Terminology of rating system

[XnTriq]

IMO the terminology (in both XnView v1.9 and MP) should be changed to what seems to be the standard for 5-star rating systems:

1. Poor Bad
2. Fair Below average
3. Average
4. Good
5. Excellent

[JohnFredC]

Yes, much better!

[budz45]

Good suggestion +1

[marsh]

+1

[helmut]

+1 (Just wondering what the equivalent standard in German is...)

[Vapavite123]

Hello,

Si changement accepté !

Traduction en français

Poor : ne pas traduire par "Pauvre" mais "Médiocre"
Fair : ne pas traduire par "Juste" mais "Raisonnable"

Exemple : Google traduction utilise le premier sens des termes

[XnTriq]

This has been updated in MP, but — as of v1.99.6 — it's still the same in XnView “Classic”.

[XnTriq]

All versions of XnView should use the same terminology in their rating system:

• Excellent
• Good
• Average
• Fair Below average
• Poor Bad

As of version v2.37, Classic still hasn't been updated.

[helmut]

Thanks for raising this issue again, XnTriq. Before changing the English terms for rating in XnView Classic I'd like to discuss the current rating terminology.

When translating the current English terms (see above) to German it's not easy to find the matching words for the English ratings. Translating in other languages might also be difficult. Independantly from each other Herb and I found a different rating terminology which is both clear and very simple to translate into other languages. I've read some few sources and found a the ranking terminology Herb and I have in mind in Wording for rating scales (University of Wisconsin-Extension) for example. The rating mentioned there is a balanced (symmetric) rating:

1. Very good
2. Good
3. Neutral
4. Bad
5. Very bad

Other terms and ranges are also possible, e.g.:

1. Good
2. Above average
3. Average
4. Below average
5. Bad

Not sure whether a balanced rating is better for rating images or not. But I guess it's the balance / symmetry which makes translating into other languages easier. And when switching from one language to another it's less likely that the rating has a (slightly) different meaning. So I think a balanced (symmetric) rating is the way to go.

Other opinions? Is someone familiar with 5 star rating terminology in multiple languages?

[cday]

Other opinions?

My initial reaction on reading XnTriq's post today was that 'Average' and 'Fair' have about the same meaning to me in English; then I read the whole thread, and saw that they corresponded to the rating system in some other software, and they had in the past received strong support.

I think the latest suggested wording is much clearer (although personally I would differ from the University of Wisconsin in preferring 'Poor' and 'Very poor' to 'Bad' and 'Very bad').

[XnTriq]

• xkcd
  • Star Ratings
• Wikipedia
  • Grading systems by country
  • Star (classification)
  • ID3 » ID3v2 rating tag issue
  • Likert scale
• Likert-type scales
  • Clemson University: Likert-Type Scale Response Anchors
  • Iowa State University: Likert Scale Examples for Surveys
  • SurveyLegend: What are Likert-Type Scale Responses, when to use them + lots of examples
• Wiley Online Library
  • Types of Quality and Outcomes Measures: Rating satisfaction research — Is it poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent?
• Peter Krogh: The DAM Book (Digital Asset Management for Photographers)
  • ASMP dpBestflow: Metadata » Ratings
  • O'Reilly Media: Managing Digital Images » Applying Ratings and Keywords
  • Google Books: Prioritizing images with ratings
• Christopher Allen
  • Using 5-Star Rating Systems

Code: Select all

1 - poor;       2 - fair;         3 - good; 4 - very good; 5 - excellent.
1 - mangelhaft; 2 - befriedigend; 3 - gut;  4 - sehr gut;  5 - hervorragend.

[helmut]

Thank you for the many links and references, XnTriq. I haven't read all the documents and articles - what I understood is:

- Ratings for images should have one rating for out-takes/crap which can be deleted later and apart from this a diversity of "good" ratings (means a non-balanced rating).

- There is a kind of "standard" for quality ratings in general which is in English "1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good; 4 - very good; 5 - excellent.".

Right?

[XnTriq]

There is a kind of "standard" for quality ratings in general which is in English "1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good; 4 - very good; 5 - excellent.".

At least this seems to be the most commonly used wording when it comes to 5-point (vs. 7-point etc.) rating systems for quality (vs. level of agreement/difficulty/priority etc.) in questionnaires (survey research).
I was hoping for a standard terminology in metadata formats such as IPTC and XMP or even ID3, but to my surprise, there are no such guidelines or recommendations.

Ratings for images should have one rating for out-takes/crap which can be deleted later and apart from this a diversity of "good" ratings (means a non-balanced rating).

The “ratings pyramid”…

• 5 stars
  4 stars
  3 stars
  2 stars
  1 star
  Neutral
  Outtakes

… commonly referred to in digital asset management (DAM).

• XnView Forum
  • Rating compatibility
  • Request: Flag on thumbnail
  • Photo "Picks": Accept / Reject labels
• Envato Tuts+
  • Shooting Stars: Rating and Filtering Pictures in Lightroom
• YouTube
  • Photos In Color: Lightroom 6 tutorial - Lightroom organisation with Stars flags and color rating
• KDE Documentation
  • Digital Asset Management (DAM) with digiKam

[helmut]

Thanks for looking up and providing the most important links, XnTriq. From what I can see, the rating pyramid with its ratings "outtakes", "neutral", and 1-5 stars is the way to go. As a side effect the translation problem would be solved.

I wonder what to do about existing ratings. Perhaps existing ratings could be migrated automatically using a predefined mapping when installing the XnView version with the new rating system.

Do other users agree? Other opinions?

(Please note that a decision on this matter or even a change in XnView shouldn't be made quickly because of the big effect on existing ratings.)

[XnTriq]

If I'm not mistaken, all we need is the already requested flag or picks feature in addition to the star rating that's already in place.

• unrated = neutral
• black flag = rejected = outtakes
• white flag = accepted

I don't think this would break the existing system or have an adverse effect on compatibility with other apllications.