Idea about rankings


Sign up or Log In to change notification settings.
MA
mamajuana πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 148 ratings Author Posted 4 Jul '14

Hello, I have noticed that the rankings show up randomly if ranked within the same general number on the raters shelves. Could it be set so that the ranker could adjust his shelf so that the more desired bottle would show first left to right if ranked the same in terms of the number? for example I may rank 2 rums a 9 but slightly prefer 1 of the 2 and would like that one to show first from left to right.
Andy avatar image
Andy (PREMIUM) πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ | 143 ratings Replied 13 Jul '14

Thanks for the suggestion Mamajuana - it would make sense at some point to have either more granular ratings (as in .1 increments) or the ability to alter the cabinet manually. I'll surely put the suggestion on the development list - and especially if other users want this feature as well I'll try to get it completed.
MA
mamajuana πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ | 148 ratings Author Replied 14 Jul '14

It would make more sense for the rater to just choose the rankings within the cabinet. The granular ratings idea is not what I am suggesting and differences between such small rating increments is too difficult to judge. The idea of moving the rum to the top of the shelf would solve all problems. For example lets say I rate 2 rums 9.2 but I still prefer one over the other it would still not allow me to choose the better. I believe the current ranking system of 1-10 is perfect and a refreshing change from current ratings.
Andy avatar image
Andy (PREMIUM) πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ | 143 ratings Replied 27 Jul '14

Makes sense - in essence the ability for users to re-sort their rum cabinet if multiple have the same ratings. Let me thinking through what could be easily done and I'll get back to you :)
SL
SlowRain πŸ‡»πŸ‡³ | 36 ratings Replied 3 Aug '14

Andy, goodreads.com has a feature like this for your favorite books. You add books to your Favorites bookshelf and then bump them up and down with arrows or else hardcode a rank. Doesn't always display properly, though, but that's their glitch. :-(