 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Perhaps it is a valid reason. I don't think very many folks around here are morons. No moron could survive the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
one example: Lego Star Destroyer 10030: (URL) zero was there before they even began to be shipped, and they still haven't shipped to the states.. soooo... (...) perhaps not a moron.. perhaps a vindictive meanie. perhaps give all sets a rank based (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
"Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELET...otome.com> wrote in message news:H5qDpB.K2@lugnet.com... (...) I'm (...) Here are a few sets that I can not understand what valid reason(s) for a "0" rating: 6399 Airport Shuttle - two "0" ratings 5571 Giant (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Interesting list. A wide cross-section of themes, from train to space and from pirates to a new sculpture. Not one of them has received more than two zeros. That doesn't seem quite enough to cause the set to be delisted as a potential Legends (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
"Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELET...otome.com> wrote in message news:H5qnsF.2ru@lugnet.com... <snipe> (...) reduce (...) rectify (...) Good post. I agree that some people over rate sets. But when the majority of the ratings of a set are either (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
Is there any way to make the rating public? The votes must be linked to the voter somehow in the database. Could links be set up on the 100-0 scale to let people see who voted 100, 90, ..., 0 for the set. Maybe people would vote how they actually (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Just *slightly* overengineered. :) To implement the drop high and low rating idea, it might look something like this: averageRating = ((sumOfAllRatings - lowestRating) - highestRating) / (totalNumberOfVotes - 2) I think. :) (...) Perhaps not (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) A very good idea. I'm not sure how much screen real estate would be required, but this would certainly keep people honest. Regards, Allan B. (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) If it was done so that those interested could click on a rating, and that would bring up a list of everyone that gave that rating, it need take up no extra space at all... I tend to check the database for stuff that I'm interested in buying (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:H5qp07.5wD@lugnet.com... (...) If we have a 0-100 scale, then assuming some kind of normal distribution, we would expect the average rating to be about 50 with a standard deviation (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) This is off-topic, but I really like the sound of your system. Here in Canada, we don't have standardised testing (like the SATs in the US) or any sort of grade balancing like this. Grade inflation is rampant. (...) I only rate sets that I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
To All, This is a very interesting discussion, I rated just about every set I own, with most of them having comments, and I think it is a great feature. (URL) am not sure why some people rate sets at 0, most others already offered up explanations. (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) <snip well thought out but complex system> And someone had the temerity to actually agree when I called MY proposal "possibly overengineered"??? :-) I like it. I think it would work. I never know when Kerry's spoofing or not, though. :-) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I haven't read to the end of this thread yet, but some of my thoughts after reading a bunch: Throwing out the highest and lowest score might not really help since then it would just mean two people would have to decide to trash a set or theme. (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Heh-- I actually did something very similar for our company when we were sending out our customer service surveys (rated 1-5). Obviously some clients were overly thrilled with us and just gave us straight 5's. Some were mad at us and gave us (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that an average rating of 50 would be appropriate in this context. One of the ongoing themes of discussion in LUGNET is that LEGO set designs deteriorate over time. The apex of LEGO set design is generally thought to be in the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) The whole point of the statistics is to moderate people's over-enthusiasm, so therefore, the system should not allow sets to "retain the full grade that *I* think they deserve". Assuming you are rating all the sets (and not just your (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Use the information? Well, I guess you could. But it's information, it is a thing of beauty to be treasured and preserved for the benefit of future treasurers and preservers. A thing to be analysed to learn deeper truths. But you *could* use (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I'm absolutely in favour of separating the ratings for the bricks versus the model/instructions. How often have you heard someone say "lousy model but great parts"? Consider 6087 Witch's Magic Manor which rates on LUGnet at the moment at 45 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
Hello! (...) 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.... (...) Absolutely correct! I think this set rating is (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure information impracticality is really an excuse for inaccurate or misleading information. I think the point is that if we *can* get more accurate information, why not do it? Clearly this topic interests some people who actively (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I think if you criticise this, you fail to, fundamentally, get the point behind being obsessed with LEGO(r). Further, this mechanism really lets the obsessive/compulsive among us obsess about yet another thing, and by arguing against it you're (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Hmm, I see a lot of potential for expanding your organisation's efforts from carcases to live animals, to be specific, tertiary applicants. Given the way the parents moan about all the statistical moderation that takes place, I think a lot of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) On the contrary, I have used it for precisely this purpose. Having come out of a long Dark Age, many themes (or subthemes) came and went in those 30 odd years. Since then, I read LUGnet and see all the people going on and on about Forestmen or (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Interesting. My first measure is the price/piece - whether on ebay or new. I have an upper limit, beyond which I will not purchase (although I'm always prepared to reassess my upper limit), and I have a working limit, beyond which I will not (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) I always figured that no matter how good a set is, if I could by three other poorer sets for the same price and could come up with something much grander, then why the heck buy the overpriced set? And getting blue-coated soldiers (red are (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) Indeed. Patience can save a lot of money. (Also, be aware that my 15c/part limit is Australian cents. 15 US cents way too much:-)) Richie (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) And how many times have you made such a purchase, without taking into account 0/100 votes, and been disappointed? ROSCO (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
|
(...) On the contrary! I encourage those who are so inclined to study these figures and do what they want with them! I just dont think it's necessary for such analysis to be "built in" to Lugnet. Unless, of course, Todd finds it interesting and (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
