Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:27:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> 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.
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 done out of childishness...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO (or 100)?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
