Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:42:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
466 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:H5qp07.5wD@lugnet.com...
> > Maybe there should be a requirement that in order to be allowed to rate sets
> > you need to rate some sets good as well as some bad? Require that your
> > average rating across all sets you rated is at least 10 and no less than 90?
> > That is, no going and rating EVERYTHING a 0 or EVERYTHING a 100.
<snip well thought out but complex system>
And someone had the temerity to actually agree when I called MY proposal
"possibly overengineered"??? :-)
I like it. I think it would work. I never know when Kerry's spoofing or not,
though. :-)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
