Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 04:10:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
643 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello!
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes a really neat statistical analysis
> thingie which I snipped
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....
> My question here is "What are you using this information for which requires
> such analysis?".
Absolutely correct!
I think this set rating is supposed to be just fun. You can make a short
statement to a set and give a simple rating. That's it. And that's enough.
LEGO is our hobby and not our profession. So we should not make such an
earnest and strict science out of it.
A hobby is a very subjective thing, so one of the most rediculous statements
in this thread I read was that we shouldn't rate sets for subjective reasons.
The given rating mode is suposed to be subjective.
Any objective criteria for a set to be rated can be found elsewhere, as for
the piece count (directly at most sets' database sheet) price (ib.),
containing bricks (peeron) and the picture for everone to visualize (LUGNET,
BrickShelf). So why should we seperate the simple little rating into several
rating categories that only could repeat what the objective figures already
tell?
Also I can find nothing that spoke against rating under sentimental
influence. Most of us are adults and know LEGO and specific LEGO sets from a
child. So it is only humanly that fond memories one has of a set lead to a
very positive personal rating. Why not? When I love a set since so many
years then there can be thousand objective resons to rate it low: I will
rate it high nevertheless. I claim this freedom.
And if I want to rate a set a "100" than I'm doing so. I wouldn't be pleased
if I was prohibited to give a set a "100" unless I rate some other sets low
just for personal rating-ballance reasons. To prevent all too enthusiastic
ratings the automatic softener is installed. So there is no need for this
cut-the-highest-and-lowest-rating-thing. (Well, I wasn't able to follow the
mathematical analyses that were given in this thread though...)
All things considered I find no reason to change the existing rating system
in favour of a more complicated and bureaucratic system that only could be
more restrictive without any evident benefits.
Just my 2¢
Bye
Jojo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) Same for your comment, Jojo! I could not agree more (pling!). I think it is worth to spend a thought why people do rate some sets with extreme votes, but I think, once we have realized they do so, we can easily count it in. Any manipulation of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| 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? (...) (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
|
|
|
|
