Eleven gradations between 0 (awful) and 10 (perfect) are too many. There can never be a way to definitely explain the difference between an 8 page and a 9 page, for example. Reduce the number of options to three or four, like the olden days.

Similarly, two pages with scores of 87.82% and 87.45% are statistically identical in "quality". Nevertheless, in very broadest terms, the better pages tend to have scores in the high 80s, the lesser-quality pages have scores in the lower 80s, so the system works in broad terms, not in fine detail.

Pages with scores below 1% just need to be deleted automatically. They linger on too often.

Kiefer Thomas wrote:

lcarreau wrote:I think we should continue the experimental analysis. I wonder what a hamster would vote for, IF A HAMSTER COULD VOTE ..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOHwjjhFTac[/youtube]

Great! Thanks, Icarreau.

Is there anyway one can connect or find links between the Higgs-Boson Particle and Mt. Rainier?

Not a problem, Kiefer.

No, don't see the connection between the "God" particle and Mount Rainier. But, I did stumble upon this ........

"A renaming competition conducted by the science correspondent for the British Guardian newspaper chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best from among their submissions:

"The bottom of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential and is often used as an illustration in physics lectures."

surgent wrote:Eleven gradations between 0 (awful) and 10 (perfect) are too many. There can never be a way to definitely explain the difference between an 8 page and a 9 page, for example. Reduce the number of options to three or four, like the olden days.

Scott, fellow propeller-beanie wearing pointy headed geek...I thought I would only have rating scale arguments at work. I actually advocate a 10-pt "Bo Derek / decimal" scale for an international audience, especially when the endpoint anchors are not specified nor translated, but...oh, nevermind, save the argument for the office...

EDIT: Ok it was a joke...sorry to the OP of the link at the top of this page. Maybe next time be a little less blunt