by willingness to rank. It does not make that person better representation of all users or be more knowledgeable off quality or more experienced. Just more judgy.

It means you will be recommended based on tastes of special minority and likely alienate the rest of users in the process.

> My argument was based on the premise that votes from power users are more valuable as they better at judging the quality of the content.

As someone responsible for designing and incorporating end-user activity/feedback into ML, I have to tell you this is exceedingly unlikely.

The number of power users, especially on a large consumer app like Spotify, is dwarfed by the broad userbase (I estimate ~1% of Spotify users at most qualify as "power users").

Would I rather have power user-only feedback, or 100x the feedback? Definitely definitely 100x the feedback from all users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com