Talk:RateMyTeachers

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Can someone fix this article? It's pretty terrible!

I think it is improper to not link to the top level domain of "ratemyteachers.com"... I'm not sure why uk.ratemyteachers was added as that. Also, I believe the owner has now changed from Michael Hussey.70.15.0.135 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new article containing some controversy, and apparently the ownership of the website either changed hands or may change hands soon... www.michaelhussey.com. It seems that the creator is disputing this. This should be watched and the owner information updated accordingly. 137.141.245.34 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the nature of the newly added "criticism" section relevant, and if so, is it more of a rant/opinion (poorly written) that should be altered?

"As students and parents are generally not the best judges of the effectiveness of teachers" is stated as fact within the opinion - leads me to believe that the contributor is supplanting a bias into the entry.

I agree. Personally I think students and parents ARE the best people to rate a teacher ... I mean who else can "rate" them? Sure someone from the bored checks in on each teacher for a class maybe once a year ... but obviously the teacher is prepared for that. I think the entire critisism section or atleast part of it should be removed 24.36.231.48 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the myth that the best avaluators of education are the pupils and parents is alive and well. Sadly there is no reference to current educational research. Also there are few contributors who have not recently attended high school (or its equivalent in other parts of the world). An attempt at categorising or evaluating individual performance on the basis of generally disaffected young people cannot be supported by evidence from those who have progessed through education in the last 30 years and are now not inspired to make ngative comments on their teachers.

The editors of this website have to allow that many of their contributors have been unsuccessful in secondary education. Detailed research into the responses of persons submitting individual character profiles to this webaite might be of value. Ultimately the progress of education must be the drivng force - not the petulance of lazy high school students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Maxwell Jaffa (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not remove articles based on whether or not they are defamatory. We use the criteria of notability, which this subject meets. Natalie 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know why you trust Wikipedia, and yet fear RateMy... when but are user-built. If anything, RateMy... runs on a more classically open source model than does Wikipedia, with Torvolds figures at the head of each school. Educators' distaste for the site is understandable, but hardly a discredit to the site. - Plasticbadge 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There also some facts that are wrong and it really needs to be cleaned up. Who wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.165.88 (talk • contribs)

I've added the Rules section and the first paragraph therein. — Taggard+ 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]