Quiz rankings

Posted by: snediger

Quiz rankings - Sat Aug 21 2010 04:11 PM

I don't understand the ranking of the quizzes.
For instance, I have authored one quiz that is ranked #8688...
with 39 ratings and a 79% "Ex. & Good."
However, another quiz I have authored is ranked #11,347...
yet, this was rated 89 times and has a 87% "Ex. & good."
Shouldn't the quiz that is rated HIGHER percentage-wise have the higher number rating?
Granted, we are talking about two quizzes authored this year within months of one another.
Please explain.
Posted by: jonnowales

Re: Quiz rankings - Sat Aug 21 2010 04:21 PM

You should have three percentages for each quiz:

Excellent & Good - x+g%

Excellent - x%
Good - g%

Could you give us a more specific breakdown, as it is likely that the statistics you omitted provide the answer. If it doesn't then it could be that your unseen percentages (average, poor and very poor) were a little less favourable for your lower ranked quiz than for the higher.
Posted by: snediger

Re: Quiz rankings - Sat Aug 21 2010 04:26 PM

Thank you, jonnowales. I never really thought about it that way.
Posted by: jonnowales

Re: Quiz rankings - Sat Aug 21 2010 04:43 PM

I think it is something that goes through most minds at some point. The rankings can seem wildly erratic even though there is a method to the madness! laugh
Posted by: triviaking162

Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 02:21 PM

I'm just curious, but what are the criteria for a quiz getting sunglasses? I just want to know. One of my quizzes has 152 ratings (80% positive) and 753 plays and has no sunglasses (it's ranked at 36,968). What are the requirements to get sunglasses and get a high ranked quiz?
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 02:38 PM

The requirements to get a quiz with sunglasses is having it ranked in (roughly) the top 20% of quizzes. Terry updates the number every so often - I think it is currently at 22,000.

To get a high ranked quiz, you must not only get a lot of good ratings (80% good/excellent should be enough), but very few poor/very poor ratings. I don't think anyone apart from Terry knows the exact formula used to calculate it.

Since the author can only see the %age of goods and excellents, they can get mislead and think that the quiz should be ranked higher, but if there are a lot of bad ratings, the quiz might get ranked lower.

I would think that 80% good/excellent should be higher up than 37K (depending on the exact %age of good and excellent) but if most of the other 20% of the ratings were "very poor" then it would make sense.
Posted by: triviaking162

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 02:56 PM

OK, but I can't see why 80% would give positive and 20% very poor. Weird....
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 03:03 PM

We do not know the ways of the ranking world. wink
It could be any number of factors.
Posted by: tiffanyram

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 03:08 PM

It does make you wonder about it when you have a quiz with a good percentage of Good/Excellent ratings that doesn't get sunnies. I usually look at how well the quiz rates compared to other quizzes in the subcategory it's in. If it's at the top of the list or near the top of the list, then I don't feel so bad. Maybe that subcategory just really isn't that popular.
Posted by: triviaking162

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 03:14 PM

Ah, so there is no definitive answer. It was just confusing to me that the quiz in the initial post was ranked so low. I'll have to see if I can get an answer from Terry wink
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 03:15 PM

Some things are better left unknown. Kyle is right about the rankings.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 04:43 PM

Because there are so many quizzes being ranked, even a slight difference can have a big impact on rankings. The balance between Excellent and Good, for example, can make a big difference in the numerical result of analysing the results. 2 Excellent and 6 Good out of 10 ratings gives 80% Good and Excellent, but so does 6 Excellent and 2 Good, and the latter quiz will rank significantly higher than the former, if their unlisted ratings are the same as each other. Since we get no information about the other three scale values, it remains (intentionally, I presume) ambiguous.

In my early days here, I occasionally handed out a Very Poor rating by mistake, because I hit Page Down after making my original rating, to get to the tab to click in order to proceed, and only saw that I had changed the rating as it flashed off my screen. There is no taking it back. frown I have learned the lesson, but there are probably newbies still entering ratings they didn't mean. Then there are those who rate poorly if they did not do well - nothing to do about them except wait for more plays and let the majority of ratings make an overriding impact. That is one of the reasons for requiring a minimum of 20 ratings before a quiz is ranked. Even then, you may find that the rank fluctuates quite a bit from week to week until you get closer to 100 ratings, by which time it is usually pretty well settled down.
Posted by: triviaking162

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue May 29 2012 07:34 PM

OK, L-T, thats probably why. It has 37 excellents and 84 goods. I was just wondering about the ranking process.
Posted by: habitsowner

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed May 30 2012 12:12 PM

"Then there are those who rate poorly if they did not do well -"

I found that happened in the Great Quiz Race. I lost two sunnies there and the two I lost were questions in it and have 4 digits plays...they are also WAY up in the rankings, the wrong place to be. They weren't there before the Great Quiz Race so I have to blame it on that. Another, that didn't have sunnies, also have the same thing happen. Huge amounts shown in plays and also huge amounts now shown in rankings.

Terry changed things once, which got back one of the sunnies, but it was gone again the following week and the plays and rankings were even higher. AND...the Quiz Race was still going.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed May 30 2012 12:19 PM

Quote:
"Then there are those who rate poorly if they did not do well -"

I found that happened in the Great Quiz Race.


That tends to be the way, even with the other scavenger quizzes. On the flipside, you do get wider exposure not only for those specific quizzes, but for yourself as an author as a whole. smile
Posted by: Terry

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed May 30 2012 01:31 PM

I've always been hesitant to provide the precise ranking algorithm because it would make it easier for people to game the system. It's pretty straightforward though.

Even if you have a quiz with lots of high ratings (4s and 5s), you're not seeing what the OTHER ratings are (the 1s,2s,3s). It's possible that your quiz could have been dragged down by other low ratings.
Posted by: habitsowner

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed May 30 2012 01:47 PM

And, I think that's what happened with the Great Quiz Race, Terry.

I don't imagine there's anyway around it, and as Kyle says, it does have it's "good" side, too.

