Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:50:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
378 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello!
> 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.
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 are selected to be re-released by TLC. And this
is in my opinion one reason for some people to rate a set a "0": They want
to prevent these sets to become a "Legend", for TLC is looking after the
LUGNET ranking of the sets before they decide to make a set a "Legend" reissue.
On the other hand I guess many people rate a set (which they don't own) a
"100" just to raise a set's ranking to bring it into TLC's list of
candidates for re-releases.
Both of the procedures sound stupid.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
