Subject:
|
Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:16:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
748 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > It probably depends on context - saying "Why did someone mark my post down"
> > is less correct than "Why did someone think my post was less than average",
> > which is less correct than saying "Why did someone rate my post as 20"?
> [...]
> BTW, I noticed that someone rated your article (which I am replying to now)
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/rating-graph.cgi?lugnet.admin.general:5899
>
> a zero. This is puzzling to me personally since I rated it 80 (and ATM it
> has a composite rating of 43).
That was probably me, chief. I thought my post was just arguing the point,
without making any new ones. I also thought it would be secretly ironic to give
it a '20', as I'd included the whine 'Why did someone rate my post as 20?" in
it. But then someone rated it '80', which I took as a strategic rate by someone
on my behalf, so I strategically rated it down to 0. I wouldn't strategically
rate anyones post except for my own (and then only downwards). But I do have
faith in the ultimate worthlessness of my post, from a future search POV :)
> I've also had several of my own articles rated zero, but usually by only one
> person.
I figured that it was you! I'm not convinced that you don't go through the
rating logs next to a big red "Terminate Membership" button, looking for those
who rate your posts low ;-)
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
| (...) I don't mean one person in specific (same person each time), I mean one input of zero in those cases where there was a zero, which could certainly be different people each time. I just ignore that. If two or three people all marked something (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
| (...) Sorry, I wasn't clear... :) Lemme try again... Hmm, I wouldn't assume that 50 is an actual average (that's what average means, after all). 50 is 50, whatever 50 means. Thus, it's perfectly fine IMHO to say that an "average" (note the quotes) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