Since I've never rated a quiz as "poor" because first off I don't think the editors would allow a "poor" quiz to be online, I can't imagine doing it. Least of all because I didn't do well in the quiz. Heck, I don't do well in a lot of quizzes...but I usually rate them good, if not excellent.
Posted by: triviaking162

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed May 30 2012 03:38 PM

OK, thanks Terry. It was just confusing to me.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 12:23 AM

Originally Posted By: habitsowner
Since I've never rated a quiz as "poor" because first off I don't think the editors would allow a "poor" quiz to be online, I can't imagine doing it. Least of all because I didn't do well in the quiz. Heck, I don't do well in a lot of quizzes...but I usually rate them good, if not excellent.


I have rated several quizzes as poor and a fair few as very poor. I don't think of myself as mean, but some quizzes that were written years ago were allowed through even though they are, to put it mildly, not very interesting. Editors usually reject quizzes on the basis that they are factually incorrect, contain typos or contain bad grammar and need to be worded. I don't think I have ever had a quiz rejected "because it was too boring".

There are 2 main things that make me rate a quiz "poor": no interesting info (except in brain teasers) or completely boring, useless (not meaning interesting but trivial facts - more on the lines of "What time of day was Marilyn Monroe born?" or "What was the score in the 3rd match of the 7th Superbowl after 27 minutes?") or downright wrong.

I rate a quiz very poor if it is riddled with typos/errors, has no interesting info and has 10 very similar, very boring questions (10 lots of "What is the capital of X?" would get at least a poor from me).


The options "poor" and "very poor" are there so people can use them. It might feel harsh, but if you are rating every single quiz "good" then Terry might as well get rid of the lower 3 options. I don't rate many quizzes below "average", but I do to some.


I agree with one thing you say - I can't imagine rating a quiz poor because I didn't do well in it. I have rated one quiz as "excellent" despite the fact that I got 2/10 correct (Q"uiz About This Quiz", I think it was called - I highly recommend it to anyone who has some time on their hands and doesn't get frustrated easily).
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 09:04 AM

Just because a quiz meets the standards well enough to go online, doesn't necessrily mean that it's good. If you disliked a quiz, feel free to give it a poor rating. That's what the range of ratings is for.
Posted by: LadyCaitriona

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: agony
Just because a quiz meets the standards well enough to go online, doesn't necessrily mean that it's good. If you disliked a quiz, feel free to give it a poor rating. That's what the range of ratings is for.


Agreed. There are many times where I have urged an author to consider expanding the information sections in a quiz, noting that it is the quality of the information sections of a quiz that can turn a good quiz into a great one. Some authors want to add more info, and others don't, but all quizzes will go online if they meet the basic minimum requirements set out by the Quiz Creation Guidelines and Category Guidelines.

The problem with making the QCGs too strict in terms of content is that A) who is to be the judge of what makes a quiz entertaining? Even within my own categories, there are very few topics that I could consider myself well-versed enough to judge accurately the content quality of a submission. And B) it discourages new authors from starting small and working their way up, as well as being an inhibitive factor for established quiz authors to branch out into new areas of interest.

With that being said, that doesn't mean that you have to rate every quiz as "A for effort". If you believe a quiz is poor, rate it as such. It's a good way to give authors feedback so that they can take a look at their quizzes that didn't do so well and see what they might do better for the next submission.
Posted by: habitsowner

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 02:10 PM

Adam, Agony and Lady C.,

Thank you for your comments. It's very hard for me to rate anything but good. I might try "average" if there's one allowed, which I think there is somewhere. But poor? Is it poor because I'm not interested in the subject matter or is it poor because I don't know the subject matter or is it poor because it is just poor. Very hard to tell the difference between the first and the third one. The second one is simply being mean.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 02:35 PM

I use the full scale of ratings myself-- seeing so many quizzes from this side I certainly value different types of quizzes. I'd never ask an author to overload the quiz on different things I like. Most newer quizzes I see get Excellent to Average. Poor and Very Poor I reserve for much, much older quizzes with no info which were written at a time when our standards were much lower.

How people rate shouldn't matter too much if they play a lot of quizzes; provided they use the same sort of criteria across the board, everything should even out quite nicely. Whichever approach you take is perfectly fine so long as every quiz you rate isn't 'Very Poor' or 'Excellent'.
Posted by: shuehorn

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 02:50 PM

There are quizzes on topics I know nothing about but which have been wonderful, and I've rated them highly, even when I have just barely gotten enough questions right to have my rating count. There are others that are just badly written, with a bias or a tone that makes them unenjoyable, with information that is incorrect, or a style that is not interesting at all. I think I've only rated one or two quizzes very poor, but I do rate quizzes average when I don't think much effort went into them, and I have rated quizzes poor when they really are sub-standard. I guess we all have our way of evaluating them, and as long as we are consistent and give high marks for the things we appreciate, then the site and the authors benefit.
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 03:42 PM

As Lady C said, sometimes I ask advise an author that a certain question type may be legal, but will probably result in poor ratings, as players don't tend to like it. If a fabulous quiz written in a lively entertaining manner gets the same ratings as a boring one, it's not really fair to the fabulous quiz. Not every quiz is above average, and it's all right for your ratings to reflect that.
Posted by: ladymacb29

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: AdamM7

I rate a quiz very poor if it is riddled with typos/errors,


I hope you are sending a correction notice when you notice this so we can get these errors fixed.
Posted by: jmorrow

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Thu May 31 2012 09:39 PM

I just wanted to chime in on this as well. I've seen a few comments about how editors wouldn't place a "poor" quiz online, but the issue of player ratings is really a subjective one. As others have said, the full range of ratings are there for anyone to use or not use.

From an editor's point of view, I will place a quiz online if it meets the minimum standards of the site and category guidelines. While I often make suggestions to an author about how they can rework their quiz to avoid questions that have proven to be unpopular with players, I won't reject a quiz that I think will receive poor ratings from players if it otherwise satisfies the guidelines. It is the author's prerogative to write the quiz that they want to write (within reason, and our guidelines of course) and there are some authors who simply don't care about the player ratings.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Fri Jun 01 2012 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: ladymacb29
Originally Posted By: AdamM7

I rate a quiz very poor if it is riddled with typos/errors,


I hope you are sending a correction notice when you notice this so we can get these errors fixed.


