Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:42:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
one example: Lego Star Destroyer 10030: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10030
the zero was there before they even began to be shipped, and they still haven't
shipped to the states.. soooo...
> 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. ;)
perhaps not a moron.. perhaps a vindictive meanie.
perhaps give all sets a rank based on rankings, but not just taking into
account the average.. such as where most of the marks lay. (ex: all 100's and
90's, and one or two 10's or 0's.. obviously something is wrong) or perhaps
people should always have to give a comment as to why a set is at a certain
level.
-lenny
>
> 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? Or, like in some judged sports, should we remove
> the highest and the lowest rating in order to better average out the
> remaining votes?
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
