<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Zephyr Zephyr</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/1114</link>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:17:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Zephyr Zephyr</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Nice overview.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;m curious about &amp;#8220;defensive rating&amp;#8221; and how eBay solved it&amp;#8230; is rating still limited to registered, signed-in  members, but they can now rate anonymously? Or does rating no longer require sign-in? Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_24944</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_24944</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:17:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Zephyr Zephyr</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;@David Shen: I wonder if too many 4s and 5s is really a problem&amp;#8230; anything on this end of the scale is high-quality and worthy of users&amp;#8217; attention&amp;#8230; they can further decide based on other indicators. Now, if the aggregated rating is the only way to determine appropriateness, that would be a problem. I don&amp;#8217;t think it&amp;#8217;s powerful &amp;#38; relevant enough as a stand-alone feature, but it helps. As mentioned in the article, ratings become more powerful when *combined* with written reviews (for example).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_24947</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_24947</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:11:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Zephyr Zephyr</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
