George Rebane: Ratings versus rankings | TheUnion.com
YOUR AD HERE »

George Rebane: Ratings versus rankings

The Dec. 15 article on Nevada City’s pot dispensaries was confusing because “rankings” were substituted for what actually were ratings.

The three dispensary applicants were numerically rated on a number of factors which were combined into a summary rating for each applicant. These ratings were then ranked in descending numerical order. Published ratings provide more information to the public because they convey compactly and clearly three important pieces of information — how well the applicants satisfied the evaluation factors, whether and how the applicants qualifications differed, and, of course, how they ranked.

Out of a 100 maximum, say that applicants [A,B,C] received ratings of [92, 65, 31], or [92, 89, 88], or [39, 32, 29] — each case would tell a completely different story about the applicants that is totally hidden by reporting only their identical rankings.



Ratings are always more informative than rankings, and the two should never be confused.

George Rebane




Nevada City


Support Local Journalism


Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User