| |
Kevin Loch wrote:
> How about having a checkbox by each part in lugnet.cad.ldraw.parts.ref for
> voting?
>
> KL
>
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Mike Stanley writes:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:47:12 GMT, Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think making a list will be a problem - I'm sure Todd could set up a
> > > voting page on Lugnet. Of course, we'd need a pre-voting page to vote on • what
> > > should be voted on ;-)
> >
> > I bet any number of current "vote for best model/set/stuff" forms
> > could be easily modified for this. That's a pretty exciting idea.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tired of waiting for LEGO Direct? Bulk Parts Sales NOW!
> > http://www.guarded-inn.com/lego/sales/parts.html
Before we set up voting, there are a few philosophical questions that may need to
be answered:
If everyone gets one vote, and if 90% of the people are NOT train folks, I would
assume that the train people are going to get out-voted.
If voting were done by say - how many parts do you want of a particular piece,
then you may get a better indication of good utilization of the first dozen
(non-standard) parts we want, but then the smaller collectors will not get as much
of a say in the parts.
I mean you might get 20 people that each want 1,000 train windows (for a total of
20,000 pieces). But then you might have 80 people that all want large technic
wheels, but they each only want 20 (for a total of 1,600 technic wheels).
So which group do we please with the first "special" order? Do we say what piece
do you want the most of? Or do we say everyone has one vote, no matter how few
pieces you want?
Just something to think about.
Gary Istok
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: an update -- and an apology
|
| (...) ...Seems reasonable... perhaps have the tally thing track actual parts wanted _and_ how many of each part potentially will be ordered... That information will likely be more useful to LEGO direct anyway. ...you can go back to ignoring me (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: an update -- and an apology
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Besides that I think we might want to wait and hear more of what Brad has to say. He said he should get back to us in a couple of weeks to let use know more about how we help to decide which 12 or so special parts get to be (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
| | | Re: an update -- and an apology
|
| On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Gary Istok (<38BBF30F.5B5ABBE@umich.edu>) wrote at 16:25:52 (...) From a commercial pov, the overheads on distributing to 20 people have got to be less than doing it for 80, so I know what I'd be tempted to do. But then again, (...) (25 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
