Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:30:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 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.
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 now #1. There are ways to counter-act this, but
that involves someone doing some programming that he may not have the time
and energy for (or even see an overwhelming need for).
You can blame some of the 0 on me. I was curious to see what would happen
to the ratings by trying to even out all the zeroes - i.e. counter-trashing.
I meant to go back and remove all the zeros at some point, but I don't
recall doing so. You get a better idea of the relative rankings if I leave
them there, but I feel soiled by playing that same game, somehow.
A good set is a good set even if you aren't into that particular setting.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
