Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:53:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes a really neat statistical analysis
thingie which I snipped:
My question here is "What are you using this information for which requires
such analysis?".
I mean do you base your set purchases on these figures? And if so, how many
times have you been burned by false "0" or "100" votes??
Come on people! Just get back to building!
My 2 cents
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) Use the information? Well, I guess you could. But it's information, it is a thing of beauty to be treasured and preserved for the benefit of future treasurers and preservers. A thing to be analysed to learn deeper truths. But you *could* use (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| Hello! (...) Well done :-) I couldn't follow these analyses anyhow. First I was always bad at maths and secondly I didn't understand half of the sentences without looking up every other word.... (...) Absolutely correct! I think this set rating is (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I'm not sure information impracticality is really an excuse for inaccurate or misleading information. I think the point is that if we *can* get more accurate information, why not do it? Clearly this topic interests some people who actively (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I think if you criticise this, you fail to, fundamentally, get the point behind being obsessed with LEGO(r). Further, this mechanism really lets the obsessive/compulsive among us obsess about yet another thing, and by arguing against it you're (...) (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
|
|
|
|