I do send a correction note whenever I notice an error.


Originally Posted By: habitsowner
Adam, Agony and Lady C.,

Thank you for your comments. It's very hard for me to rate anything but good. I might try "average" if there's one allowed, which I think there is somewhere. But poor? Is it poor because I'm not interested in the subject matter or is it poor because I don't know the subject matter or is it poor because it is just poor. Very hard to tell the difference between the first and the third one. The second one is simply being mean.


If you're not interested in the subject matter, you can still usually tell if the quiz is good or bad. If you can't, then I'm not sure you should rate the quiz at all.

It definitely isn't poor because you don't know the subject matter.

It is poor because it just is. Awkward phrasing, extremely trivial questions, bad, or lack of, interesting info and sometimes even 2 answer options extremely close together (e.g. 3rd June 1948 and 4th June 1948) can turn a question, and a quiz, into a poor one.


EDIT TO ADD: This is just the way I rate - other people might have other methods.
Posted by: rossian

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Fri Jun 01 2012 01:43 AM

For any new(ish) authors reading this thread, it is well worth taking note of any advice you receive from the editors. They really have 'seen it all' and I'm always only too happy to receive their guidance, particularly in those categories with which I'm not so familiar. It is your quiz, and you are entitled to ignore suggestions, but you do, presumably, want players to enjoy your effort, so it's best not to be too obstinate.
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sat Jun 02 2012 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: AdamM7
If you're not interested in the subject matter, you can still usually tell if the quiz is good or bad. If you can't, then I'm not sure you should rate the quiz at all.


Yes, but remember that these ratings are subjective.

If you played the quiz, it's best to rate it. Whatever you do, though, don't rate a quiz "poor" or "very poor" if you scored a zero or one on it just because you scored poorly on it. Having been here eleven-plus years, I've seen this type thing happen far too often. Some of Jazz' quizzes are quite esoteric, and while I may not know the subject at hand like he does, I'm not going to rate a quiz that low if I've learned something. Rate according to how the quiz looks (structure, readability, and by the "wow, I learned something" factor), not upon how well you did. Is it right to rate a quiz that I scored two correct out of ten poor? If the quiz is poorly written, yes. The authors (in most cases) have spent plenty of time researching a quiz, and then someone will trash a rating solely because they scored poorly. It's not fair to the author who took the time to write it and the editor who placed it online.

Which type of quiz would I rather see: a quiz that is Q/A/Q/A, or one that tells why the answer is what it is? I'd rather see the latter, and remembering how the guidelines were in 2001 and what they are now, I am glad that the requirements have tightened. It makes for better quizzes and also allows the quiz taker to learn something.

As jmorrow said, and I would think the other editors would agree, if it meets the requirements of the site, a quiz will go online. Kyle edited one of mine, and he felt it was excellently written, but because people aren't scoring well on it, it's in the 90k range on rating. It met the guidelines of the site, therefore he put it online. If it did not meet the guidelines, no matter how well the quiz may be written, he would most certainly have rejected it, as well he should.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 01:12 AM

Quote:
Whatever you do, though, don't rate a quiz "poor" or "very poor" if you scored a zero or one on it just because you scored poorly on it.


I was under the impression that you could only rate a quiz if you scored 2+ on a quiz, although I agree with the point you're trying to make.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 01:17 AM

Quote:
I was under the impression that you could only rate a quiz if you scored 2+ on a quiz


Correct.
Posted by: JanIQ

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 07:13 AM

Yes indeed, you can only rate a quiz when you've answered at least two questions correctly. But the requirement of two correct answers is the same whatever the total number of questions in the quiz - even if it's a quiz consisting of 25 questions, you still only need two correct answers to rate the quiz.

I wonder if one can rate a quiz in a retake. For instance, if I score too low on an interesting quiz, could it help to retake the quiz and (hopefully) get the required two correct answers?
Posted by: shuehorn

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 08:51 AM

Jan,
I think that has happened to me before, I have been able to rate a quiz that I originally scored too low on for the rating to take. The difference is that when I rate a quiz that I have already rated or one for which I didn't get enough points, I am just rerouted without showing that I got 20 points for rating the quiz. I am almost positive that I have gotten that message after re-rating a quiz when scoring higher on it a few days later.
Posted by: ladymacb29

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 05:34 PM

Even if you retake a quiz, the only score that is saved/counted is the original score.
Posted by: shuehorn

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 09:37 PM

Right, but we are talking about being able to rate quizzes. The only time I have retaken quizzes is for challenges where I need to get a better score to get the tick-mark on the list and have it count for a challenge. I know I don't get a better score again for that, but I am almost sure that where I was blocked from rating the quiz the first time for not even having gotten two right answers, the second time when I got five or more I was able to rate the quiz and have it go through.
Posted by: zorba_scank

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jun 03 2012 10:19 PM

Sue's right. I've noticed that too and I remember trying it out with one of Jazz's quizzes that I had scored too low on the first time.
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jun 11 2012 08:19 AM

Poor is probably the lowest I've ever given something. I've never (unless it was by accident) rated a quiz as very poor, not even the ones from more than a decade ago. If it was good enough to get online then, then that's not really fair. I'm a Libran (in real life too lol). Fair is what I'm all about. Even if I hated the SUBJECT of a quiz, I can appreciate either the work or the writing style that went into same. I've given excellent ratings to quizzes I knew absolutely nothing about (but which led me to mega-jump-googling for hours on related questions - sometimes it takes me more than an hour to complete a quiz - since I'm easily distracted LOL)

Ratings will always be subjective, of course. Nothing to be done about that. Some people rate all your quizzes as bad, simply because they don't like your online persona. Some people rate your quizzes excellent simply because you're on the same team.

But if I rate one Excellent and one Good, that's only because some are more "gooder" than others. They can't ALL be excellent lol. I try to/hope that I rate in comparison to all the ones I've played before.

As for editor's suggestions... yes I cringed when I got them (who wouldn't? lol), but in the end they always made for a better quiz. And now I have two favourite editors! - honestly folks, they have YOUR best interests in mind.

