Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:02:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> "Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote in message
> news:H5qDpB.K2@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> > > I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> 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 Truck / Black Cat - one "0" rating
> 3451 Sopwith Camel - one "0" rating
> 4558 Metroliner - one "0" rating
> 4547 Railroad Club Car - one "0" rating
> 4554 Metro Station - one "0" rating
> 6394 Metro Park & Service Tower - one "0" rating
> 6286 Skull's Eye Schooner - two "0" ratings
> 6285 Black Seas Barracuda - two "0" ratings
> 6339 Shuttle Launch Pad - one "0" rating
> 6067 Guarded Inn - two "0" ratings
> 6390 Main Street - one "0" rating
> 497 Galaxy Explorer - one "0" rating
> 375 Castle - one "0" rating
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 reissue.
I think there are an equal number (or more) of sets that are over-rated. I
find that when I am about to rate a favorite set of mine, the temptation is
always to give it a 100. After all, if I like it, then it must be great,
right? Wrong. Few sets (like people) are perfect. So I often drop down to
a 90, 80 or 70. Still a worthy rating. By not giving it a 100, I'm
essentially trying to say, "yes, this set is great... but there are some
little things that could have been better." You can never get to perfect,
but it never hurts to try. :)
There could be any number of reasons someone rated a set with a zero:
1) Just plain doesn't like that theme and therefore sees the set as lacking
in design, although it may appeal to those who do like the theme.
2) An attempt to balance out some of the *over* rated sets. There are some
sets that crusty old-timers like me tend to sentimentalize. The Galaxy
Explorer might be one such example. Sure it's the coolest of the original
space sets, but is it really *that* good? Is bright blue and grey really a
good color scheme for space ships? Should space ships really be that
angular? There are a number of arguments to say, "yup, that set is
over-rated and I'm going to rate it low in an attempt to balance out the
overall rating."
3) Someone was disappointed that a particular set was released as a Legend,
or perhaps released at all. Maybe someone looked at the Sopwith Camel and
thought that it violated LEGO's own policy against releasing sets containing
20th century military weapons. Maybe the zero rating was their way of
saying, "LEGO, you messed up and I'm not happy at all that you released this
set."
4) Or, perhaps the set got a zero because the person felt that the LEGO
company really missed somehow. Maybe the set was badly designed from a
structural point of view. Maybe it has ugly colors. Maybe it didn't look
the least bit realistic.
I would say there are a number of non-moronic reasons that someone might
rate a set a zero. But in the overall scheme of things, I'm not sure it's
creating a problem. Two zeros for some of these sets really doesn't reduce
the overall rating that much when many of the other votes are 100.
I'm still curious though, what do you see as a solution? It's o.k. to
criticize (trust me, I'm an expert) but it is also appropriate in a case
like this to offer an alternative solution. Any thoughts on how to rectify
the "zero problem"?
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| "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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| "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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
