![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Rating site page were merged into Review site#Rating site on 9 January 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This aricle reads more like an advertisement for those rate-me sites than an encyclopedic article. for that reason, it should be deleted. --Revision as of 03:37, 18 July 2006 (edit) User:69.59.203.122 (Talk)
I removed all the external links, as there was clearly no attempt made to figure out which of them might be notable or well known sites and which weren't. Links to a few such sites might be reasonable, linking to every one in existence is not. See Wikipedia:External links. -- Xyzzyplugh 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This comment made by User:64.166.226.169, was moved from the talkpage. -- Sjakkalle 07:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Zanimum added the comment that 7 of the top 10 girls were listed as being "gay/lesbian". I checked and it's true! My guess is that girls in this category get more "10" votes regardless of the appearance of their face. I also noticed that two of them were 50 years old, and one was in her forties. She was remarkably well preserved for her advanced age. Alas, truth is no defense for original research, which is the main reason the change couldn't stay in. Now, just get someone to publish an article in a reputable newspaper in which it is reported that 7 of the top 10 girls are gay, and that comment goes right back in the article!— GraemeMcRae talk 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Uh if it's true then i see no reason it shouldn't be in the aritcle , if i tell you the sun is bright and you go outside and you see that it's true , then i don't think we need an article to confirm what we can see for our selves . Of course i may have misinterperted what you wrote above.i'm new to wiki , ray 12.207.49.197 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone provide a clearer explanation of the voting system for me? Like why the raw data shows different results than the average score, and how they interpret voting styles? As well as clarifying the paragraph in the article? Thanks, -- Mercury1 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give these two pages a little cleaning and do a possible merge. I've done some research on these sites as well as other rating polls in the past are few rating sites I've collected a few as well. Feel free to leave questions or comments here about rating sites, in general, if you have them; I like rating sites. Also please don't delete all the external links; there are dozens of " rating sites" spin-offs that have emerged since hot-or-not, and good ones are hard to find. Many are very interesting and give telling information about human patterns. Also, I would favor a merge on all of these sites, i.e. Hot or Not, Rate-me site, and any others that crop up, to rating sites with a header-section to the main 3 to 5 sites. The latter name seems to confining, e.g. now that there are political rating sites, rate my personality, rate my legs, rate my dog, rate my teacher, etc. (click here, for a few examples, and click here, for about a 100 rating sites); moreover, in common language people refer to these as photo or personality “rating sites” not “rate-me sites”, as it is now. -- Sadi Carnot 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. |
Below are links that have been added and reverted lately by users. I'll put them here to get a consensus going. -- Sadi Carnot 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a lot of editors involved in these pages, so I'm going to be bold and merge them all together to rating sites, then put each main site in chronological order, begin to add some sources, think about the pre-1999 history section, and try to organize the links per category. If the article gets to long down the road, we can always do sub-topics back out again. -- Sadi Carnot 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged this for spam and advertising and also for cleanup. I realise that the problems with this article stem from the merger of the multiple entries for the various sites into a single page. However, as Hot or Not's article was so much longer than the others, the article now reads like an extended advert for them. The article also seems to make a number of dubious and possibly contradictory claims. I do not have the expertise to do it, however I believe it neads at the very least a complete and thorough subedit (copy edit) and probably a complete rewrite. Iridescent 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I usually judge an article by the talk-page flow. Anyway, what is James Hong’s Wiki user name? As to the moderator system controversy, is there an article or page somewhere that we can source or use as a basis? If you give it to me, I’ll do the math and add a synopsis to the article. In 2003, for example, I studied the HoN rating distribution according to age category by counting the ratings of 160 women, 40 from each category: (18-25), (26-32), (33-40), and (40+). Those results, shown below, indicate that either the algorithm deviates or is biased per age or that older participants are scored on a more gentle scale (the latter seems to be the case according to others who have done similar types of sampling studies). Is this the kind of thing you were looking for? -- Sadi Carnot 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That forum is funny. I can’t believe that with all that discussion, the site has changed very little, in terms of improvement over the years. We’ll have to chip away at the moderator section a little at a time. Maybe J’s or some of the other HoN moderators can come over here to edit this article. Thanks for the link. Talk later: -- Sadi Carnot 02:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the "Origin" section as a blatant copyvio - taken verbatim from http://www.hotornot.com/pages/about.html, right down to the "our friends". Iridescent 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For heaven's sake! We only just merged them... - iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm re-splitting Hot or Not and every other company that gets a paragraph or more. Anything not notable either gets pared down to a list entry if sourced, or moved here to the talk page. I might make a separate "list of" article if the list gets long or unruly, or vandalized. Hot or not is a notable company, a significant (if somewhat marginal) Web 2.0 pioneer, and I'm sure there are verifiable sources. Wikidemo 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Very recently, User:JzG and I furthered the ongoing clean-up of this article by removing and organizing a bunch of links to external sites. Although perhaps helpful or interesting to some, Wikipedia has guidelines against becoming a "link farm". If there is a site you would like to add, please realize that our verifiability policy requires that information be sourced, and relevant. We are not a directory of businesses or an indiscriminate list of random information. So please keep things tidy and organized. So if you add a link and somebody deletes it, that is probably what happened. Right now I have made a suggestion in the article that the standard for inclusion in the list is that a site should be either the subject of a proper Wikipedia article on its own, or somehow sourced by a citation to a reliable source.
Overall, this article still needs some sources, so any help is appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
ChaloNiZambia, this article has been around for fourteen years. If you really think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Review_site#Merge_with_Rating_site. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)