Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:28:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
556 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> > I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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. ;)
>
> 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?
I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds.
> Or, like in some judged sports, should we remove
> the highest and the lowest rating in order to better average out the
> remaining votes?
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 this... (and it may be overengineering
the solution.) My supposition is that someone has went through and given a
lot of sets as 0. In fact wasn't there a case early in ratings where it was
known that someone went through and rated every single Pirate set with 0?
Maybe there should be a requirement that in order to be allowed to rate sets
you need to rate some sets good as well as some bad? Require that your
average rating across all sets you rated is at least 10 and no less than 90?
That is, no going and rating EVERYTHING a 0 or EVERYTHING a 100. This will
encourage people to put some thought into what they like and dislike. You
get 5 0s (or 5 100s) and then you have to go find something you like (or
dislike, as the case may be) or else no more ratings are accepted until your
average is within range.
Seriously, if you think every single set LEGO ever made is worth only 0,
what are you doing here at LUGNET? I know Allan and I have different
opinions but we both can find sets we'd rate higher than 0, and sets we'd
rate lower than 100... I am sure of it.
Probably not really a good idea but maybe it will get people thinking?
(deciding it's not really a major problem is an OK outcome)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| "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?
|
| 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
