Talk:RateMyProfessors.com

message: Paul Evans, a Professor at Brigham Young University, is listed as the Hottest Professor for 2014-2015, and was number two for the two previous school years. He was calculated, by error, as having over 300 hot clicks. This is, obviously, a huge mistake. He has only received 43 comments, only ten during 2014-2015. Fifteen of the ratings were "poor." It is impossible for a hot click to occur without someone making a rating. The fact is that no one examines and double checks someone else's work. Paul Evans isn't even in the top 2000.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.19.26 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Ongoing Mistake

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I meant to get back to it, but never did.  I'll write it eventually.  *Kat* 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proponents section? 

message: Don't know who wrote this, but THANK YOU. --*Kat* 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Response to critics section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: First of all, objective presentation of criticism doesn't entail acceptance of the criticism.  Feel free to "balance" the article out by presenting the "other" side of things, assuming there's something worthwhile to be said on that score.  Sometimes, however, it will be found that certain things are really and truly just plain bad; in such cases, why is it not NPOV to tell it how it is?  I assume that an article about shit could say, without bias, that it stinks.  By the way, your claim that you have "found" the ratings "pretty accurate" proves nothing; it's purely anecdotal.TruthPolice 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the entire criticism section. It was really badly written and sourced. Coderx 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the entire criticism section.  Its wholesale removal wasn't sufficiently warranted.  If you want to remove and/or change individual parts of it, feel free.  But you too must give reasons for thinking such things deserve removal.  The Criticism Section is certainly relevant, and much of it is sourced.  So what in particular do you object to?  Maybe you'd like to add a "Response Section", rather than simply deleting the contributions of others.  Or perhaps you're just interested in suppressing certain viewpoints that you're uncomfortable with?  All, or certainly most, of Wikipedia should be deleted without comment if all it requires is one person's judgment that something is badly written or badly sourced.TruthPolice 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We should, by the way, be very wary of respecting Coderx's judgment.  It may seem as though he respects Wikipedia, but he does not.  In his own words, "...Wikipedia...is, in it's core, a MySpace for nerds"  (mispelling in original), and he's been admonished for his tactics .TruthPolice 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the entire criticism section is NPOV.  It also seems entirely like original research, the overwhelming use of qualifiers such as "perhaps" and "might" just make it more suspicious.  If we are writing a section on criticism, it should highlight criticisms that have been published in reputable sources, not one editor's opinion.  The use of such qualifiers is solely to express an opinion without having to back it up with facts.  "The sky is blue" requires factual basis, "Some regard the sky as being blue" does not.  Can we change this to the former?  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the criticisms are obvious, is it original research?  It's obvious that the sky is blue, so would we need to cite something?  Best, --24.154.173.243 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, Sbrools, I think I understand your point.  But what specifically looks to you like it's original research?  Can you name particular points?  Because it looks to me like almost the entire Criticism section is (now) very well-sourced.TruthPolice 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you get students who miss large numbers of classes making posts there, which is a joke.  --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The claims quoted by 24.69.79.147 seem to me for the most part true, though it's true that they are not sourced.  Is it against Wikipedia rules to include a true and reasonable statement in an article without sourcing it?  I suppose it is.  Personally it seems absurd to me that a statement that is false and unreasonable, so long as it is "well-sourced" (i.e., I guess, so long as one can find one person who has published it), will be preferred to a statement that is both true and reasonable but unsourced.  It seems equally absurd that, in order to achieve NPOV ("neutral point of view"), true, factual, reasonable claims must be "balanced" by opposing claims, even if the opposing claims have considerably less merit.  So, for example, in the Wikiarticle on the earth, in order to be NPOV, it must equally represent the view that the earth is flat; after all, it's not "neutral" to say that the earth is round without acknowledging the opposing view.  Strictly speaking, I do think that one part of the claims 24.69.79.147 quotes is unsubstantiated: i.e., I think it's actually not true that all or even most college instructors are "actually taught how to teach in classes and at seminars before becoming instructors", though I do think all or a great majority of them are in far better a position - because of their experience with teaching & learning and because of their knowledge of their fields - to judge what good teaching in their disciplines is than most or all of their students are.  That, I assume, is roughly the point of the claims 24.69.79.147 quotes.  I even suppose that a student may sometimes make a claim about the quality of her/his teacher that is not merely "personal" or "emotional"; i.e., he/she may intend to make an objective statement about the quality of the teaching.  But is it reasonable to think such statements generally or often carry much weight?  And if they don't generally or often carry much weight, what good is it to collect a handful of such claims and then present them as representative of the "overall quality" of the teacher? TruthPolice 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I just fixed the problems with the 2 claims that I just discussed above.  Maybe there are now those who believe a source is needed for the claim that hired instructors generally have more experience & knowledge than their students?  Maybe the dictionary would be a good source to consult first.  Does that sound fair? TruthPolice 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're perfectly right that "it is not impossible" for a prof to make changes in light of constructive criticism posted at RMP, were he/she actually to find constructive criticism there.  You may also be right that helpfulness and clarity may be important to students (though studies and surveys indicate that students tend to be more concerned with such factors as easiness and the teacher's personality and attractiveness - see this article and also the Felton study).  But the main point is that there is little reason to think RMP accurately measures even those two qualities.  TruthPolice (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seems to have negative POV

