Blank rating equals Bad Rating

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

When rating, if you choose not to rate a portion, the system computes that as a bad rating, rather than ignoring it as a section not rated.

Specifics:

Suggest enabling separate ratings for all the components so that someone can be rated for attendance, not rated for other things, and the "not rated" does not count as negative.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Ratings integrity

[Timminz]

When rating, if you choose not to rate a portion, the system computes that as a bad rating, rather than ignoring it as a section not rated.

No it doesn't. Why is your 'teamwork' rating a 5.0 if only 6 of 36 people have given you a rating for it? If not being rated in a category counted as a bad rating in the system, you'd have a 'teamwork' rating of 0.8. It says, right at the top of your ratings page, how many people have rated you in each category.

[trapyoung]

hurray! the problem has been solved!

[laci_mae]

When rating, if you choose not to rate a portion, the system computes that as a bad rating, rather than ignoring it as a section not rated.

No it doesn't. Why is your 'teamwork' rating a 5.0 if only 6 of 36 people have given you a rating for it? If not being rated in a category counted as a bad rating in the system, you'd have a 'teamwork' rating of 0.8. It says, right at the top of your ratings page, how many people have rated you in each category.

The system automatically detects whether you qualify to receive a teamwork rating. However, it's very likely that the other 4 are averaged regardless.

L

[FabledIntegral]

Yeah - you got your "concise description" completely opposite dude. No rating IS no rating, not zero stars...