George Rebane: Ratings versus rankings | TheUnion.com

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

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