message: The recent addition by Jmpl2007 to the Ratings and Reviews on RateMyProfessors section - the material immediately following the Michael Hussey quote - is highly opinionated and a perfect example of original research if there ever was one.  It sounds like a strained attempt to defend RMP, made by a student who seems naively to take the site seriously and who clearly has ignored the sober warnings raised by the sources cited in the Criticism section of the article.  I'd suggest deleting Jmpl2007's sophomoric comments altogether if they didn't so effectively exemplify the kind of narrowminded mentality typical of disgruntled students who post negative "reviews" of profs on RMP; i.e., Jmpl2007's comments actually demonstrate, to the discerning reader, what is so misdirected about RMP.  Post on, Jmpl2007!  We hear you loud and clear!TruthPolice 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the recent edits are biased opinion and original research and as a college student myself, I've seen stuff written about professors I had/know by people who post after the first day of class (and so cannot really judge someone's entire course long experience) or who make posts that may be well-worded, but also don't adequately reflect the instructor, because the student may have missed nearly half the classes.  The whole concept is mind-boggling.  Instructors do not go into the profession with the intention of being publicly review like some movie, especially since they have all kinds of internal evaluations from students and colleagues.  At OSU, we have SEI forms AND written comments sheets for our professors that from what I can see really are read by other adminstrators and professors.  So, having something in which students can blatantly libel professors is somehow just wrong, especially when say you get one student out of fifty who didn't like a course, but happens to be the ONE student to post on that site.  Yet, further proof of how despite the internet's many fascinating features, there are darker, almost evil aspects of it as well.  Well, keep policing the truth, mon ami! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Recent Edit by Jmpl2007

message: I restored the full quote from the old (18 May 2006) RMP faq page, which was recently removed and paraphrased by SallyForth123.  I think that it is important to keep the original quote, rather than paraphrase it, particularly since the quote is no longer found on RMP, for unknown reasons.  I suspect that the maintainers of RMP removed it simply because it is a rather damning admission of the failure of RMP's entire enterprise.  Please discuss before editing this part of the article again.  Thanks,TruthPolice 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny (but unsurprising) to find a similar warning on various other ratings sites of the same stripe as RMP.  See, for example, RateMDs.com, VetRatingz.com, MechanicRatingz.com, RestaurantRatings.com, LawyerRatingz.com. The list goes on and on.  I wonder whether all these ratings sites are run (or were started) by the same folks who were responsible for RMP, or whether they are just copycats....  Anyway, if they want to catch up to RMP, they should remove the warning just as RMP has done, so as not to vitiate their own project. TruthPolice 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were started by the same person.  The warning is a simple statement of honesty.  --*Kat* (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMP admits on its FAQ page, it has "no way of knowing" who posts ratings 

message: I took out most of the weasel words and original research, now it just needs to be formatted a tad better. Citations would be lovely to the person who threw most of the sludge in there, too ;) --68.54.254.9 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up criticism 

message: It seems like all the ratings are old and no one is updating stuff. I'm just curious if anyone's heard anything. It can't just be me, can it? Atrivedi (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is RMP still updating? 

message: I've edited the section that was entitled "See Also."  I don't think the text should be linking off to external websites.  That's why footnotes were created.  I've put the list in alphabetical order.  The doctor-rating website was removed because it's about doctors, not rating teachers or students.  I've added information on the founders of these websites.  
There is no reason this should be a controversial or poor quality article.  I will see about editing the main text next, after I've done more research.VanishingKitsap (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited a section 

message: libel  (ˈlaɪb ə l)
 
— n
1. 	law
 	a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc
 	b. the act of publishing such matter
Pmchaffie (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  a relevant definition 

message: From this entry, it appears that ONLY students who have taken a class or are currently taking a class can post reviews. This isn't true; ANYONE can post a review of anyone. There is no verification process, and reviews can be completely anonymous. It must be noted that professors themselves can--and do--post their own reviews (I base this on the fact that I am a professor who has heard my colleagues admit to doing it, and once when I tried to post a review for myself, nothing stopped me).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.129.2 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About contributions 

message: <P></P>
<P></P>
<B>A cautionary note for viewers of RateMyProfessors: </B> 
<P></P>
<P></P>
A large percentage of the ratings shown on this website are statistically immaterial due to a small sample size. Professors have numerous students a year and in many cases that number can exceed more than hundred a year and thousands over a career. Therefore, the ‘meaningfulness” of this site’s rating is questionable at best. 
<P></P>
For example, let’s say a professor had 700 students and received 70 ratings on this site, that would represent 10 % of the students and 35 would be 5% etc. RPM claim’s they have over 1.4 million professors and 15 million reviews, which on average is approximately 10 reviews per professor. For this example that would represent 1<B>.</B>4 % of the professor’s students, and for a professor with 3,000 students that would represent only <B>.</B>3%.
<P></P>
If one were to also acknowledge the issues concerning <B>the “authenticity” of the posts</B> that would invalidate both the student sample size and the value of the sites ratings. When the integrity of the input data is not verifiable (a fact RMP admits is true) and or the sample size is too small, any conclusions drawn from that data is suspect (refer to the criticism and validity (1out of 7,000 or .014%), sections below).
<P></P>
Colleges and universities do collect student evaluations from a much larger slice of 
the student population (nearly 100%), which are then summarized as a rating. Their data
more accurately represents an overall student opinion and is a lot more informative due to
the fact that they take great care in asking specific questions covering all aspects of the
class and professor while at the same time giving the student the opportunity to make
comments. The process is also done in a way to assure that the review is being written by
a student in the class.
<P></P>
<P></P>
173.166.3.157 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this would be WP:OR  Cannolis (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015 

message: The criticism section needs serious cleanup; the text under 'Rating relevancy" and "Permanent vs part-time faculty" is completely uncited, making it seem more like an individual editor's criticism of the site rather than complaints that have actually been voiced in notable or reliable sources. This article isn't the kind that I usually work with, so I'll leave it for an editor who is more experienced, but I just thought I should point it out. Cheers! —Anotheronewiki (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism needs cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on RateMyProfessors.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724114234/http://pickaprof.com/ to http://www.pickaprof.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified