 | | Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ken Godawa
|
| | | I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating. It just doesn't make any sense. Unless it's a valid reason, these ratings should be thrown out. Either these people are jealous or complete morons. (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Dave Johann
|
| | | | | (...) I couldn't agree more, Ken! My addition to that question would be: why do people rate a set they don't own? If you don't own it, then your rating shouldn't count towards the member rating average because you have no idea what you are truly (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | Dave Johann wrote in message ... (...) People don't necessarily enter the sets they own on LUGNET - I don't - so the two things, marking a set as owned and rating it, are really quite separate. Kevin ---...--- NEW Cottage kit, 577 pieces! (URL) TOWN (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Dave Johann
|
| | | | | | (...) Personally, I wouldn't think of rating a set I don't own/haven't previously owned simply because I don't know how much fun that set was to build, what parts are in that set, overall play value, etc. This is what I thought the ratings system (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) My most important criterion is how much I love the set. One of my favorite sets, 4161, the girls' pink oval suitcase, is an example. I love it because it's a girl set and it has colors I love, and it has pink lampposts. And it has sentimental (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) One person has admitted to rating several sets a 0, but explained that it was due to his misinterpreting the rating system-- he had thought it was the highest score. IIRC he changed his votes. Others (there are reasons to believe) are just (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO (or 100)? —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | (...) As long as we're on the topic, I think far too many new sets get 90-100 ratings. I think that many people are just excited about new sets and seem to mark them 90-100 to show approval of new offerings. I wonder how many of these people go back (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Øyvind Steinnes
|
| | | | | "Ken Godawa" <kengod@y-comm.com> wrote in message news:H5pqzu.Mq1@lugnet.com... (...) Where are these ratings taking place? Without seen the rating system mentioned I can say that there is a way to get this rating better. Like IMDb (Internet Movie (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | | Hello! (...) You can rate a set directly on its page in the LUGNET database - if you are a member. There you can also add a comment to a set and mark it as "own", "want to by" or "want to sell", both private and public. This it what it looks like: (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) This has been mentioned before. Generally, this kind of thing is an example of ratings trashing. You like a particular set, but there are 20 sets in front of it. You trash the ratings of the 20 sets by rating them 0 and voila! Your favorite is (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | Hello! (...) As Ben said before I too think there are too many sets rated 100. I rated just my absolute favourites in my collection a "100" (e.g. 6067, 6085) and the absolute bad and superfluous sets a "0" (e.g. 6037). Well, my most favourite sets (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | (...) Can you give an example of one othe "popular sets" to which you refer? I'm just curious to know which ones we're discussing. (...) Perhaps it is a valid reason. I don't think very many folks around here are morons. No moron could survive the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | | one example: Lego Star Destroyer 10030: (URL) zero was there before they even began to be shipped, and they still haven't shipped to the states.. soooo... (...) perhaps not a moron.. perhaps a vindictive meanie. perhaps give all sets a rank based (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ken Godawa
|
| | | | | | | "Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELET...otome.com> wrote in message news:H5qDpB.K2@lugnet.com... (...) I'm (...) Here are a few sets that I can not understand what valid reason(s) for a "0" rating: 6399 Airport Shuttle - two "0" ratings 5571 Giant (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Interesting list. A wide cross-section of themes, from train to space and from pirates to a new sculpture. Not one of them has received more than two zeros. That doesn't seem quite enough to cause the set to be delisted as a potential Legends (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ken Godawa
|
| | | | | | | | "Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELET...otome.com> wrote in message news:H5qnsF.2ru@lugnet.com... <snipe> (...) reduce (...) rectify (...) Good post. I agree that some people over rate sets. But when the majority of the ratings of a set are either (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I haven't read to the end of this thread yet, but some of my thoughts after reading a bunch: Throwing out the highest and lowest score might not really help since then it would just mean two people would have to decide to trash a set or theme. (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds. (...) That's not a bad idea. It works for Figure Skating (and we know how fair and impartial THAT sport is!) Grin.... No seriously, it IS a good idea. I would say this, though.... how abou (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Just *slightly* overengineered. :) To implement the drop high and low rating idea, it might look something like this: averageRating = ((sumOfAllRatings - lowestRating) - highestRating) / (totalNumberOfVotes - 2) I think. :) (...) Perhaps not (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:H5qp07.5wD@lugnet.com... (...) If we have a 0-100 scale, then assuming some kind of normal distribution, we would expect the average rating to be about 50 with a standard deviation (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Jeff Jardine
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) This is off-topic, but I really like the sound of your system. Here in Canada, we don't have standardised testing (like the SATs in the US) or any sort of grade balancing like this. Grade inflation is rampant. (...) I only rate sets that I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) The whole point of the statistics is to moderate people's over-enthusiasm, so therefore, the system should not allow sets to "retain the full grade that *I* think they deserve". Assuming you are rating all the sets (and not just your (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) <snip well thought out but complex system> And someone had the temerity to actually agree when I called MY proposal "possibly overengineered"??? :-) I like it. I think it would work. I never know when Kerry's spoofing or not, though. :-) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Heh-- I actually did something very similar for our company when we were sending out our customer service surveys (rated 1-5). Obviously some clients were overly thrilled with us and just gave us straight 5's. Some were mad at us and gave us (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes a really neat statistical analysis thingie which I snipped: My question here is "What are you using this information for which requires such analysis?". I mean do you base your set purchases on these figures? (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Use the information? Well, I guess you could. But it's information, it is a thing of beauty to be treasured and preserved for the benefit of future treasurers and preservers. A thing to be analysed to learn deeper truths. But you *could* use (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) On the contrary, I have used it for precisely this purpose. Having come out of a long Dark Age, many themes (or subthemes) came and went in those 30 odd years. Since then, I read LUGnet and see all the people going on and on about Forestmen or (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Interesting. My first measure is the price/piece - whether on ebay or new. I have an upper limit, beyond which I will not purchase (although I'm always prepared to reassess my upper limit), and I have a working limit, beyond which I will not (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I always figured that no matter how good a set is, if I could by three other poorer sets for the same price and could come up with something much grander, then why the heck buy the overpriced set? And getting blue-coated soldiers (red are (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Indeed. Patience can save a lot of money. (Also, be aware that my 15c/part limit is Australian cents. 15 US cents way too much:-)) Richie (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) And how many times have you made such a purchase, without taking into account 0/100 votes, and been disappointed? ROSCO (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Hello! (...) Well done :-) I couldn't follow these analyses anyhow. First I was always bad at maths and secondly I didn't understand half of the sentences without looking up every other word.... (...) Absolutely correct! I think this set rating is (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Same for your comment, Jojo! I could not agree more (pling!). I think it is worth to spend a thought why people do rate some sets with extreme votes, but I think, once we have realized they do so, we can easily count it in. Any manipulation of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure information impracticality is really an excuse for inaccurate or misleading information. I think the point is that if we *can* get more accurate information, why not do it? Clearly this topic interests some people who actively (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think if you criticise this, you fail to, fundamentally, get the point behind being obsessed with LEGO(r). Further, this mechanism really lets the obsessive/compulsive among us obsess about yet another thing, and by arguing against it you're (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) On the contrary! I encourage those who are so inclined to study these figures and do what they want with them! I just dont think it's necessary for such analysis to be "built in" to Lugnet. Unless, of course, Todd finds it interesting and (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure that an average rating of 50 would be appropriate in this context. One of the ongoing themes of discussion in LUGNET is that LEGO set designs deteriorate over time. The apex of LEGO set design is generally thought to be in the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Hmm, I see a lot of potential for expanding your organisation's efforts from carcases to live animals, to be specific, tertiary applicants. Given the way the parents moan about all the statistical moderation that takes place, I think a lot of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Scott E. Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | | To All, This is a very interesting discussion, I rated just about every set I own, with most of them having comments, and I think it is a great feature. (URL) am not sure why some people rate sets at 0, most others already offered up explanations. (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm absolutely in favour of separating the ratings for the bricks versus the model/instructions. How often have you heard someone say "lousy model but great parts"? Consider 6087 Witch's Magic Manor which rates on LUGnet at the moment at 45 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Benjamin Whytcross
|
| | | | | | | | (...) To take the 5 0's / 5 100's a little further, how about only including ratings in the calculation for those people who actually own the set...that way those who don't rate it are considering it a pass-able set, those who do rate it either own (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That is just silly, I have built a 10022 by myself but I do not own the set (I was at a friend's place). I know what it looks like, how it is constructed, the pieces used, etc... I can make an educated decision about it. Also, what you propose (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —James Brink
|
| | | | | | Is there any way to make the rating public? The votes must be linked to the voter somehow in the database. Could links be set up on the 100-0 scale to let people see who voted 100, 90, ..., 0 for the set. Maybe people would vote how they actually (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | (...) A very good idea. I'm not sure how much screen real estate would be required, but this would certainly keep people honest. Regards, Allan B. (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | (...) If it was done so that those interested could click on a rating, and that would bring up a list of everyone that gave that rating, it need take up no extra space at all... I tend to check the database for stuff that I'm interested in buying (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) Well, anyone actually using these ratings for anything important would throw out outlying votes anyway. Unless they're complete morons 8?) And if they're not using it for anything important, what difference does it make? I see no reason to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | (...) I just read through the majority of this thread. Here's my take... I tend to regard the set ratings on the Lugnet database as mostly just a curiosity. I don't take them that seriously, partly because I already know what sets *I* like, and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I think part of the problem is people buy sets for different reasons. I (for example) would've rated the set you mentioned a 70 because I'd love it for part selection; though the model itself doesn't really intreuge me to buy it. I think what (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