I agree with several posters above on many points.

All that being said, you probably shouldn't listen to me - because, of the quizzes I've written, my personal favourites don't have the highest ratings (giggles).
Posted by: portgleep

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 05:27 AM

In my experience, ratings are often not based on how good the quiz is overall, but instead, the main factors seem to be:

-The difficulty (10 question quizzes with 7-9 average correct seem to do the best)
-Are the questions short and simple, while interesting? (not too nit-picky)
-Do you have a decently sized II? (It seems that the quality of the IIs don't matter as much as the size of them... I attribute this to people not really reading them.)

The other thing is that once you get a high rating, people will just ASSUME that the quiz is good and give it an Excellent even if that isn't their opinion. Unfortunately, the same applies for low-rated quizzes. This means that its hard for your quiz's rank to change direction! (If its going up, it'll keep going up, if its going down, it'll keep doing so.)

I really wouldn't care too much about the ratings. One of my best quizzes (in my opinion) is rated at 37,131 - the second lowest of all my quizzes. Its a Harry Potter roleplaying quiz which took me forever to write, and which I've gotten some nice notes about from editors. Because the questions are all long and multi-sentence, players have to spend longer on it, which I assume they don't like.

On the other hand, my second best rated quiz (2726) is honestly just an average, nothing-special, simple quiz. No idea why it got good rankings, if I was to rank it I would probably give it an average.

However, if you get a quiz within the first 500, it normally means that that quiz actually IS good. For instance, my highest quiz (rated 408 and climbing) is probably my favorite quiz of mine, and definitely teaches people the most.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: portgleep
ratings are often not based on how good the quiz is overall


While I agree with everything you've said, I think that is the main point. Don't get too upset about ratings - as long as you are happy with the quiz, nothing else matters.

My second favourite quiz is not just in the bottom half of quizzes, but in the 90,000s. The top rated quiz I have (10,655) is, in my opinion, boring. It must have taken an hour to write, where as the 90,000 one must have taken at least 5 times as long.
Posted by: bloomsby

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 07:29 AM

Quote:
once you get a high rating, people will just ASSUME that the quiz is good and give it an Excellent even if that isn't their opinion.



I'm not at all sure about that. I don't think that many people rate on that basis. Perhaps quizzes with high ratings generally get played more and/or get a wider cross-section of players.

However, some people seem to pay very little attention to the quiz when rating. Some time ago a player sent me a compliment, but added that as the quiz had so many 'numerical questions' she'd not felt able to rate it Excellent, only Good. I was puzzled, went to the quiz, and it didn't contain even one single 'numerical question'. Presumably, something bugged the player but it can't have been what she said it was.

There are many, many factors at work when people rate quizzes.


Editor, History and People
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 07:49 AM

Originally Posted By: bloomsby
There are many, many factors at work when people rate quizzes.


I think a fairly important factor that hasn't been mentioned is the mood of the player. If they're angry or upset at something, they might "take their anger out on the quiz" and rate it worse than they should. However, it does work both ways - a happy player might give you an excellent when they would give you a good or an average normally. Of course, you can't control the mood of the player, but it might still effect the rating.
Posted by: portgleep

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 08:22 AM

Originally Posted By: AdamM7
My second favourite quiz is not just in the bottom half of quizzes, but in the 90,000s. The top rated quiz I have (10,655) is, in my opinion, boring. It must have taken an hour to write, where as the 90,000 one must have taken at least 5 times as long.


I just played the quiz in question (although I guessed for all of them, because I haven't read the book in question) and I liked it! If I could rate it, I'd definitely give it an excellent.

However, I think that in this particular case the bad ratings may have come from people taking you too seriously - saying, "If you have ignored all my warnings to not play this excuse for a quiz, please rate it badly, so others will know not to play it. " is not very likely to help improve your ranks. :p

Additionally, non-10 question quizzes are generally not ranked as high.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: portgleep
However, I think that in this particular case the bad ratings may have come from people taking you too seriously - saying, "If you have ignored all my warnings to not play this excuse for a quiz, please rate it badly, so others will know not to play it." is not very likely to help improve your ranks. :p


I'm not sure anyone did take me too seriously, but I think the tone was what made it such a badly rated quiz. I got a couple of messages from people telling me to shut up - in retrospect some of the things I wrote might have been a little OTT (but they didn't have to be so rude).
Posted by: Snowman

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 09:51 AM

If people are rude to you in quiz compliments then flag them to the editors or admins - there is no call for that kind of behaviour on FunTrivia and it is not tolerated.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Snowman
If people are rude to you in quiz compliments then flag them to the editors or admins - there is no call for that kind of behaviour on FunTrivia and it is not tolerated.


I did report one of them, but I deleted the messages because I didn't think the admins would need it to be in my inbox and I didn't want it sat there if it didn't need to be. If I got another one I would report it and not delete the message until I was told I could.


Edit reason: First bit didn't really make sense
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 05:41 PM

Bloomsby, I think the quiz ranking does have something to do with how others rate it. Playing a quiz rated under 10... It is difficult for me to rate those even good... I feel bad not giving it an excellent, thinking they must be better than I realize... So I so think the ranking has something to do with it, personally.
Posted by: kaddarsgirl

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 06:12 PM

When I rate quizzes, I hardly ever rate them based on their ranking. The quizzes that I enjoy playing are the ones I give "Good" and "Excellent" ratings. It doesn't matter to me how many questions there were or what the ranking was or how difficult the quiz was (you know, Tough, Difficult, Easy, etc.). My personal quizzes are not rated any easier than "Tough" and it is the more difficult quizzes that I enjoy playing. If I can whip through it like a "Piece of Cake" game, then I tend not to rate them as high. Often times there are corrections, or points of contention that I have with an answer or "interesting information" on a quiz, but those don't necessarily affect my rating either. I have had issue with questions on quizzes, and have let the authors know, and have still rated the quizzes "Excellent". I like playing quizzes, and rate quizzes higher, that feel to me as if they took a lot of time and thought to create. My recent "The Lyrics of Les Miersables" quiz took me 8 hours of research and rewriting to complete. It has 25 questions and they are all fairly long. The additional information I included are not exactly short one-sentence facts. The quiz is "Difficult", but still of the 25 ratings it has gotten, 21 are "Good" and "Excellent". There are more "Good" and "Excellent" ratings than people who have scored over 20/25 so that leads me to believe that even not doing well on a quiz doesn't entirely affect the ratings.
Posted by: snediger

