Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:02:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating.
> 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.
I couldn't agree more, Ken! My addition to that question would be: why do
people rate a set they don't own? If you don't own it, then your rating
shouldn't count towards the member rating average because you have no idea
what you are truly reviewing.
</soapbox>
My guess would be that certain people feel that todays sets are lacking in
some way, so the just give a blanket rating of zero to anything that came
out after 199x.
Just my $.02
-Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| Dave Johann wrote in message ... (...) People don't necessarily enter the sets they own on LUGNET - I don't - so the two things, marking a set as owned and rating it, are really quite separate. Kevin ---...--- NEW Cottage kit, 577 pieces! (URL) TOWN (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating. 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. (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
|
|
|
|
