Talk:RateMyTeachers

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

Improper Link to Site?
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)

Ownership Controversy
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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Credibility section is very poorly written
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)

Added the Rules Section
I've added the Rules section and the first paragraph therein. — T  aggard  + 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of information
One teacher was listed as teaching at a school that they had left 4 years previously from the date of the first comment, teaching a subject that they no longer taught. Derogatory comments continued for several years afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.73.218 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"RateMyTeachers.com claims that over 65% of ratings are positive"
I have removed this as a misrepresentation of the source. It's in a first-party "Frequently Asked Questions" page, and is a response to a "Frequently Asked Question" that appears to be a strawman argument. Those who criticize the site do not appear to do so because they think more than 50% of the reviews are negative -- neither the criticism cited in our article, nor any of the other criticism I have heard elsewhere was based on this belief. Therefore, it is not a response to the criticism our article discusses, and has no place there. Even if properly contextualized ("RateMyTeachers responded to the claim that a majority of reviews were negative trolling by claiming that..."), it would be out of place in our article unless some RateMyTeachers critic was also cited as saying that the majority of the reviews were negative and flame-y. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RateMyTeachers. 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/20130419195725/http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/Periodical/CollegeConnectionApril2007.PDF to http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/Periodical/CollegeConnectionApril2007.PDF

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) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Title Amendment
Can somebody please help me update the title to RateMyTeachers.COM and also add the sites current logo? Becoming re-acclimated to Wikipedia. Thank you. Kline.jenkins (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)