music libraries ratings update

[Dannyc]

hi Art/all,

is there any chance of having the music library ratings section updated? this seems like its way out dated at this stage and i’m sure there are a lot of new libraries in the mean time which would make the list and vice versa a few libraries that should no longer be on the list or at least rated so high. when you search for libraries individually you can see their star rating on their page but is there any way to search for the libraries in terms of the ones with the highest awarded stars vs the lowest? a bit like how it is shown in the ratings tab at the moment.

[Small_Ocean]

I assume they’re not on the list because simply not enough votes has been cast for them. What libraries in particular do you think should be ranked highly by the way?

[Art Munson]

is there any chance of having the music library ratings section updated?

The ratings are dependent on folks taking the time to rate the libraries. Any other way would be my making a judgment call. It probably wouldn’t be accurate as my experience would be different from someone else.

is there any way to search for the libraries in terms of the ones with the highest awarded stars vs the lowest?

The ratings page already gives you that info. Small_Ocean is right, if a library is not listed it did not get enough votes. A library needs at least 20 votes to make the list. I could always lower the number of votes for a library to make the list.

[Dannyc]

The ratings page already gives you that info. Small_Ocean is right, if a library is not listed it did not get enough votes. A library needs at least 20 votes to make the list. I could always lower the number of votes for a library to make the list.

yeah i understand that but i think it would be good to have an actual section were you ask people to rate all the 475 libraries listed rather than it being an after thought to rate if you just happen to be on that libraries page.

i think then you would get libraries with more than 20 votes. people love to vote imo. also what i meant is to include it into a search criteria somewhere. for example all libraries with rating stars 8 and above we as the user could run a search ourselves whether they got 5 votes or 50. it would be just a nice way at seeing those libraries that are rated highly or alternatively very low by even small numbers of composers rather than having to search them all individually and work it out for yourself.

[Art Munson]

Dannyc got me to thinking about the ratings. Many of the votes were from early on when anonymous users could vote. Currently only logged in users can vote.

A recent update to the rating plugin allows me to more easily clean up the data. So, I have been going through the ratings to try and bring them more up to date. Sadly, one of the first things I found was that a number of library owners were voting one star on their competitor’s listing! Too bad we have some owners that feel the need to try and skew the ratings.

It will take me some time to go through this but here is what I plan and I will concentrate on the highest ranked libraries first. Don’t be surprised if you see the rankings change on many of the listed sites.

1. All library owner votes will be deleted.
2. Anonymous votes will be carefully scrutinized. Multiple votes from the same IP address will be deleted.
3. Every deleted 10 vote will have a corresponding 1 vote deleted if it’s an anonymous vote.
4. Only votes with at least 20 votes will be ranked. Though that may change depending on the results I end up with.

If anybody has any other suggestions, fire away.

[Music1234]

Art, I think you actually may want comments to speak for themselves. I have to be honest that I have decided not to consider ratings when evaluating a library here. What does 5 stars mean? 6 stars? Is the ratings based on how nice these folks are? how quickly they listen and respond to submissions? how cool the web site looks? How much money they make us?

We really need to take into consideration what people say about the music library and the relationship they have with them. Maybe make one of the requirements be that writers reveal how long they have had tracks at the library, and how many tracks they publish there. Less than 50? more than 50? (something like that). If new writers come in and offer bad ratings, but in reality they’ve had 10 tracks there for 4 months, there really is nothing to judge.

Ratings are always tough, they can be manipulated easily because people can vote negatively for the wrong reasons such as “my track was not accepted”. I agree you’d need at least 20 votes to reach a conclusive, reliable rating. I honestly don’t even know how I’d rate the places that earn the most for me because there are always issues that frustrate us. Do they deserve 10 stars just because we do well there? Comments really do the best job. You may want to save yourself some time sifting through all the ratings. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

[Art Munson]

You may want to save yourself some time sifting through all the ratings.

I disagree. It’s a popular page.

[Music1234]

Ahhh. This page. First time I clicked on it! I do see some value to this and you do display the number of votes. Yes this is good Art, and I’d agree with your clean up edits you suggest above.

Ratings

[Dannyc]

great to see you’re doing this Art looking forward to seeing the new ratings section. 🙂

[NY Composer]

We have to take into consideration all of the people who work for libraries and casts votes but don’t reveal who they are in a user name.

[Art Munson]

We have to take into consideration all of the people who work for libraries and casts votes but don’t reveal who they are in a user name.

Maybe, but that would mean they would have to buy a subscription. Not generally likely but always a possibility.

[Author]

Posts