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 07:14 PM

Well said, kaddarsgirl.
How a quiz is ranked makes no difference to me. If it's easy, medium or difficult has no bearing on how I rate them either. I'll tell you a couple of things that would make me rate a quiz poorly:
(a) If it appears to me the quiz was slapped together haphazardly and the quizzer devoted very little time to it. How do I determine that? If the i/i is sparse or does not address the question at hand. I want i/i that is pertinent, not all over the place. I don't want it giving more information about the wrong alternate choices than the correct answer.
(b) Confusing language. I want to be able to know exactly what the quizzer wants, even if I don't know the answer. I'll give you an example: "Cleopatra gave Catherine, her daughter, an heirloom. How did she like that?" Now does the quizzer mean how did she (Cleopatra) like it or how did she (Catherine) like it?
(c) What I call "Gotcha! questions." If it appears to me the author WANTS me to get it wrong by offering a tricky question that has an alternate incorrect choice he knows I'll go for, that's a GOTCHA! Too many of them and the quizzer earns a less-than-stellar rating from me.
However, having said all that, most of the ratings I give out are on the positive side.
What distinguishes a "good quiz" from an "excellent quiz" to me? Good writing with some humor. Every now and then, use a silly alternative choice that has to be a joke (after all, you have three wrong answers to offer.) Also, tell me something I don't know. Make me go hmmm every now and then. Those things are the mark of an excellent quiz, not just a good one.
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 22 2012 07:58 PM

I can't remember ever noticing what the ranking of a quiz was before I took it, unless I was led to it by something like the Top 25 link. Almost all the quizzes I play are brand new ones that are not ranked yet, so can categorically state that this plays no role in my ratings.

Of my top 25 quizzes, ten have more than ten questions, so I don't think quiz length is a big factor, either.

My honest opinion? Quizzes that are enjoyable to play get high rankings. It really is as simple as that. Different people will have different ideas of what 'enjoyable' means, so you can't really play to that with any degree of accuracy. Best you can do is write quizzes that you find enjoyable, and hope that you're not the only person with your tastes.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 08:32 AM

Originally Posted By: snediger
(c) What I call "Gotcha! questions." If it appears to me the author WANTS me to get it wrong by offering a tricky question that has an alternate incorrect choice he knows I'll go for, that's a GOTCHA! Too many of them and the quizzer earns a less-than-stellar rating from me.


I don't mind them - in fact, it often makes the quiz better (IMO). It might make the questions harder, but you have already said that the difficulty doesn't affect the rating.

As for obviously incorrect answer choices, I hate them. Just because there are 3 incorrect answers doesn't mean you have to make it easier for players - use a true/false if you want them to have a 50:50 chance of guessing it right, and if you make all 3 answer choices obviously wrong then you might as well be asking what 1+1 is. I have seen plenty of ridiculous answers, but not a single funny one. I can't see how giving Bob the Builder as an option for the person who founded Facebook or asking whether Abraham Lincoln was a ancient Egyptian god would make anyone laugh.
Posted by: JanIQ

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 10:30 AM

Oh, was Abe no Egyptian? Surely he did hunt vampires. Or didn't he?
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 11:43 AM

Maybe the time taken to construct a quiz could be noted somewhere on the title page or in the rating section? Someone who takes several hours and puts together an enlightening or entertaining, or both, quiz should get higher kudos than someone who threw one together in an hour. Not to say a quality quiz cannot be constructed in a short period for some quiz types or subject matters but I'm thinking reviews before submittals take time and that might be a factor raters (and subsequently rankers) would want to consider.

Edit: I think this still stands the test of 'write it on a word processor first'. That method takes a lot of time to copy over to individual boxes and review that no copy errors have been made. Until FT allows the wholesale translation from a database that copies a template into a template, good quiz construction should take a couple of hours.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: mehaul
Maybe the time taken to construct a quiz could be noted somewhere on the title page or in the rating section? Someone who takes several hours and puts together an enlightening or entertaining, or both, quiz should get higher kudos than someone who threw one together in an hour.


If that is created, that might affect the ratings people give. Then people will start to cheat and just leave the quiz writing page on for hours without actually writing anything or altering anything.
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 12:41 PM

Editors can see this, and it's not a very good indication of anything.

Yes, a quiz by a first time author that has taken twelve minutes from creation to submission isn't very good, but players aren't going to see that quiz in its initial form anyway.
Posted by: kaddarsgirl

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: AdamM7
If that is created, that might affect the ratings people give. Then people will start to cheat and just leave the quiz writing page on for hours without actually writing anything or altering anything.


I agree. I do actually write my quizzes in the quiz form instead of in a word processor. I like to be able to look at the questions as I go as they would appear to someone taking the quiz. I use this feature (that appears as an option every time you save a quiz) a lot when doing my quizzes. I just can't get that same feel in a word processor. I don't consider this cheating the system as the system now stands because no one cares how long the quiz editor was open. I often change my mind mid-quiz about the number of questions I want to ask and it's nice to move them around in the actual form. I just feel better designing/writing this way. It wouldn't be fair to someone else who writes their quiz someplace else and translates it into the form, taking less time, to rated worse for it, just because it takes me a long time in the actual form, though we may take the actual same time writing the quiz. I hope that all made sense...

You can usually tell, without a time stamp, how long it took someone to make a quiz. I don't think it's necessary to include that time anywhere on the quiz itself.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: AdamM7
If that is created, that might affect the ratings people give.


Exactly.


