I don’t see a problem. After all, each article is followed by a Comments section, so those who want to can leave more specific feedback.
I don’t see a problem with the rating scale, either. If an article is seriously flawed or factually incorrect, then a low rating is warranted. If that means a 1, 2, or 3, then so be it. Besides, if someone gives an article a low enough rating, Biznik sends the rater a message asking for clarification of that rating before it will be counted.
An earlier post seemed to suggest that ratings below 5 were inappropriate. If we were to take that to its logical conclusion, we’d end up with a ratings system similar to that of car dealerships who effectively guilt their customers into giving them ratings of 5 out of 5, because anything less means failure.
Yes, the overall rating of an article which has received only a handful of ratings can be greatly affected by subsequent ratings, but that’s only going to be true for so long. In the meantime, recruiting others to give ratings if 10 in order to “restore” a “fair” rating strikes me as dishonest—it’s gaming the system, really. Wouldn’t it make more sense to look over the article for things that could be improved?
Better yet, simply remember that one has to let go at some point. When putting something out there, how people respond—or even if they respond—is never guaranteed. What other folks get from an article is necessarily going to vary, because they bring different levels of knowledge, experience, and engagement to the table.
In any event, making individual ratings public could be problematic. I know I would be less likely to rate something if my name had to be attached to it every time.
Comparisons have been made with Amazon—but individual product ratings there are public only if accompanied by a written review. Otherwise, they’re anonymous.
My two bits