Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 06:29:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > 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.
> >
> > > It just doesn't make any sense. Unless it's a valid reason, these ratings
> > > should be thrown out. Either these people are jealous or
> > > complete morons.
> >
> > Perhaps it is a valid reason. I don't think very many folks around here are
> > morons. No moron could survive the LUGNET signup process. ;)
> >
> > As well... what would your solution to this problem be? Would you like to
> > see the zero rating removed? Should every set, no matter how good or bad,
> > get a minimum 10 rating?
>
> I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds.
>
> > Or, like in some judged sports, should we remove
> > the highest and the lowest rating in order to better average out the
> > remaining votes?
>
> That's not a bad idea. It works for Figure Skating (and we know how fair and
> impartial THAT sport is!) Grin.... No seriously, it IS a good idea.
>
> I would say this, though.... how abou this... (and it may be overengineering
> the solution.) My supposition is that someone has went through and given a
> lot of sets as 0. In fact wasn't there a case early in ratings where it was
> known that someone went through and rated every single Pirate set with 0?
>
> 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. This will
> encourage people to put some thought into what they like and dislike. You
> get 5 0s (or 5 100s) and then you have to go find something you like (or
> dislike, as the case may be) or else no more ratings are accepted until your
> average is within range.
>
> Seriously, if you think every single set LEGO ever made is worth only 0,
> what are you doing here at LUGNET? I know Allan and I have different
> opinions but we both can find sets we'd rate higher than 0, and sets we'd
> rate lower than 100... I am sure of it.
>
> Probably not really a good idea but maybe it will get people thinking?
> (deciding it's not really a major problem is an OK outcome)
>
> ++Lar
To take the 5 0's / 5 100's a little further, how about only including
ratings in the calculation for those people who actually own the set...that
way those who don't rate it are considering it a pass-able set, those who do
rate it either own it and so they have a credible opinion of the set, or
don't own it, and so can't really rate it (after all, how do you rate a set
which you haven't personally built, and so had a chance to consider the
'functions' of the set and/or the parts used and how they are used.) [by all
means let everyone rate them, but only consider ratings from owners of the set.]
To add to this, you could also require the average rating by a person over
all sets they have to have to be within a certain range. You're giving your
opinion of a set against something, after all. Alternatively, calculate for
the user what their average rating for all sets is, and then downgrade the
weighting of their ratings accordingly.
ie. if all sets are rated at 100%, then they're considering all the sets to
have equal value, so downgrade to an equivalent 50% in calculations, or if
half are 100% and others unranked, then downgrade to 75% and 25%
Anyway, just my 2 cents,
Benjamin Whytcross
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) That is just silly, I have built a 10022 by myself but I do not own the set (I was at a friend's place). I know what it looks like, how it is constructed, the pieces used, etc... I can make an educated decision about it. Also, what you propose (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds. (...) That's not a bad idea. It works for Figure Skating (and we know how fair and impartial THAT sport is!) Grin.... No seriously, it IS a good idea. I would say this, though.... how abou (...) (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
|
|
|
|