Good ratings should be the reward for errorless effort presented and poor rankings should result for those who toss them together willy-nilly. Now we make the distinction based in the way all above have said: mood, errors, factual failings, Interesting Info quality or lack thereof, etc. I would like to have just that little more data to help me make my mind up. As Agony stated, the editors know if the figure is bunk or representative of the real value. Allow editors to set the figure as an approximation on their part. Leave the author out of it. Just as we rank in generalities, the editors at submission can estimate several levels: under an hour; 1-2 hours; 2-8 hours; days.
Posted by: reeshy

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 03:24 PM

Then there's a chance that for those who copied in their quiz in say 10 minutes although they worked on it for many hours will get negative ratings because people think they didn't spend too much time on it? Also, you have to consider that some people naturally work faster than others - faster workers may manage to write a 10 question quiz on a subject they know well (thus no need for much research) in under an hour, and it may well be of a very high standard. I don't see why on Earth players would need to know the time it took to write the quiz - judge it for what it is.
Posted by: bloomsby

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 04:11 PM

Quote:
Then there's a chance that for those who copied in their quiz in say 10 minutes although they worked on it for many hours will get negative ratings because people think they didn't spend too much time on it


Agreed! Moreover, there's no way of telling how much time an author actually spends working on a quiz. The time from creation of the template to submission is quite meaningless. For example, I tend to create my templates and submit then work on them off and on for months. Obviously, that doesn't mean that I've sweating over writing the quiz for months! smile


Editor, History and People
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 04:20 PM

My 8 movie anagram quizzes are all rated in the top 10,000 and took me many, many, many hours of work. The first quiz was submitted very quickly after I loaded the quiz template but only because I wrote it all on a word document first. I find it easier to work that way. It also means I don't need the internet to work on my quiz if my laptop is somewhere with no internet access. The quizzes were fine tuned over weeks and once I was happy with it I submitted it. If the time to write a quiz was based on the time from starting a template to submission it would be totally inaccurate and give people the wrong impression about the effort that was put in. I would hate to be judged on that factor as I find it irrelevant. If a quiz is good, it's good. It doesn't matter if it took one hour or month. The same applies if it's not so good. smile
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Tizzabelle
If a quiz is good, it's good. It doesn't matter if it took one hour or month. The same applies if it's not so good. smile

Hear, hear! I need about an hour (for most of my quizzes - there have been a few exceptions) just to copy from my Word document into the template and proofread in editing screen then again in preview screen, and make those last little adjustments. That's after I wrote it, rearranged it, read it aloud for euphony, had a friend proofread the hard copy, checked again that the order of questions made sense, (and that I didn't change verb tenses as I was about to do in that last clause), and that all the red squiggles in the Word document were shortcomings in its dictionary, not my typing. Since it can take up to an hour or more to research each question in order to be sure that it is accurate, especially as regards the extra information (and different sources often give different bits of information, which has to be factored in), the hour or so between starting the template and submitting the quiz bears litttle resemblance to the time that went into it.

At the other end of the time spectrum, there's the Author challenge that has to be claimed and have its template set up, but which may then sit for a couple of weeks while I decide exactly how I am going to use it, and get the quiz written ready to place into the template. Once inspiration hits, I might actually write the quiz in a couple of hours, if it's a topic that requires little research. There is simply no way that information about the time between template creation and quiz submission has meaningful information.

What's more, it is the product, not the process, that should be judged. I have written quizzes that were on a topic so familiar to me that I was able to write the quiz in only a couple of hours. There have been others for which the research and planning took over 20 hours, often spread out over several weeks. Which ones are better? That's a matter of opinion. Just because I took a lot of time to write a particular quiz does not mean that I successfully achieved my vision for it.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 08:43 PM

Of course I wasn't meaning transcription time to be measured. But an editor would know if a week hold out on an anagram quiz template represented a week's worth of research, trial phrasing, reworking and information assembly. But otherwise, if a lengthy question, answer and info quiz was done in an hour and reads with errors to the editor as poor work, I would like some hint from the editor (in this case their time to write estimation) that the quiz was indeed thrown together without much thought. If the editor then gets the quiz reworked by the author, the time to submit would go up, it should be a better product and the editor would then be justified in increasing their estimate of time to write to the next level. Heck, it wouldn't even need to be a mandatory quiz suffix, but giving it to us now and then could help achieve better, more representative rankings.

Edit to add: If some that are doing ratings don't realize what it takes to write a quiz, a time tagged to it might make them more aware. A good question, answer and info c(sh)ould take at least a couple of hours alone. Multiply that by ten questions, adjust order if necessary, transcribe and then proof read again, a good quiz might take a day and I think an editor would have a measure of that intricacy. A rater then seeing a day was put into the product and, even though not a familiar topic to the taker, perhaps a better ranking would result. I see a time value shown would make it easier for us to also see the ones that didn't get that attention in their conception and help us to sort between poor, good and excellent.
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 11:24 PM

Mehaul, I think you overestimate the editors' mindreading abilities. It is easy to tell when a poor quiz has not had enough time and effort put in - and players won't see it then. However, it may subsequently have many more hours of work put in before it can go online, and even then may just meet the minimum requirements. That quiz writer may have put in much more time than a more experienced author, familiar with the guidelines for the chosen category and dealing with familiar subject matter, who can produce an outstanding quiz in a few hours. Judge the product, not the time involved.

If you want editors to assign arbitrary times that relate to the quality of the quiz, that is like asking us to rate it before players see it, and that is simply not the way it works.
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 23 2012 11:50 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted By: AdamM7
If that is created, that might affect the ratings people give.


Exactly.


So...we should be basing our ratings on something that has very little to do with the quiz in the first place? What if someone copied the quiz from a Word document? We'd have no idea if it was submitted in under ten minutes after a years-worth of writing or an hours-worth.

Quote:
Just as we rank in generalities, the editors at submission can estimate several levels: under an hour; 1-2 hours; 2-8 hours; days.


I don't get this at all.

Quote:
Of course I wasn't meaning transcription time to be measured. But an editor would know if a week hold out on an anagram quiz template represented a week's worth of research, trial phrasing, reworking and information assembly. But otherwise, if a lengthy question, answer and info quiz was done in an hour and reads with errors to the editor as poor work, I would like some hint from the editor (in this case their time to write estimation) that the quiz was indeed thrown together without much thought.


