Talk:RateMyProfessors.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Additional Criticism
It should probably mentioned somewhere in the article that any student who takes the site seriously is a pure idiot. There's no way of knowing who is doing the ratings and whether they are being honest or even whether they have taken a class from the prof.
-
- I agree that RMP isn't to be taken seriously. Most profs I know rate themselves, rate their colleagues - I know of a case where one job applicant gave another job applicant bad reviews in the hope that it would change the hiring committee's decision. And of course students rate multiple times, etc. But it's not our job in an encyclopedic entry to say that a student who takes the site seriously is an idiot.--Ggbroad 11:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If I read correctly, John Swapceinski is four years old?!?!?! -- Viajero 09:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I think 1999 is supposed to be his address (I could be wrong). In any case, this article is not obviously valuable to my eyes. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what it is doing here either. VfD? -- Viajero 10:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- The year 1999 refers to the year the site was founded. Specifically, it went online in May of 1999.
[edit] deleted the following from article
- "Swapceinski also runs RateMD.com and RateMyTeachers.com, which rates high school and middle school teachers. This latter site contains more than 6 million ratings, regarding nearly 900,000 teachers."
*Kat* 11:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I added in some info on RMD and CRZ and deleted this, in order to keep the article from reading like an advertisement.
*Kat* 01:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proponents section?
Is this section necessary? Right now the entire section contains only a single sentence, which basically states the definition of a proponent of any course evaluation service. NBS525 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been a week and no one has responded, so I will go ahead and delete the section. NBS525 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant to get back to it, but never did. I'll write it eventually. *Kat* 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
the criticism section is longer than the entry and the part about "consumers" is very wordy and awkward.
[edit] Response to critics section
Don't know who wrote this, but THANK YOU. --*Kat* 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section include something about RMP being a valuable, easily accessible resource to help students pick classes? I've avoided several bad professors with RMP. This semester, I didn't bother to check beforehand and wound up with the worst professor on campus. Fishyfred 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're assuming that RMP is an accurate reflection of the quality of a professor. Most profs I know rate themselves, and rate their friends, too.--Ggbroad 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Response section needs sources. It's unclear where any of this information is coming from, and there's no particular reason for thinking that any of it is true.
[edit] Cleanup
Perhaps we could use shorter sentences, and smaller words on the page to make it easier to read. Also, perhaps we could use more images and shorter paragraphs. Just my opinion. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you would like to write a "Simple English" version of the page instead of dumbing it down for a few people? 翔太「Shouta:talk」 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism Section
Seems to take the side of the critics with this portion: "Yet, an unfortunate number of the ratings for professors border on ridiculousness ... junior high level of instruction." Should be phrased as opinion of critics instead?
Agreed and changed, we'll see how long it lasts, though.
- I think the point should be made that there is no way of preventing one individual from making multiple ratings on RMP. I know students who have rated a professor they like or dislike many times. While IP addresses are ostensibly logged, this no more prevents multiple postings on RMP than blocking a given IP can prevent a vandal from attacking a page on Wikipedia. (I should also point out that I know professors who have left multiple ratings for themselves and even for colleagues who they like/dislike). In addition, the point should be made that one major objection to RMP is that almost every college and university makes their own teaching evaluations publically available, based on far more sophisticated survey instruments than RMP, which would seem to make RMP redundant. Finally, RMP's rating is based on criteria: helpfulness and clarity. Surely there is more to what makes a good professor than that and, furthermore, it is entirely possible to have a bad professor who happens to be helpful and clear!
-
- What does the RSS thing I see on ratemyprofessors stand for? How does it work? And should it be referenced here in the article? --164.107.92.120 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RateMyProfs Routinely Allows Numerous Ratings from a Single Computer
This is a response to the request for a "citation" for the claim that RateMyProfessors "frequently allow[s] multiple ratings [of the same professor] from even a single IP address". This can be proven by almost anyone who cares to test the claim by going to the website, randomly choosing a professor, and posting more than one rating of him/her. I have personally done this several times from the same computer, and none of my bogus ratings have yet been removed by the website admins who are supposedly monitoring such things. There's no reason to think that this is an exception to the rule rather than the norm, stemming from poor policing by website admins. So that surely counts as good evidence for the claim in question. I see no need to provide a "citation" for the claim, since it's so easily proven by any random individual who cares to test it. The admins at RateMyProfessors may like us to believe that they have taken effective steps to keep this sort of multi-posting from happening. But the irrefutable fact is that they have not in fact stopped it and perhaps cannot without overhauling the entire nature of their website.
- I have done the same. Moderators come and go, as well, and it's not clear how they monitor such things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggbroad (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Removed Response from Criticisms Section
I removed the following sentence from the Criticisms Section:"Since the founder's stated purpose was for the site to be a resource for students only, some argue that the validity of this particular criticism is dubious." Since it appears to be a response to the first two sentences under How Relevant are Raters' Comments?, it seems to belong in the Response Section rather than under Criticisms. I cannot, however, find the appropriate place to fit it in; so I leave this task to the original author of the sentence in question or to anyone interested. Incidentally, IMHO it's a silly response anyway. Surely, even if RMP is supposed to be a resource for students only, that doesn't imply that students couldn't be using RMP as a forum for harassing a prof.
[edit] Article seems to have negative POV
This article seems to take the side of the negative critics. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV. I've used ratemyprofessors.com before, and for the most part, I find the ratings pretty accurate. I think if we change the wording in the criticisms section, and add something about the positive aspects, it would be closer to NPOV.--lifeisharsh20 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now nominated the article to be checked for neutrality.--lifeisharsh20 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
