Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO (or 100)?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:43:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> Others (there are reasons to believe) are just done out of childishness...
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 and lower their score once a set has been out for a while.
Perhaps some people who mark everything as 0 are trying to "correct" the
skewed overall scores. I think that both of these actions (marking all new
sets high or low) are misguided. Really though, we all know that the rating
numbers are very subjective and not an accurate representation of everyone's
opinions.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
