this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
483 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

15221 readers
1205 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
fossilesque
483
glupi jebeni bot (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 174 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (22 children)

i see this all the time with software designed by americans. on an old job we used a tool called "officevibe" where you'd enter your current impression of your role and workplace once a month. you got some random questions to answer on a 10-degree scale.

when we were presented with the result the stats were terrible because the scale was weighted so that everything below 7 was counted as negative. we were all just answering 5 for "it's okay", 3-4 for "could use improvement", and 6-7 for "better than expected". there had never been a 10 in the stats, and the software took that as "this place sucks".

like, of course you downvote a bad response. you're supposed to help the model get better, right?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Recently, saw some survey that explicitly said 1-7 is "poor", 7-8 is "OK", and 9-10 is "great". Wild, not sure what the point of the scale is then.

Same with book ratings. Looking at StoryGraph, the average ratings I see is somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5. While I would rate a decent book a 3.

Born in Eastern Europe, live in the US, maybe that's why.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if it's like the grading system we use in school? <60% is F for fail, 60% to <70% is D which depending on the class can be barely passing or barely failing. >=70% would be A, B, and C grades which are all usually passing, and A in particular means doing extremely well or perfect (>=90%). I just noticed that that rating scale kind of lines up with the typical American grading scale, maybe that's just a coincidence

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

most countries i know mark <50% as a failing grade

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

i was unaware most countries still use this terrible score system at all

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Apples and watermelons. The all-time highest major league batting average is only .371, nowhere near .500 which would correspond to 50% of the max possible.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i have no idea what that means or why it's relevant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I believe you. On a rating scale of 0-10 a value of 5 doesn't usually represent a failure or anything negative, it's usually a middle concept such as "neither like nor dislike". Batting average is another example where 50% isn't a "failing grade". Hope that helps clear it up for you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

no i mean i don't know what a "batting average" is or why it's apples to oranges to compare it to test scores.

i'm assuming you mean that comparing a pure gaussian distribution to a weighted system is unproductive?

load more comments (20 replies)