<?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 Chris Geoghegan</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/99611</link>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:46:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Chris Geoghegan</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Great article. The economists perspective perfectly describes the heart of the matter.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I recently did a consumer survey for an application we are building for the one industry. One of the interesting results was that only 24% of people said they at least somewhat understood the existing 100 point rating system for wine. Additionally, 48% of people say they never use online rating systems to make purchasing decisions.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I think what this tells me is that, some people (maybe about a quarter of the population) find rating systems irrelevant to their decision making. It&amp;#8217;s just not how their wired. Moreover, some who use rating systems will be more intrigued by the individual comments than the overall numerical rating. A rating system is part of a larger system, and the larger system needs to take this into account.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_49138</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_49138</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:46:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Chris Geoghegan</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

