[EM] Gervase Lam, ratings reply

[Brian Olson]

On May 22, 2004, at 2:22 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> You or Ken Johnson can define anything you want, but please understand 
> that defining something a certain way doesn't mean that others should 
> go by that definition, if they're already using a different 
> definition.

Same goes for you, Mike. No one has a monopoly on definitions here. Of 
course in the interest of productive dialogue, it would be good for us 
all to have some common language.

I think we all understand what  a 'ranking' is and what a 'rating' is 
(whatever the scale).

I think it's reasonable to claim that straight Cardinal Rankings (no 
shifting, no scaling, simple summing) is equivalent 
(psychological/anthropological effects aside) no matter what the scale.

Some rated systems behave differently if signed numbers are used or if 
positive-only numbers are used.

OK so far?

Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/