There are situations where sorting by "number of positive ratings" works, but there are many (I'd say most?) where the downsides are impactful enough to make it a non-option.
The issues are creating a first-mover advantage and a feedback loop. This makes the ranking very... stable, but that's usually not desirable.
The first-mover advantage comes because you're using the absolute number, so things that have been around longer will tend to be ranked higher. Even in a system with positive and negative ratings, sorting by `positive - negative` only reduces the problem... not removes it. Something that's been around for a couple years getting 40% negative ratings is still going up by 20% of the total amount which will quickly be a big number to try and catch up to.
That alone is usually disqualifying, but to make it worse usually the ranking system is creating a positive feedback loop because it's what's driving exposure of the options. People will tend to look at / try / buy / etc the top ranked item before the lowest ranked. So you're driving most new ratings towards the existing top-ranked item and continuing to reinforce its place at the top.
You're basically ranking by "the oldest product that doesn't have net-negative ratings". That may be what you want, but usually it isn't.
(I've never seen it, but I guess if you had only _bad_ options, you'd actually get the opposite effect... the least worst product at the top, getting exposure, and being beaten down until a new least worst product takes center stage and your ranking system just oscillates like crazy.)
Where the simple ranking like this could work a little better would be where all the options are known up-front. There's nothing to "catch up" to since everyone started by the same starter pistol. If you have a positive feedback loop though, you are going to end up weighting earlier ratings heaver than later ratings.
The other case I can think of would be where the options you're ranking are few enough (such that position in the ranking doesn't really create much difference in exposure, reducing the positive feedback loop) and you're collecting few enough votes (further reducing it) and the items are fixed up front (removing the first-mover advantage) that none of this would really have a chance to have any outsized impact. I can't see an issue using this on a poll sent to a dozen people asking them which of 5 places they preferred for lunch.
I've used the "correct solution" from the article in the past. It worked well enough I didn't have to come back to it.
There are situations where sorting by "number of positive ratings" works, but there are many (I'd say most?) where the downsides are impactful enough to make it a non-option.
The issues are creating a first-mover advantage and a feedback loop. This makes the ranking very... stable, but that's usually not desirable.
The first-mover advantage comes because you're using the absolute number, so things that have been around longer will tend to be ranked higher. Even in a system with positive and negative ratings, sorting by `positive - negative` only reduces the problem... not removes it. Something that's been around for a couple years getting 40% negative ratings is still going up by 20% of the total amount which will quickly be a big number to try and catch up to.
That alone is usually disqualifying, but to make it worse usually the ranking system is creating a positive feedback loop because it's what's driving exposure of the options. People will tend to look at / try / buy / etc the top ranked item before the lowest ranked. So you're driving most new ratings towards the existing top-ranked item and continuing to reinforce its place at the top.
You're basically ranking by "the oldest product that doesn't have net-negative ratings". That may be what you want, but usually it isn't.
(I've never seen it, but I guess if you had only _bad_ options, you'd actually get the opposite effect... the least worst product at the top, getting exposure, and being beaten down until a new least worst product takes center stage and your ranking system just oscillates like crazy.)
Where the simple ranking like this could work a little better would be where all the options are known up-front. There's nothing to "catch up" to since everyone started by the same starter pistol. If you have a positive feedback loop though, you are going to end up weighting earlier ratings heaver than later ratings.
The other case I can think of would be where the options you're ranking are few enough (such that position in the ranking doesn't really create much difference in exposure, reducing the positive feedback loop) and you're collecting few enough votes (further reducing it) and the items are fixed up front (removing the first-mover advantage) that none of this would really have a chance to have any outsized impact. I can't see an issue using this on a poll sent to a dozen people asking them which of 5 places they preferred for lunch.
I've used the "correct solution" from the article in the past. It worked well enough I didn't have to come back to it.