Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:56:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes:
>
> In simple terms what this means is that people who consistently over-rate sets
> high will have their ratings scaled down, and vice versa. If people are being
> stupid (e.g. allocating 100 to all their favourite sets and 0 to every thing
> else), the standard deviation will be too large and cause the ratings to be
> scaled back to about 70 and 30 respectively.
>
> Before anyone says this is ridiculous, I would point out that here in
> Queensland, we operate our tertiary admissions system on this basis. As we do
> not have external exams taken by every final year student, each school sets
> its own assessment and rates students accordingly. To prevent schools from
> over-stating (or under-stating) the abilities of their students, the scores
> provided by the schools are adjusted to achieve the mean and standard
> deviation applicable to general intelligence tests applied to the same group
> of students (these tests are mandatory and standardised across the state). So,
> while the students's individual results come from school-based assessment,
> these are adjusted to reflect the overall class performance to the state-based
> assessment. The general effect of this is that subjects that tend to attract
> only the brighter students (e.g. physics) have their results up-rated and that
> subjects that tend to attract less-bright students (e.g. social maths) tend to
> have their overall results down-rated.
This is off-topic, but I really like the sound of your system. Here in
Canada, we don't have standardised testing (like the SATs in the US) or any
sort of grade balancing like this. Grade inflation is rampant.
> So a person who submitted all 0-ratings would get scaled back to 50-ratings on
> each set (i.e. no impact on the overall means). Similarly any person who
> submitted only 100-ratings would get scaled back to 50-ratings as well. This
> means that people need to equally willing to rate the sets they like and the
> sets they dislike, as otherwise their ratings will be scaled up/down to >produce a more "average" mean.
I only rate sets that I have built, and tend to buy only sets that I know
I'll like. So, most of my ratings are 70-100. If a system like this is
implemented, does this mean I'll have to poorly rate some sets that I don't
own if I want the sets I have rated highly to retain the full grade that I
think they deserve?
Jeff J
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) The whole point of the statistics is to moderate people's over-enthusiasm, so therefore, the system should not allow sets to "retain the full grade that *I* think they deserve". Assuming you are rating all the sets (and not just your (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:H5qp07.5wD@lugnet.com... (...) If we have a 0-100 scale, then assuming some kind of normal distribution, we would expect the average rating to be about 50 with a standard deviation (...) (22 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
