Added: 12.04.2011 13:56
Linked challenges:
No linked challenges.
Linked visions:
No linked visions.

C.A.R.S Rating System

Massidea.org’s current rating system could be replaced with a more ‎sophisticated rating system that caters for both peer and expert reviews. My idea is to apply web-‎based content evaluation method known as C.A.R.S. ‎

What is C.A.R.S

C.A.R.S is a method which is used for e.g. evaluating the quality of web-based articles. It’s fairly ‎easy to use. Although most articles do not fill every criterion mentioned, it will help to determined ‎whether an article is good quality of not. C.A.R.S stands for the following: Credibility, Accuracy, ‎Reasonableness and Support. These 4 elements could be used in Massidea.org by giving them 3 or ‎more variables in order to make the elements more understandable and more easily rateable. In ‎addition, more well-defined variables bring more added value to the entire evaluation/rating process ‎from which both the service and its users benefit. ‎

These values could be for instance:‎

Credibility: Authentic, Reliable, Believable

Accuracy: Factual, Detailed, Up-to-Date, Comprehensive

Reasonableness: Objective, Consistent

Support: Use of Sources, Corroboration ‎

Reader could give e.g. 1-5 stars against one or more variables thus reviewing the article efficiently ‎and more thoroughly. ‎


What is the importance and who benefits

Both the Massidea.org service and the users benefit more from the C.A.R.S rating system than from ‎the Thumbs system. Firstly it would make the service more sophisticated and not to mention more ‎aligned and competitive with the modern content sharing solutions and services. Therefore ‎Massidea.org would also be more credible and valuable tool for its users in regards of sharing, ‎discussing and using content but also in terms of collaborating with others. ‎

Readers having to evaluate content more extensively rather than just liking or disliking it, would ‎also force them to actually internalise what is being communicated. More importantly this system ‎would be a quick, more easy-to-use solution for readers to communicate their opinion about the ‎content than the commenting function. ‎

This rating system would provide short yet efficient data of the content quality for potential interest ‎groups through peer review thus highlighting good quality content from the rest of the mass. Since ‎the C.A.R.S rating system is based on several variables and on the values given against these ‎variables by users, it would be easily implemented to the current Hall-of-Fame. This in return would ‎bring further visibility to good quality content and good writers.‎

Let's complimented the ideas of "masscollaboration" and "massinnovation" with "massevaluation"

Your idea/solution in one sentence: Creating a more sophisticated rating system for Massidea.org

Do you a have better idea? or

Solution(s) for this content
User image
I have written a couple of articles regarding implementing a more sophisticated article rating system ‎on Massidea.org. Funnily enough, I stumbled upon a very similar looking rating system on ‎Wikipedia.org. My idea is to take Wikipedia’s example and use it on Massidea.org as well. ‎
User image
This site could inhibit some more interesting and innovating ways to collect and promote good ideas. It could incorporate more graphical interfaces to the idea postings, more possibilities to follow interactions, more involvement from outside organizations (not just AMKs) and a better future for the ideas.
This is a solution to
User image
Users can already rate content on Massidea.org by giving it either a "Thumbs Up" or a "Thumbs Down". However, when users produce content they are looking for feedback that is more precise. On the other hand readers want a feedback system that sums up their thoughts and isn't too elaborate

Would you like to comment?

Log in or Sign up