Ratings

I ran across a link to the Planet Shortbread blog site yesterday. Someone had ranked the site 3 stars out of a possible 5-star rating system. I've always wondered how these so-called rating systems work. What variables do raters use other than their own personal likes and dislikes?

When Star Wars opened in 1977, it created a huge following and gave George Lucas a huge name. Star Wars, however, was first rejected by Universal. Whoops! They blew that one, huh? Dr. Seuss' books weren't viewed favorably by book publishers, yet to this day, his books are among the most popular.

Three stars. My site was rated three stars, yet no reason was given for the rating. Did I receive three stars because my site lacks a lot of graphics? Is my grammar atrocious? Do I fail to say anything of importance? Improvement can never be made until the strengths and the weaknesses of the thing reviewed are pointed out. Would I change the way I write here even if constructive criticism were given? No. Why - because this is my on-line journal. My creative outlet. This is my cyber-space canvas on which to paint.

The funny thing about variables used to critique or analyze is that the outcome is affected or altered by what is deemed important to look at. I first realized this when I did an architectural analysis on a site in Mexico. Depending upon how much emphasis I placed on certain variables, I could alter the outcome of my research. I began paying closer attention to so-called "results of the latest scientific study" portrayed on the nightly news channel - and to what my colleagues were reporting as the latest "find."

Case in point: A few years ago American researchers studied the herb, Echinacea. They wanted to see if taking Echinacea while having a cold would reduce the average number of days you were sick. Their conclusion - it made no difference.

In contrast to the American study, German researchers performed a similar study. Their conclusion - Echinacea reduced the average number of days a person was sick by two to three days.

Why the difference - after all both research groups wanted to see if Echinacea would reduce the number of days a person would be sick? The difference lies in the variables used in the research. American researchers used hard capsules made here in the United States - by a single company. Herbs are regulated in Germany. The quality and quantity of any given herb is known. The Germans used the actual Echinacea plant and administered a tea. In the U.S., herbs are not regulated; therefore, the quality of the capsules used is questionable. Also - nutritionists will tell you - you receive the most nutrition from unprocessed foods. I would imagine that unprocessed herbs would contain more of their natural constituents than what would be found in a capsule.

It's all bias. Biased by the author's point of view. Welcome to my egocentric viewpoint.