There's no way for us to know this; there's no way to know if an author is 'trying' or not because it's completely subjective. For instance we have a lot of English-as-a-second-language authors on here who need the extra help just to form grammatically-stable sentences. If these people are producing very basic quizzes for more-qualified English speakers, who are we to say 'this was put together with immense work and thought' or 'this was put together by someone who didn't really work with us'. And who are we to make that claim if they (A) don't tell us they're ESL or (B) go out of their way to seek help from other people on or off the site or (C) popped it into a Google Translator or (D)...on and on and on.

Quote:
What's more, it is the product, not the process, that should be judged.


Amen.



I don't get why the 'estimated work' or 'time this took to get online' or 'effort factor' is relevant. Sometimes our more seasoned authors will discuss how long some of their quizzes have been waiting in the creation stage, sometimes as bits of paper on the side of their computer and sometimes in scraps written on cue cards on their nightstand-- and YEARS before they make it online in some cases-- but that's just a little tidbit that really has nothing to do with the quiz itself, I mean the cut-and-dried, finished, and final product, unless you decide that that's a factor that makes sense.

We're not telling you how to rate the quizzes by any means (like I said, a lot of this is subjective) but the goal is to get players to enjoy the 'FUN', quality trivia we place online in its (as I said) finished and final product.

You don't need to know what the editor corrected beforehand on other peoples' quizzes, or how long it took to do it, or even what the editor thought about it...or even which editor placed it online...or even if we all talked about it for weeks to get it categorized properly...or how many back-and-forth notes we had with the author to see it online. I don't think that's what most of our authors want you to focus on either, not because it will (or should) make or break the factors that allow you to rate the quiz, but because it's irrelevant.
Posted by: jmorrow

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 12:17 AM

I agree with everything that has been said so far. Even if we could overcome the difficulties inherent in measuring the time spent on writing a quiz, I still don't think that such information would be useful in deciding how to rate a quiz.

The quality of a quiz does not vary proportionately with the time spent writing it. Case in point: Most of the current Sprint quizzes are being written in a very short amount of time, and I have played many that are just excellent. It probably wouldn't make much difference if the author spent another month working on the quiz - the end result is already fantastic.

The other extreme would be quizzes that I have seen as an editor that have gone through multiple rounds of editing spanning months or even years before going online, and sometimes the end result barely meets the minimum requirements for the site. Should the quiz be rated 'excellent' just because a lot of time and effort was expended into making it? I'm not so sure about that.
Posted by: AdamM7

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: reeshy
faster workers may manage to write a 10 question quiz on a subject they know well (thus no need for much research) in under an hour,


People who are familiar with the subject but who type very slowly might need an hour and a half or even more to write the same 10 question quiz.
Posted by: triviaking162

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 06:20 AM

I finally got my second sunglasses! Weird, however, because both of my sunglassed quizzes went online on July 3rd (09 and 12).

I don't remember how long it took to type it, but its now ranked in the 20,000s.
Posted by: kaddarsgirl

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 06:42 AM

Originally Posted By: triviaking162
I finally got my second sunglasses! Weird, however, because both of my sunglassed quizzes went online on July 3rd (09 and 12).

I don't remember how long it took to type it, but its now ranked in the 20,000s.


I had a quiz with sunnies that I made back in 2006 when I first joined FunTrivia. The quiz still had sunnies when I came back a few month ago, but recently lost them. I'm thinking this is because it has been a long time since the quiz was regularly played, and other quizzes have just passed it in the rankings. It's still 23231 though, so it's close to sunnies! even if it doesn't have them anymore... *fake tears*.

It actually really doesn't matter that much to me where my quizzes are in the rankings as long as more people rated it Good and Excellent than they did the three ratings choices that I can't see. In my mind this is a win, because more people, who cared enough to rate my quiz, liked it than didn't. No one wants to make a quiz people don't enjoy, so a majority of positives is all I ask for.
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 07:45 AM

I have two quizzes that I took an exceptional amount of time in composing, and just because they are marked as "very difficult," both of them are ranked in the 90,000's, yet I spent about five months putting the quiz together. I put a lot of research into both of these quizzes, yet neither are ranked well. The editor that placed them online enjoyed editing both of them, and liked how they came out. The first of the two was an Author Challenge, and I was able to make it work into a second quiz that I put together myself. It still took the better part of two months to do it, and, again, ranks very low due to the "difficulty" of the quiz. To me, they are the two best quizzes I've written, but the rankings say otherwise.

Not only did I learn quite a bit putting these two quizzes together, but I also tried to make it where the quiz taker would learn some things as well. If I score two on a quiz that I knew nothing about and ten on a quiz I know a lot about, the one I scored two on will get a higher ranking, just because the author took the time to put it together. Granted, I can't tell if it was posted into the quiz template in a matter of ten minutes, as quizzes can be written offsite in Word or some other text editor, so I can't necessarily base a rating on just that.
Posted by: kaddarsgirl

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 07:55 AM

Originally Posted By: dg_dave
I have two quizzes that I took an exceptional amount of time in composing, and just because they are marked as "very difficult," both of them are ranked in the 90,000's, yet I spent about five months putting the quiz together. I put a lot of research into both of these quizzes, yet neither are ranked well. The editor that placed them online enjoyed editing both of them, and liked how they came out. The first of the two was an Author Challenge, and I was able to make it work into a second quiz that I put together myself. It still took the better part of two months to do it, and, again, ranks very low due to the "difficulty" of the quiz. To me, they are the two best quizzes I've written, but the rankings say otherwise.


I'm not sure that the difficulty plays as much into it as you may think, though it is a possibility as to a lower ranking. From my own quiz creation experience, my harder quizzes (Very Hard and Difficult) have been ranked higher than my easier (still Tough) quizzes. There may be a larger variation/trend from Very Easy to Impossible than I get in my limited Tough to Very Hard quizzes, though, that you may be experiencing in yours quizzes (quiz naivety on my part in that case).

If you could post a link/links to the quizzes you talk about, I would love to take a stab at them. I've just completed an Author Challenge quiz myself, and know the work that goes into them and the new things that even the author learns along the way!
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 08:49 AM

Quote:
Even if we could overcome the difficulties inherent in measuring the time spent on writing a quiz, I still don't think that such information would be useful in deciding how to rate a quiz.

The quality of a quiz does not vary proportionately with the time spent writing it.


I agree 100%. It's a moot point anyway, as the editors have absolutely no intention of including that information in any way on the published quiz.

Please rate quizzes based on how much you enjoyed playing them. It's an inherently subjective process and that's just fine - that's the way we want it to be.
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 09:38 AM

It has been said time and time again, and I completely agree, that the amount of time a quiz takes has no bearing on rating.

Check out this quiz of mine. Rated 1567.

Nov 25 08 [12:41 PM] : Quiz placed online for all to play!
Nov 25 08 [12:22 PM] : salami_swami : Quiz Submitted for Editor Review!
Nov 25 08 [11:40 AM] : salami_swami : Quiz Created

Notice that it took only 1 hour 1 minute to get it created, completely written, AND online. It is one of my highest rated quizzes.

Alternately, check this one out. It took me forever to write, as it was a difficult one for me to wrap my mind around to get the questions done. It is rated 98,822.

Nov 11 10 [10:59 AM] : Quiz placed online for all to play!
Nov 07 10 [7:28 PM] : salami_swami : Quiz Submitted for Editor Review!
Oct 15 10 [10:28 PM] : salami_swami : Quiz Created

Almost an entire month just for me to write it, let alone queue time of four days... And it wasn't rated very well.


So, just to agree with so many people who have already said so, I don't think writing time should be included at all. It means nothing, in my opinion.
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: kaddarsgirl
If you could post a link/links to the quizzes you talk about, I would love to take a stab at them.


I can't post them here as we cannot post the quiz titles themselves, but will send you one of the titles via PM.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Tue Jul 24 2012 01:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Country Mother
mehaul, how many times I got to tell ya not to poke that beehive with a pointy stick? You gotta save that stick fo' poking the dead body down in the Shallows. Now run along and go chase Forest or something.


Okay Maw.
Posted by: WesleyCrusher

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Jul 25 2012 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: salami_swami
Almost an entire month just for me to write it, let alone queue time of four days... And it wasn't rated very well.

So, just to agree with so many people who have already said so, I don't think writing time should be included at all. It means nothing, in my opinion.


Just a month to write? I had one simmer for over two years smile
Posted by: salami_swami

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Jul 25 2012 04:11 PM

Well, there was my quiz that took over a year, but it got a thumb, so... ;-)
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Sun Jul 29 2012 08:03 AM

I've had quizzes simmer for so long that the pan burnt dry ~~
Posted by: lorance79

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 30 2012 05:17 AM

While on the subject of the ratings system---

Does it make any difference whether the quiz is rated by a few dozen people vs hundreds or thousands? Obviously there needs to be enough ratings for the variability to settle down, but all else being equal should a quiz played by many more people necessarily rate higher than a niche quiz?

I've been curious for a while--not after the algorithm or anything, just a general idea.
Posted by: agony

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 30 2012 07:06 AM

I think not. If you look at the top 25 list, many of them are niche quizzes. So far as I know there is no weighting for numbers of players - a rating is a rating (except for some protection built in for quizzes which are part of a challenge, as that has been shown to be bad for ratings - the Bus Ride quizzes, for example)
Posted by: looney_tunes

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Jul 30 2012 02:43 PM

The number of plays is a statistic that is kept, and you can find the quizzes with the most plays. This tends to mean that they are on popular topics, not necessarily that they are good quizzes. The really outstanding quizzes can be played by thousands, not just those with an appreciation for the niche subject, and still have lots of excellent ratings, but the rankings are based on percentages, rather than absolute numbers, of players giving each of the five possible ratings.
Posted by: lorance79

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Aug 01 2012 06:18 AM

Cool; thanks for the explanation agony & looney tunes.
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 12:27 AM

How I see the rank. I write a quiz a week ago and I don't see the rank. Thanks.
Posted by: gtho4

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 12:32 AM

It's on the RH side of the quiz introduction page, underneath the three red arrows.
Posted by: ozzz2002

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 12:32 AM

Joe, it usually takes about three weeks for the ranking to kick in. Your quiz went online on the 10th, so it will probably get ranked next Sunday night, FT time.
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 07:45 AM

Thanks ozz.
Posted by: JanIQ

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 01:23 PM

In addition to the delay, there's another criterium. A quiz' ranking is only shown after at least 20 people have given their ratings.
Posted by: Gil_Galad

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 09:10 PM

And it stays marked as *NEW* until it gets 20 ratings. There are quizzes that were placed online more than a year ago that still have that tag.
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 09:53 PM

It's rated by 58 players. Thanks.
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 19 2012 11:11 PM

Joe, it's now rated by a sufficient number of players, but as ozzz2002 stated above, you'll have to wait three weeks for a ranking to show, which would ideally be December 3, as rankings update on Mondays FT time.
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Nov 21 2012 09:34 PM

Hi dave and ozz thanks. How I win the sunglass? I want for a summer day.
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Nov 21 2012 10:34 PM

sorry i see, the quiz must rated in the top 20%. The sunglass was remove if the quiz dropped the 20% mark?
Posted by: dg_dave

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Wed Nov 21 2012 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: joecali
The sunglass was remove if the quiz dropped the 20% mark?


Yes. Sunglasses come and go on quizzes if they do not meet the top 20% of quizzes (which is roughly the top 22,000).
Posted by: joecali

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 26 2012 10:20 AM

How I see the complete rating.

http://www.funtrivia.com/quizlist2.cfm?myquizzes=1&rank=yes

In user feedback, this it's the information, but don't see the average, poor and very poor ratings.

Ratings: 67
Good & Excellents: 54 (81%)
Exc: 16 (24%), Good: 38 (57%)
Posted by: kyleisalive

Re: Quiz Rankings Question - Mon Nov 26 2012 10:25 AM

Quote:
but don't see the average, poor and very poor ratings.


No one does.